My verdict after trying every ATC add-on...

Yes, I either demo'ed or paid for every major ATC add-on for FSX, and came away with the following conclusions.

In no particular order:

 

Pro-ATC/X

 

Pro-ATC is the most recently released ATC add-on and appears to be the only one that has true ongoing development and support. In general I found this to be the most polished program, with the smoothest built-in flight-planning and FSX interfacing, and the most intuitive user interface. Aside from one or two problems with being forgotten by controllers, and a few poorly vectored approaches, Pro-ATC provided a very smooth flight. The copilot can be set to handle a variety of tasks, including flying via autopilot. This means that newer pilots could setup the copilot to handle frequencies, communications, AND autopilot navigation, allowing the user to focus only on the manual portions of the flight while still enjoying a professional experience all around.

 

On the flipside, while the recorded voices sounded less mechanical than other options, the total number of voice sets is somewhat limited. In other words, you will hear the same few pilot and controller voices over and over. In addition to the limited voice sets, Pro-ATC appears to have no means of supporting user voice control, which is a feature I tend to enjoy. These two things were probably my biggest knocks against Pro-ATC/X.

 

ProFlight Emulator (PFE)

 

ProFlight emulator was my favorite ATC add-on, but also the most frustrating. The add-on relies on two different programs: the much-acclaimed ProFlight 2000 from previous versions of FS, and the ProFlight Emulator which interfaces PF2000 and FSX. Flight plans must be created by importing a plan from either FSX or an outside flight-planning program, and then adjusted AND converted for use by ProFlight. This process can sometimes alter the original flightplan, meaning further steps are often necessary to get everything smoothed out between PFE and FSX. All these steps also create room for lots of glitches, which I ran into frequently. Any issues you encounter will most likely be troubleshootable based on Google searches of past users’ experiences, but don’t expect any up-to-date support. I am still waiting to hear back on an issue that I eventually went and figured out myself.

 

All the logistical shenanigans aside, however, and the actual program is excellent. First, the voices offered by PFE are the best. Period. With the original program plus the additionally-purchasable voice expansion set, you will find an incredible diversity of accents to bring your flights to life. You can easily assign different accents to different regions, meaning you will hear French voices in France, British voices in England, etc. This adds an awesome level of realism to the experience and helps keep flights fresh as you are constantly hearing different voices. The voices also align well to airlines, so most Delta pilots will have American accents and Korean Airlines crew will sound Korean.

 

PFE also supports user voice control through Multi-Crew Experience (MCE). This allows you to communicate with ATC directly using your voice. When it works, it is an AMAZING feature, and only adds to the already awesome level of realism provided by PFE’s other features. Unfortunately, it doesn’t always work, and the voice recognition can range from hilarious to downright infuriating.

 

On a random final note, one feature about PFE I really liked was the ability to easily print out flight plans from the PF2000 interface. These plans looked very clean and professional, and included all of the waypoint and weather information, as well as all frequencies for the various ATC channels AND ILS approaches at the departure, alternate, and destinations. A small, but much appreciated feature.

 

RadarContact v4 (RC4)

 

Radar Contact was the program I spent the least amount of time with. It was a bit more cumbersome than Pro-ATC/X, had much worse voices than Pro Flight Emulator, and appeared no less glitchy or under-supported than any of the other choices. It DID have the better voice control support via MCE than PFE did, but not by enough of a margin to warrant recommending it over the alternative. In my opinion, you can narrow RC4 out of your ATC add-on choices.

 

VoxATC

 

VoxATC’s main claim to fame is that it allows direct user voice control with no additional add-ons (like MCE). However, the voices in VoxATC are so robotic and limited in variety that I quickly abandoned this option as well. When you consider the combination of PFE and MCE for voice support, I see no advantage for VoxATC over any of the other programs.

 

Default ATC

 

At the end of the day, the default ATC didn’t seem that bad. Sure, it is very limited in features with regards to SIDs/STARs and things like that, but it is the most reliable, easiest to use, and best interfaced with FSX and the native AI. Furthermore, MCE allows voice support for the Default ATC as well, so it still has the voice control advantage of RC4 and PFE. If you are unsure about whether upgrading ATC will really enhance your experience, you might be better off sticking with the default and putting your money and system resources towards a different kind of add-on.

