Fsx atc

[kennyhall]

When there is no or calm winds (8 kts or less), which runways are you offered at KLAX using the stock FSX scenery with RC4?


The issue with KLAX is the designation of the primary runways and all things considered, they score higher than the reciprocals (24s and 25s). Under no or calm winds, FSX ATC will activate the primary runways.

Short answer - don't know - have never been there (in the Sim!).

What I can tell you is that with RC4 you have the option to "request runway".
That enables you, for example, if ATC/RC tells you to land on Rwy *** and you don't want THAT one you can request YOUR alternative.

All of the available runways within FSX are mapped and at each relevant airport EACH runway is shown in the selection menu.

Each time you add any scenery to FS you MUST run the database manager to keep RC current with any FS amendments.

Ken

[kagazi]

What I can tell you is that with RC4 you have the option to "request runway".
That enables you, for example, if ATC/RC tells you to land on Rwy *** and you don't want THAT one you can request YOUR alternative.

Same with the default FSX ATC. You can select alternative approaches (any that exist and are honored by the FSX ATC) and alternative runways as long as they are not closed.

Was curious myself about RC4. FSX ATC is actually very powerful but I'm sure RC4 has some additional benefits - although I suspect RC4 is bound by the same rules as the stock FSX ATC as stipulated by the SDK and incorporated in each airport scenery file.

[fsxatcisdumb]

Same with the default FSX ATC. You can select alternative approaches (any that exist and are honored by the FSX ATC) and alternative runways as long as they are not closed.

While you can request the runway from the default FSX ATC, it always makes you "circle to land" on the runway they originally said. Even if it doesn't, then when you contact the tower of the airport, it makes you land on their one and only active runway (Runway 07 at KLAX, which is almost never used in real life). If you request a different runway for landing (which if you are doing a regular landing, then you are too close to the airport request such changes), the tower will say the same thing to circle and land on the other runway, denying clearance to land on the runway you request.

It's very, very annoying.

[Kapitan]

While you can request the runway from the default FSX ATC, it always makes you "circle to land" on the runway they originally said. Even if it doesn't, then when you contact the tower of the airport, it makes you land on their one and only active runway (Runway 07 at KLAX, which is almost never used in real life). If you request a different runway for landing (which if you are doing a regular landing, then you are too close to the airport request such changes), the tower will say the same thing to circle and land on the other runway, denying clearance to land on the runway you request.

It's very, very annoying.

yes, its true. Thats the way fsx atc is. Bad.
Because its a computer, in order for the computer to control your flight, it needs time to know where you are and track your landing, so it will always direct you to the opposite circuit, so it has enough time to absorb your info. There is NO straight final or any other quick thinking direct approach. K

[kagazi]

While you can request the runway from the default FSX ATC, it always makes you "circle to land" on the runway they originally said. Even if it doesn't, then when you contact the tower of the airport, it makes you land on their one and only active runway (Runway 07 at KLAX, which is almost never used in real life).

The proper sequence of steps is to first select an alternative approach and acknowledge ATCs approval of the approach then request another runway. If you are using the initial ATC vector to final then you may not be able to effectively change runways.

These events take place some 50 to 80 miles out and provide you with plenty of time prior to receiving final clearance (which locks the runway assignment) from approach.

KLAX may be unique since there are four parallel runways with eastbound and four with westbound headings. If winds dictate that the 6s and 7s are active then you won't receive clearance to use the 24s or 25s. This would be the same in real life as well. Tower would never clear a plane to land head to head with other planes (except when winds change abruptly in FSX and you have AI being cleared at one end while AI are still landing at the other).

The issue of which set of parallels gets used by FSX when winds are zero kts to calm is a matter of runway end scores (scoring based on several factors including primary vs. reciprocol end). In the case of the stock FSX KLAX, the 6s and 7s are primary. Quick examination indicates that the runway end scores are about equal. This is the reason FSX offers the 6s and 7s under those wind conditions.

