OnCourse Software

For me, the meaning of ATC messages (instruction itself) is definitely more important than its form (i.e. a name according AIRAC). For example, I personally prefer to be given 'SP2' (Sierra Papa Two) to 'BALAD5L' (Bravo Alfa Lima Alfa Delta Five Lima) and to have an internal convention that 'SP2' means "clear direct Waypoint 680 to join BALAD5L Transition".

sbsim wrote:

For me, the meaning of ATC messages (instruction itself) is definitely more important than its form (i.e. a name according AIRAC). For example, I personally prefer to be given 'SP2' (Sierra Papa Two) to 'BALAD5L' (Bravo Alfa Lima Alfa Delta Five Lima) and to have an internal convention that 'SP2' means "clear direct Waypoint 680 to join BALAD5L Transition".

You're making me more and more eager for the new version of your Randomizer!

Ralf

Hi vololiberista,

I agree PF3 is not for from reality.

I think a drop down to choose from a SID and Star would work well, provided it is an up to date list and that info such as MAP etc. is also populated when the required SID / STAR is chosen.

I don't think all programmes require a paid subscription from Navigraph, the subs paid to Navigraph cover a number of programmes that I have. As you say though, some do and of course I don't know how it would work PF3.

I'm sorry if I have brought up the subject and it has already been raised, I did do a forum search, but found no evidence that it has, my apologies.

If it's deemed too difficult or not worthwhile doing, fair enough. I just wondered if it was planned or even being considered.

Thanks and regards

Dave

sbsim wrote:

For me, the meaning of ATC messages (instruction itself) is definitely more important than its form (i.e. a name according AIRAC). For example, I personally prefer to be given 'SP2' (Sierra Papa Two) to 'BALAD5L' (Bravo Alfa Lima Alfa Delta Five Lima) and to have an internal convention that 'SP2' means "clear direct Waypoint 680 to join BALAD5L Transition".

The problem with that though is the voices. you would have to record every named fix in every airac cycle (because many of them change from time to time) 119 times over. So that's 119 times the total number of fixes in the World times the number of changes each month. So it's not really a feasable option I would say! You would have to have total 24 hours a day 7 days a week global coverage by Vatsim to achieve your goal

And to be honest giving the fix name phonetically is actually correct ATC procedure. If there is miscommunication or a misunderstanding between ATC and the crew then the fix is always as a matter of course read back a second time phonetically. So know your phonetic code and maintain a listening watch. Using an ATC programme as sophisticated and flexible as PF3 is a big wake-up call for a lot of simmers. Suddenly they are in at the deep end in the real world. Having to prepare a relevant flightplan that is suitable for the specific aircraft. Having to fly according to the fpl (knowing what to say to ATC if they can't) and then having to maintain a listening watch in busy areas.

Quote:

So it certainly would be a nice thing to have, but I'd rather see Dave March spend his resources on other nice little things to further enhance PF3 than on this massive task.

Me too!

egkkman wrote:

Hi vololiberista,

I agree PF3 is not for from reality.

I think a drop down to choose from a SID and Star would work well, provided it is an up to date list and that info such as MAP etc. is also populated when the required SID / STAR is chosen.

I don't think all programmes require a paid subscription from Navigraph, the subs paid to Navigraph cover a number of programmes that I have. As you say though, some do and of course I don't know how it would work PF3.

I'm sorry if I have brought up the subject and it has already been raised, I did do a forum search, but found no evidence that it has, my apologies.

If it's deemed too difficult or not worthwhile doing, fair enough. I just wondered if it was planned or even being considered.

Thanks and regards

Dave

Don't worry that it has been discussed before. It is a pertinant request. Dave did make some initial enquiries coming out of that previous discussion. If he decides that it is doable and would keep PF3 largely how it is now and would please both those who want it and those who don't then he might consider it in the future. His current priority though is making sure the current PF3 release is as cast iron and reliable as possible.