 

FINAL VERDICT:

 

Based on what matters most to me, I’ve decided to stick with PFE and MCE. I value the diversity of voices, the clean printable flight plans, and the ability to use voice control. I will take the somewhat convoluted and slightly instable interface as the bad that comes with the good.

 

I could also see Pro-ATC/X being a good choice for some people. If voices and voice control are not as important to you, the cleaner interface, ongoing development, and continued support will likely appeal to you instead.

 

Then again, if you’re unsure about upgrading at all, you aren’t that bad off with the default ATC.

 

Hope you found that helpful!

 

-Noah

Noah, thanks for taking the time and effort to compare these add-ons - very informative. The thing I find frustrating and unrealistic about the default ATC is the number of unnecessary heading and frequency changes you get when flying IFR. Are any of these add-ons better in this respect?

 

I agree lesh! I actually am pretty pleased with the default. EXCEPT THE IFR approaches. I believe they issue at least twice as many direction changes as needed. On a 90* approach I don't see a lot of point in being told to turn left to 280* and then about the time I reach 350* in a standard rate turn I'm told to turn left to 90*. The end result, I'm about where I would have been if I didn't follow their instructions. And it's not based on traffic volume either. It just happens. The same for frequencies. You always seem to end up with the same controller you started with.

Thanks Noah, I have been using Pro Flight Emulator (PFE) together with FDC Live Cockpit (FDC) for a number of years now and I can highly recommend them. PFE replaces the default ATC and includes many voice sets with different English accents, taxi guidance system both verbal and visual and many other improvements. FDC acts as a copilot, performing checklists ext. also has cabin crew announcements, again with different accents. You can buy them individualy or together. They have been tweaked to work together.

VATSIM all the way for me. Only way I can fly now.

^^^

Vatsim. Nothing better for realistic and flexible ATC control. Free too. Comes packaged up with thousands of real world human friends. Can't buy that anywhere at any price.

 

"default ATC is the number of unnecessary heading and frequency changes"

 

I have been working with a theory on this. I suspect the ATC can only vector using fixed degree changes. Not sure what that is, seems to be 20 degree increments or so. When trying to send a pilot downwind, if the pilot's position and runway heading requires a 40 degree heading, but the ATC can only give commands of 30 or 60 degrees, than that is what you get.

 

After years of this, what I do is split the difference. When I get a vector of 30 degrees, then 30 seconds later get a 60 degree command, I rationalize what the ATC really wants is 45 degrees. When I turn to 45 degrees, the ATC leaves me alone unless that heading eventually conflicts with the over-all vector plan.

 

As far as the frequency changes, these are not unrealistic in the default sim. One thing that makes it worse though is if your flight plan crosses a controller boundary multiple times. This happens a lot with ATC areas which have very irregular shapes.

On Vatsim, the human controllers realize this is happening and will only hand off once. Also on the Vat as in the real world, the ATC are in comms with each other and will negotiate a hand off.

 

Summary:

When sent downwind using default ATC on an approximate heading away from the runway, I pay attention to the two most recent heading changes and on the next command, split the difference. This greatly reduces the "S" vectoring.

-Pv-

 

snip------

 

"default ATC is the number of unnecessary heading and frequency changes"

 

I have been working with

a theory on this. I suspect the ATC can only vector using fixed degree changes. Not sure what that is, seems to be 20 degree increments or so. When trying to send a pilot downwind, if the pilot's position and runway heading requires a 40 degree heading, but the ATC can only give commands of 30 or 60 degrees, than that is what you get.

 

The basic problem is the User Pilot is not flying the assigned course closely enough.

 

The ATC Engine assigns targets out in front of the aircraft. In these targets there are also altitude and speed properties that must be obtain before reaching the target.

 

We do not know where the target are, so you have no way to monitor your progress toward the target or how to meet the speed and altitude as we fly over the targets.

 

When your aircraft varies off course about 5 degrees from the heading, the ATC tells you to turn to a correction course.