[jcy]

Radar Contact - all the way

If I was only allowed to have ONE single add-on for FSX it would be RC.

Flying with "real world" weather - RC will make your approach compatible with whatever wind direction.
RC also issues speed restrictions during the descent/approach.

I do so agree with this. Radar Contact has its irritations but is certainly a vast improvement over default FSX.

Speed is also restricted at under 10,000' and when flying in certain Countries who have the restrictions. And you won't be bothered with the FSX up, down, up again, and needless changes of direction.

For me, the irritations are that sometimes you are dead on the heading, dead on the course, at the right speed and altitude and still they'll suddenly come up with an off course message telling you to fly in the opposite direction to the way you want to go! You can employ 'direct to' and that works most times but for some destinations you will still get these off course messages.

I must emphasise, this happens only very occasionally and most flights can be completed and enjoyed with no problems at all. I would like them to get the update done though so that it can be used for VFR properly. At the moment, the 'direct to' request is a good alternative though you must still maintain the proper route and hit the waypoints.

John

[kennyhall]

For me, the irritations are that sometimes you are dead on the heading, dead on the course, at the right speed and altitude and still they'll suddenly come up with an off course message telling you to fly in the opposite direction to the way you want to go! You can employ 'direct to' and that works most times but for some destinations you will still get these off course messages.

I must emphasise, this happens only very occasionally and most flights can be completed and enjoyed with no problems at all. I would like them to get the update done though so that it can be used for VFR properly. At the moment, the 'direct to' request is a good alternative though you must still maintain the proper route and hit the waypoints.

John

I think that what you have experienced with the "off course" message is that you have "missed" a waypoint - that is you passed more than two miles from it.
RC then assumes that you are "lost" and need to be re-directed.
The option then is to select from the menu "Dkt Ckpt" which I guess is RC-speak for "go direct to way/checkpoint". That way they will confirm your heading to the next waypoint with no futher hassle

Ken

[817]

im sure theres an LAX afcad here or at avsim that has the 24s and 25 runway as default, try searching the database!

[Mogget]

yes, its true. Thats the way fsx atc is. Bad.
Because its a computer, in order for the computer to control your flight, it needs time to know where you are and track your landing, so it will always direct you to the opposite circuit, so it has enough time to absorb your info. There is NO straight final or any other quick thinking direct approach

Is that only when using full IFR? I fly "low and slow" around the UK (barely getting higher than 3000 feet most of the time) using the relatively simple "flight following" ATC, and when I contact the destination airport, I can be directed to downwind, base, or "straight in" (depending on where I am with respect to the approach path). I don't use real world weather, and wind speed is usually zero (or close to it), but the active runways are always correct based on the wind direction. Is that because I don't use default airports? All of the airports and airfields that I use in the UK (around 250-300) are addons.

[qf31]

Radar Contact - all the way

If I was only allowed to have ONE single add-on for FSX it would be RC.

Flying with "real world" weather - RC will make your approach compatible with whatever wind direction.
RC also issues speed restrictions during the descent/approach.

As RTJohnny says, it is for IFR only at the moment but if you're flying into LAX then I guess that would be you anyway

The next version of RC (RC5) will be capable of VFR situations.
RC5 had been in the "pipeline" since I first purchased RC4 (3 years?) and is still in development.
My personal advice would be to go with RC4 - well worth the relatively small investment of around �22 (GBP)........and then upgrade to RC5 as and when it appears.

I will.

Ken

Radar Contact WAS a good program but each time you install it you have to email the guy to get a new activation key and it has now been 3 months since I sent him an email with no reply and now all my key request emails get returned to me by delivery notification stating that email address doesn't exist and considering I paid $50 for that program I think very little of that guy and I think he is a fraud and has just stolen loads of money from people and now that he has thier money he dissappears without a trace. My advice is DON'T buy Radar Contact!!!