PS See the post above just before I posted. Just two words

vololiberista wrote:

Using an ATC programme as sophisticated and flexible as PF3 is a big wake-up call for a lot of simmers. Suddenly they are in at the deep end in the real world. Having to prepare a relevant flightplan that is suitable for the specific aircraft. Having to fly according to the fpl (knowing what to say to ATC if they can't) and then having to maintain a listening watch in busy areas.

You can say that again! I thought I could fly ok with default 737 and PFE. Then along comes PMDG 737 coupled with PF3 and one helluva learning curve. But Blimey what a difference. Loving it. Although in fairness the passengers at times might not be. Sick bags to the fore.

vololiberista wrote:

sbsim wrote:

For me, the meaning of ATC messages (instruction itself) is definitely more important than its form (i.e. a name according AIRAC). For example, I personally prefer to be given 'SP2' (Sierra Papa Two) to 'BALAD5L' (Bravo Alfa Lima Alfa Delta Five Lima) and to have an internal convention that 'SP2' means "clear direct Waypoint 680 to join BALAD5L Transition".

The problem with that though is the voices. you would have to record every named fix in every airac cycle (because many of them change from time to time) 119 times over. So that's 119 times the total number of fixes in the World times the number of changes each month. So it's not really a feasable option I would say! You would have to have total 24 hours a day 7 days a week global coverage by Vatsim to achieve your goal

And to be honest giving the fix name phonetically is actually correct ATC procedure. If there is miscommunication or a misunderstanding between ATC and the crew then the fix is always as a matter of course read back a second time phonetically. So know your phonetic code and maintain a listening watch. Using an ATC programme as sophisticated and flexible as PF3 is a big wake-up call for a lot of simmers. Suddenly they are in at the deep end in the real world. Having to prepare a relevant flightplan that is suitable for the specific aircraft. Having to fly according to the fpl (knowing what to say to ATC if they can't) and then having to maintain a listening watch in busy areas.

I was probably not clear enough, as you've interpreted it exactly opposite of what I meant. By saying that "the meaning of ATC messages (instruction itself) is definitely more important than its form (i.e. a name according AIRAC)", I mean that I do NOT need any phonetic bells and whistles (i.e. form) since something simple like 'SP2' or 'SP3' is enough for me and I can 'translate' it for myself to a more complex instruction (i.e. meaning). I hope it is clear now and nobody needs a "wake-up call"

Vololiberista, your posts are sometimes a bit supercilious, but I appreciate your insights into real-world procedures, you clearly have some knowledge and expertise You say that when you know the variables, you know the procedure. This is a strictly deterministic approach, but I respect it. That being said, I believe that some uncertainty is a fascinating part of a pilot's life and very realistic too. And that is also true for standard procedures, since things like directs, shortcuts, broken ILS systems, etc., definitely happen...

Because I believe that everyone here wants to fly as realistic as possible, I have a suggestion. What about to share your knowledge of real-world procedures in a more organised form? May be a dedicated webpage where, listed according to airports, you and other certified contributors would publish their know-how. It would promote PF3, communicate the competence of its authors and could be free for PF3 users. It's difficult to find this kind of information and to analyse Flightradar24 data or listen to LiveATC is rather time consuming

Roman

sbsim wrote:

vololiberista wrote:

sbsim wrote:

For me, the meaning of ATC messages (instruction itself) is definitely more important than its form (i.e. a name according AIRAC). For example, I personally prefer to be given 'SP2' (Sierra Papa Two) to 'BALAD5L' (Bravo Alfa Lima Alfa Delta Five Lima) and to have an internal convention that 'SP2' means "clear direct Waypoint 680 to join BALAD5L Transition".

The problem with that though is the voices. you would have to record every named fix in every airac cycle (because many of them change from time to time) 119 times over. So that's 119 times the total number of fixes in the World times the number of changes each month. So it's not really a feasable option I would say! You would have to have total 24 hours a day 7 days a week global coverage by Vatsim to achieve your goal

And to be honest giving the fix name phonetically is actually correct ATC procedure. If there is miscommunication or a misunderstanding between ATC and the crew then the fix is always as a matter of course read back a second time phonetically. So know your phonetic code and maintain a listening watch. Using an ATC programme as sophisticated and flexible as PF3 is a big wake-up call for a lot of simmers. Suddenly they are in at the deep end in the real world. Having to prepare a relevant flightplan that is suitable for the specific aircraft. Having to fly according to the fpl (knowing what to say to ATC if they can't) and then having to maintain a listening watch in busy areas.