 

The communication is a major problem especially if you have AI traffic. Even just playing the sound files to tell your aircraft to turn can take so long that the heading is no longer valid.

 

Also, the ATC Engine does not compensate for winds when issuing headings so the plane will drift and no longer be in line for the next target. Combine all this during the approach and you get the zig zags from ATC.

 

The AI Planes know where the targets are and compensate for winds so they maintain correct headings which stay flying toward the targets. Very seldom do you hear ATC zig zagging the AI planes.

 

Published approaches is the easiest way to fly the arrival in FS.

 

You can have the GPS display and fly the published approaches (with transitions) which are programmed into FS including holding patterns and turns without getting off course.

Not sure if your theory's correct. Just had an IFR flight during which I was given a 40 deg left turn followed about 20 seconds later by a 40 deg right turn with a 40 deg left turn about 30 seconds later!

 

I do not know what the exact increment is. All I know is it's large.

-Pv-

"Published approaches is the easiest way to fly the arrival in FS."

 

I've seen no evidence adding approaches to the filed plan in FSX improves terminal vectoring at all.

As soon as my aircraft gets within a certain range of the airport, the approach paths are abandoned in favor of lining up upwind to the wind-favored runway (6 knots or more.)

 

The debate over making the default ATC work or not has been going on for years and will never be resolved. It was what it is and cannot be changed. When I care about ATC skill and accurately flying real world approaches into upwind runways, I fly the Vat and be done with the whole mess.

 

-Pv-

"Published approaches is the easiest way to fly the arrival in FS."

 

I've seen no evidence adding approaches to the filed plan in FSX improves terminal vectoring at all.

As soon as my aircraft gets within a certain range of the airport, the approach paths are abandoned in favor of lining up upwind to the wind-favored runway (6 knots or more.)

 

The debate over making the default ATC work or not has been going on for years and will never be resolved. It was what it is and cannot be changed. When I care about ATC skill and accurately flying real world approaches into upwind runways, I fly the Vat and be done with the whole mess.

 

-Pv-

 

 

FSX was scanned with all the Jeppesen approach charts for the entire world (if the Country allowed) at the time FSX was developed and released. The list of approaches inside the GPS and the ATC assignment process are in order of priority

 

1. ILS

2. GPS

3. RNAV

4. LOCALIZER

5. LDA (Localizer Type Directional Aid)

6. SDF (Simplified Directional Facility)

7. LBOC (LOCALIZER_BACKCOURSE)

8. VORDME

9. VOR

10. NDBDME

11. NDB

 

Within each of these 11 approach types FSX has 1000's of Jeppesen published approach chart Transitions off the STAR arrivals that lead to the intermediate fix (IF) for the final approach phase based on which type approach you selected in the list.

 

If you fly using the default ATC system you can decline the hand holding vectors to final which is the default type NOVICE approach and ask ATC for any of the more ADVANCE type of available transition that the airport has.

 

If you ask ATC for the transition to final then you are taken out of the slot (quere) and assigned the number one slot (highest priority to the Final Approach Fix) and landing. This is very important if you fly with AI Planes since the Published approaches take precedence over the vectors to final default approaches.

 

The debate that you speak of is because many users never explore the entire ATC system and how it is interfaced with so many other parts of FSX.

I am just wondering if default ATC is able to handle a 'Full ILS Approach' as opposed to a 'ILS Approach'?

Chuck B

Napamule

I am just wondering if default ATC is able to handle a 'Full ILS Approach' as opposed to a 'ILS Approach'?

Chuck B

Napamule

 

What's the difference? I don't think FSX ATC knows the difference, if there is one..

 

Dang! My downloads are finally done as I type this.. Bought ORBX Global and Vector

early this AM, and have been steady downloading for a good while..

 

The main reason I felt compelled to buy Global and Vector was it's on sale for 37%

off till the end of the month. So I figured I better grab it while the grabbing was good,

being I'd been pondering it anyway..

Later, I'll grab all those free NA airports and such.. 300 or more of them to get from the

ORBX site..

Well, off for a Global test flight I go..

I am just wondering if default ATC is able to handle a 'Full ILS Approach' as opposed to a 'ILS Approach'?

Chuck B

Napamule

 

 

The chart shows a full ILS IAP WUPNU for runway 13

 

The GPS confirms ACES scanned the chart into the ATC database when FSX was released in 2006. The same chart was also scanned into FS9 in 2004

 

ATC will say expect vectors to final for the ILS 13. You decline the novice vectors to final by way of the ATC window and request the WUPNU Transition for the ILS. ATC will say cleared direct to WUPNU, descend to 3800 ft and Contact tower on 118.5 when inbound on the approach. If other AI Planes are inbound you are taken out of the slot assigned by the ATC engine and given priority to the FAF.

That's interesting. I'd never noticed you could do that. Don't really recall seeing

an ATC menu option to decline the usual vectors to final. I'll have look into that

later on and try it. Maybe I could avoid some of the overly long approaches that

the FSX ATC usually gives to you. Will it give you the transition options if you are

not using the FSX GPS, or do you have to select that approach in the GPS in order

to get that option in the ATC menu?

You select the approach in the ATC window. You do not need the GPS.

 

I use the GPS to show the approach was already in the database. You can also slave the autopilot to the GPS using NAV. You have to load and activate using the GPS so the autopilot will lock on.

 

If the Transitions are not listed in the ATC window under the ILS window approach they are always in the RNAV or GPS type approach.

jvile,

Thanks for the help. After YEARS of flying VFR I now decided it's time to get familiar with the GPS and IFR. Throw in ATC and I am already overwhelmed. But I am giving myself a year to learn how the GPS works and the in and outs of ATC. (Just wondering - are you are 'real' world pilot?).

Chuck B

Napamule

Based on the chart I show above (which I chose at random) in my previous post I flew one of the full ILS approaches selecting the R-240 DME ARC. I attach the following pictures with explainations

 

ATC has just told me to expect the NOVICE vectors to final approach. I have 3 choices and number 1 is what most user select. However I do not want the Novice approach so I select number 2

.

.

I am presented with a list of all the approaches available for this airport (plus more on additional pages) based on what is scanned into the FSX Airport approach database. I would like the ILS for runway 13 so I select that.

.

.

i am now preseneted with 3 different Transitions for the ILS 13 and based on my chart and I am inbound from the south I select number 2 (HUT 240 radial, 16 DME) which is a ARC arrival to the Localizer.

.

.

When I select number 2 I get the next window that allows me to request the approach from the ATC Controller.

.

.

This next picture shows the radio messages of what was said

 

The controller told me to expect the NOVICE approach which is the one that everyones complains about

I say standby while I went and selected the approach i wanted.

I requested the ILS 13 HUT 240 radial and the controller approved it.

I was told to descend to 3800 ft which as per the chart above is the initial altitude

A few moments later ATC cleared me to fly the 240 radial from HUT VOR which will intercept the Termial_Waypoint at 16 DME and then fly the ARC to intercept the localizer.

 

 

When you request the publish approaches and there are 1000's in the Airport approach database you will not zig zag all over the place or get multiple changes in freqs.

 

FS9 and FSX has a novice way to work and an advanced method. Watching AI aircraft in IMC and VMC is like two different programs because IMC uses a much more complex realistic set of procedures for the User and the AI plane.

 

 

 

 

I am not sure what the OP meant when stating

 

it is very limited in features with regards to SIDs/STARs and things like that

 

SIDeparture Procedures - if you have it in the first part of the FSX flight planner that FS ATC reads you can fly it with no problem. The only thing the FS ATC cares about upon departure is the next waypoint in the flight plan. If you have those waypoints in the flight plan you are cleared to fly the SID.

 

Arrival - the STAR is added to the last part of the FSX default flight planner. Many STARs start between 200-400 NM's from the airport. If you fly from Miami to Atlanta the ONYON ONR Arrival STAR begins at the CRG VOR which is in Jacksonville, Fla. and 240NM's from Atlanta airport.