I was probably not clear enough, as you've interpreted it exactly opposite of what I meant. By saying that "the meaning of ATC messages (instruction itself) is definitely more important than its form (i.e. a name according AIRAC)", I mean that I do NOT need any phonetic bells and whistles (i.e. form) since something simple like 'SP2' or 'SP3' is enough for me and I can 'translate' it for myself to a more complex instruction (i.e. meaning). I hope it is clear now and nobody needs a "wake-up call"

Vololiberista, your posts are sometimes a bit supercilious, but I appreciate your insights into real-world procedures, you clearly have some knowledge and expertise You say that when you know the variables, you know the procedure. This is a strictly deterministic approach, but I respect it. That being said, I believe that some uncertainty is a fascinating part of a pilot's life and very realistic too. And that is also true for standard procedures, since things like directs, shortcuts, broken ILS systems, etc., definitely happen...

Because I believe that everyone here wants to fly as realistic as possible, I have a suggestion. What about to share your knowledge of real-world procedures in a more organised form? May be a dedicated webpage where, listed according to airports, you and other certified contributors would publish their know-how. It would promote PF3, communicate the competence of its authors and could be free for PF3 users. It's difficult to find this kind of information and to analyse Flightradar24 data or listen to LiveATC is rather time consuming

Roman

Roman,Your idea sound ok in principle but I don't really have the time to run a dedicated website as such. I have done some videos and perhaps having added commentaries would have been a lot better and more informative. But I am an amateur in that field and it ties down my PC for 8 to 10 hours at a time uploading to YT. I am also very much behind on my pet project of developing a new panel for David Maltby's Super VC10. I am writing the manuel at present now at 50+ pages. I did a test zip file the other day and was shocked when it was almost 1GB in zipped form!!

I think there is still a lot that PF3 can do. Requests to change heading due to build ups would be a nice addition. Broken ILS systems would be difficult to simulate as that's the sim and not PF3. Simmers do want realism but at the same time (when I read other forums) they seem to want to let their a/c systems handle everything for them. On the one hand simming allows us to do things that we would never do in real life and on the other it is a teaching tool. And that's its achiilles heel in the sense that "Oh I won't bother with that switch", "I got it wrong Hey ho!". These are comments one hears on YT from people that simmers look up to and try to emulate. It's like learning a language and repeatedly making the same mistake without being admonished. You learn the mistake. So when one eventually does get admonished you don't like it and changing becomes more difficult.

We can all do our bit to promote PF3. It is a programme for all simmers. The eggsperts, the know alls, and haven't a clue-ites. It works for all them. And with Dave at the helm we are lucky to have someone who strives to make his own work better when it is already the best.
I came across a post on avsim the other day saying that they liked PF3 having watched stuff on YT but there was nothing with regard to PF3 with voice control. So whoever reads this and is into voice control that would be a good project if you have time.

Hi,

Whilst it's interesting to hear who flies what and how, along with opinions on how others fly and what, I really just wanted to know if there are plans to add to the SID STAR configuration.

In some cases the Navigraph data is in a tabular format. From my VERY simple planet I wondered if it could be imported to populate the data fields in PF3, perhaps utilising drop downs, as suggested. I am no programmer so I don't know what this entails but, it doesn't sound too difficult, again from Planet Simple. It would be nice if the programme correctly named the SID /STAR but I think this is secondary, for me it's about limiting the data input before each flight.

Those that subscribe to Navigraph could have up to date info., those that do not could have the current setup or data from Navigraph fixed on a certain date.

Anyway, since I have not (yet) purchased PF3, I guess I should keep my opinions to myself. It's just that having tried a number of ATC, weather, flight planning, AI Traffic programmes etc., I would just like to be as sure as possible that when I let the moths free from my wallet I make the best decision possible.


Regards

Dave