 

One of the busiest Arrivals in the world are all the planes coming into Atlanta from the northeast which includes all flights from Europe. The DIRTY TWO Arrival starts at the Montebello VOR in the state of Virginia 380 NM's from Atlanta. Most of the STARs in the USA end somewhere around 30-40 NM's from the airport and then the Pilot flys a Transition to final. The newer RNAV type STARs are making arrivals easier with less work load in both real world and FS9/FSX.

 

When someone complains about STARs I often wonder what Country are they refering to. Many Country boundary's are limited in size and what that Country might call a STAR is actually an Intermediate Fix (IF) Transition to the final approach course and it ends at the runway approach.

 

The FSX ATC system also works with

 

the internal weather engine

the runway lengths

the weight of the aircraft in the cfg file

the type aircraft in the aircraft.air (6 different flavors)

the seperation code when 2 or more planes enter the airport visual zone

the difference in visual approaches versus approaches when weather visibilty is less then 3 miles

overlay airports vs non-overlay airports

closing one end of a runway

adhering to the minimum eroute altitude (MEA) when building a flight plan in both the route structure of the Victor and Jet airways

adhering to the terrain elevation which has a matrix for safe altitudes

using the scalar valve in the airport header

segmented taxiways to help eliminate choke points

1000's of Jepp charts scanned with transitions (my above example)

 

I agree default ATC does have faults but if a true comparison is made then why not compare everything that ATC is programmed to control. Take my list and explain what FS ATC does in each case and what the 3rd party ATC does to make my FSX list better.

 

I'm continually amazed at the number of people who have never explored the power of the ATC system.

Ha. I KNEW that had to be somebody (besides 'TheBean') that might know what all is involved with FSX ATC. (I almost blew a fuse reading all of this-it's all new-but I can see me grasping and using what FSX has to offer-in a year?). Thanks for taking time to explain. I am one of those 'vets' (10 yrs simming) that only now decided to get into ATC (and I am 75 yrs old, but the gray matter only hurts if I 'push it'-I take frequent naps!). It's like, all of a sudden, seeing a 'new' sim. I WILL master this. Thanks again.

Chuck B

Napamule

PS: I don't own ANY payware (other than Fraps and WinZip) so, to me, the term '3rd party anything' is a bad word. :-)

 

I agree default ATC does have faults but if a true comparison is made then why not compare everything that ATC is programmed to control. Take my list and explain what FS ATC does in each case and what the 3rd party ATC does to make my FSX list better.

 

I'm continually amazed at the number of people who have never explored the power of the ATC system.

 

I knew you could request other approaches, but didn't know you could request

the transitions. I'll have to rig up a few test approaches to play with that part.

In my case, I'm usually not using the FSX GPS, which was why I asked if it was

required. In my case, I'm usually using flights made at Simroutes, and do add the SID

and STAR to the flight. I've never had any trouble getting ATC to use the SID,

but always had to live with the vectoring when I approach the airport which starts

when you are notified of the runway, etc many miles out. I'd like to have it use

more of a real world path, and avoid such an overly long path to final.

For instance, I can choose an RNAV approach in the FMC, but I've never been

able to use that exact path to the runway due to the vectoring by ATC.

 

I think the main reason many people have never explored all that's available in

the ATC system is there is very little if any documentation on this from MS as far as

I've seen, and myself when flying, I've always been too busy trying to fly to see what

other options are available. I don't generally stop a flight mid air to go exploring

options in the FSX ATC system which I don't know exist due to no documentation.

For instance, I'd stumbled across being able to select other approaches, but don't recall

being given the option of different transitions. Without knowing the options exist, one

would generally take what the ATC spits out and go with it.

Well, you DO have a very good documentation of what is possible in FSX by reading what FAA has for pilots to read up on to learn the rules concerning ATC. They are available, but don't know if for free or for a fee. When you familiarize yourself with this you then know what to 'expect' from FSX ATC, and/or 'options' you can look for and use. I am new at this. But eventually I might be able to say it was 'simple...IF you know how..'. Or at least I hope so.

Chuck B

Napamule

The documentation that comes with FSX explains many parts of both the GPS and the ATC.

 

If you learn to use the GPS it will show what types of approaches are scanned into FSX that the ATC Controller knows about. How to use the GPS is located in your FSX folder

 

....FSX\FSWeb\LearningCenter\Navigation ---> UsingTheGPS.htm

 

The GPS shows that Heathrow (EGLL) has 4 ILS Approaches, 4 novice vectors to final and 26 Transitions (Initial Approach Procedures) that ATC will vector for if the Pilot declines the novice vectors to final and makes the transition request.

 

To learn more about how the ATC system works in FSX you can start with

 

....FSX\FSWeb\LearningCenter\AirTrafficControl ----> ATC defined.htm

 

There are 12 different ATC sections that help understand what FSX and ATC can do.

 

Example, In section IFRATC.htm it says

 

Routes incorporating published DPs (departure procedures) or STARs (standard terminal arrival routes) are not issued in clearances and cannot be requested in Flight Simulator. You can still create these routes by customizing your waypoints in the Flight Planner file

The problem is that many of the ILS approaches I use only list vectors as the single

option. Take for instance Dallas Love 13R. The only option is vectors. But in the

real world, that is correct if say you were arriving via the old DUMPY arrival with

the CQY "cedar creek" transition. You would fly the CQY R-327 radial to DUMPY,

crossing ORVLL at or above 9000ft. Landing south, you would depart DUMPY 310

degrees for vectors to final approach course.

Landing north, expect vectors for final approach course. Sometimes vectors are

not the "novice" route. Sometimes that is the only and usual real world route.

 

The problem is that FSX ATC will want to take you off the usual R-327 course to

DUMPY from CQY, and route you way out west of Love field instead of R-327 to

ORVLL, and then on to DUMPY. And I have those two waypoints in the FSX flightplan.

FSX seems to ignore them, and insists on routing me out west doing a long sweep

across west Dallas/Ft Worth, and coming back east crossing north of DFW.

 

In the real world, the usual path would be depart DUMPY at 310 degrees and be

routed east of Dallas Love a bit and then you fly to north of the airport where you

are vectored back to the 13R ILS from the east. And if I punch that approach into

the FMC, that is the LNAV route that the airplane itself will want to take.

 

In general, I know how the use the GPS, except for a few fine points like choosing

the ILS transitions, which I wasn't aware you could do. But the plane I usually fly, "737"

does not use a GPS per say.. That's why I'm usually not using the FSX GPS.

 

The issue I have is not so much the ILS approaches themselves, it's the way that

the FSX ATC routes the STAR. Or should I say, seems to ignore the STAR waypoints

that are entered into the flight plan, and instead vectors me off on a different path

that is not very realistic. I'd like to get it to follow the STAR using the transition

that I have in the plan, "DUMPY with the CQY transition" in this example, and route

me to the ILS using the normal real world path.

BTW, that STAR no longer exists in the real world.. But I still use it as I haven't upgraded

my FMC nav data yet..

 

And maybe there is some way to get it to do that, but so far, I haven't found a way

to do it. Maybe I can decline the vectors ATC gives me, and re-choose the DUMPY

arrival when I start the decent and get vectors to the airport. I don't recall being able

to do that, but I'll fly it again "KHOU-KDAL" in a bit, and see if it will give me the option.

If I recall correctly, ATC will usually vector me off the normal R-327 path shortly

after leaving CQY. And then it runs me out west of the normal STAR path, which is

not too realistic vs the real world.

The last thing DFW needs is a bunch of Love field traffic cluttering up their usual

paths into that airport. :mad:

 

BTW, I just entered KHOU and selected ILS 12R.. Again, no transition options except

vectors. That's why I hadn't noticed that I think. I think many of the ILS approaches I

do seem not to have those other transition options.

I punched in ILS 04, and it did have one CARCO transition in addition to to vectors.

So some have them, some don't. But in the real world to ILS 04, I bet vectors are

used most of the time.

 

And I tried the route you listed at Hutchinson. I flew the 737 from KICT to KHUT,

and it did let me choose the different transitions to the ILS.

But.. it would not let me fly to WUPNU direct, and proceed, as I had planned the

flight, and was shown on the ND, but insisted I first fly to the HUT VOR, and then

proceed out R-240 to WUPNU, which I though was a tad silly.. But whatever, I'll

do whatever they want me to do, and proceeded to land.. :/

 

But I now see why I haven't seen the transitions when I selected an ILS approach.

It's because many do not give you those options, such as 13R to Love Field,

and 12R to Houston Hobby.

 

What I'm really trying to cure, is the way it seems to ignore the usual STAR waypoints,

and instead wants to route me on a different path, even though I have those waypoints

in the plans.

I din't know the Learning Center had anything on ATC. Whoopee. Thanks for the HU. I learn something new everyday. Too many distractions, and 'things to do' in the sim and don't have 'time' to be doing 'missions' or messing with the 'learning center' (obviously I got that wrong). I need to go back to 'square one' (for ATC 'learning'). My 'outdated technology' FSX DVD's just had a huge increase in value. :-)

Chuck B

Napamule

Yes, I either demo'ed or paid for every major ATC add-on for FSX, and came away with the following conclusions.

In my opinion, you can narrow RC4 out of your ATC add-on choices.

 

I disagree with you.

RC recognizes and communicates with any AI traffic addon

So if you're taxiing to the takeoff runway, or approaching it, you'll hear atc guiding other aircraft that are near you and on the same frequency.

PFE only talks to YOU. As for the rest of the aircraft, it's just chatter with virtual aircraft. It does NOT recognize your AI. Which is very unrealistic.

RC4 may have less accented voices, but least those voices are interacting with all the traffic in real time.

 

Eytan

The problem is that many of the ILS approaches I use only list vectors as the single option. Take for instance Dallas Love 13R. The only option is vectors.

 

You are in a very dense area where many airports around KDFW such as KDAL have ILS. You will not see Published Approach Tansitions for all those ILS's since all the airports are very close to each other.

 

In general, I know how the use the GPS, except for a few fine points like choosing

the ILS transitions, which I wasn't aware you could do. But the plane I usually fly, "737"

does not use a GPS per say.. That's why I'm usually not using the FSX GPS.

 

You do not need a default GPS panel to ask for and fly transitions. The GPS can be used as a situation awareness tool and show what published approaches/transitions exist at the arrival airport.

 

If you do not use a GPS then what tool do you use to see all the Published Approaches and Transitions in FSX. In my previous post I listed the 10 different type of approaches that MS scanned into FSX. There are a total of 20,656 approaches that were scanned using the Jeppesen charts with a cutoff date April 2004. There are over 120,000 Published Approach Transitions and Published Missed Approaches that the default GPS will display.

 

If the airport I am arriving at is IMC and does not have a ILS then what is ATC going to assign me for the Approach and what are my other options base on enroute arrival.

 

The issue I have is not so much the ILS approaches themselves, it's the way that

the FSX ATC routes the STAR. Or should I say, seems to ignore the STAR waypoints

that are entered into the flight plan, and instead vectors me off on a different path

that is not very realistic.

 

You place the STAR into the FP. When you get within 60 NM's of the airport ATC is going to announce what runway is active and expect vectors to final. Regardless of where you are on the STAR you MUST decline the vectors to final and request a Transition if it exist.

 

BTW, I just entered KHOU and selected ILS 12R.. Again, no transition options except

vectors. That's why I hadn't noticed that I think. I think many of the ILS approaches I

do seem not to have those other transition options.

 

Many of the real world ILS's do not have Transitions to the IAF/IF. If the ILS had a transition when FSX used the cutoff date for the NAVIADs then it is in the Airport Facility Database records.

 

And I tried the route you listed at Hutchinson. I flew the 737 from KICT to KHUT,

and it did let me choose the different transitions to the ILS.

But.. it would not let me fly to WUPNU direct, and proceed, as I had planned the

flight

 

That's my fault. I failed to say the Transition starts at the HUT VOR and then outbound on the 240 degree radial to the 16 DME ARC.

 

But I now see why I haven't seen the transitions when I selected an ILS approach.

It's because many do not give you those options, such as 13R to Love Field,

and 12R to Houston Hobby.

 

If the ILS does not have a Transition the RNAV or GPS Approach normally will if it is a Published Approach. Even if the ILS is the active approach ask the ATC controller for the RNAV or GPS Transition that matches your STAR arrival. This will allow you to continue on the STAR as published and bring you to the final IF for the runway. You can now fly the ILS.

 

Many of the Approaches in both FS9 and FSX are outdated. KDAL now has RNAV(gps) transitions to runway 13R. If you are using a payware or freeware airport then the developer should have added all the newer approaches.

 

 

 

jim

 

If you do not use a GPS then what tool do you use to see all the Published Approaches and Transitions in FSX.

 

jim

 

 

They are in the FMC if I'm using the 737's.

 

 

In my previous post I listed the 10 different type of approaches that MS scanned into FSX. There are a total of 20,656 approaches that were scanned using the Jeppesen charts with a cutoff date April 2004. There are over 120,000 Published Approach Transitions and Published Missed Approaches that the default GPS will display.

 

jim

 

 

I realize that, but that's not really the problem. I'm using my own custom "flights"

which have both the SID and STARS in the flt file. It lets me fly out on the SID

no problem at all. I can pass 400 AGL and kick in LNAV/VNAV and just go along for

the ride. Departure works great, and they don't say a peep when I'm going out,

and it uses my planned SID as far as the path it thinks I should be going.

 

It's only the arrivals that don't work right. So far, I know of no way that it will

let me do a by the book STAR, with the appx real world vectors to the runway.

It always wants to send me off on it's own path it thinks I should be. Which is

not the path of the STAR I'm supposed to be using. So there is no way I can

connive FSX ATC to let me do say a totally by the book published LNAV to RNAV

path and not have a hissy fit, as an example.

I'm talking about the STAR before you even get to the ILS.

 

 

 

If the airport I am arriving at is IMC and does not have a ILS then what is ATC going to assign me for the Approach and what are my other options base on enroute arrival.

 

 

 

You place the STAR into the FP. When you get within 60 NM's of the airport ATC is going to announce what runway is active and expect vectors to final. Regardless of where you are on the STAR you MUST decline the vectors to final and request a Transition if it exist.

 

jim

 

 

I have the STAR in all my plans/flt files. But FSX ATC doesn't want to follow them in

general. The problem starts when I'm still 60-70-80 miles out when ATC decides

I'd be better off on their path, than the actual STAR I planned for.

And in some cases, that might actually be semi realistic. But there is no way

to make it let you do the actual STAR all the way to the last waypoint if you

actual want to do that, and the way it's flown on a "good" day with no mayhem.

 

 

 

Many of the real world ILS's do not have Transitions to the IAF/IF. If the ILS had a transition when FSX used the cutoff date for the NAVIADs then it is in the Airport Facility Database records.

 

jim

 

But like I keep saying, the ILS is not the problem, It's ATC and approach while

I'm still miles from the airport.

Say in the case of the old DUMPY arrival. I'm supposed to be on the CQY 327

radial all the way to DUMPY, and hopefully it knows I should be crossing ORVLL

at or above 9000ft, and if not, then I've been a bad, bad buoy.

:mad: chortle..

 

 

But Nooooooooo! as on Saturday night live.. It will send me off usually about

310 or so degrees at first, the about 102 seconds later, turn to 275, then about 32

seconds later usually turn back to 310, and then sent off dang near to Fort Worth,

then finally being sent back across to the east to the DAL 13R as I'm almost always

given. They never give me left there...

Where as the real world would usually stick with the R-327 path I left CQY on, and

not go on such a heading hunt to begin with.

 

The normal path would be around to the east of DAL, and at the end of the

actual STAR, and you would be good to go for the path around from the east.

And that happens to be the path used most of the time in the real world from

all the approaches I watch on Flightaware.

 

If you know a way to make it follow the by the book path, I'm all ears.

I'm been putting up with that silliness for so long, I've become used to the

constant harassment. :p Like I say, I really don't care, except that I would

like to do it by the book without mayhem if I actually want to.

And I'm feeding it the path in the flight file, exactly the same as real world.

Both SID and STAR. Sid is a nice guy, but Star doesn't to get along and play

well with others. :(

So I just do what they "ATC" say, being as I know of no decent way to argue

with em via the usual ATC menu when it comes to STARS.