URL: http://www.flightadventures.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi
Forum: DCForumID1
Thread Number: 730
[ Go back to previous page ]
Original Message
"Radar Contact"
Posted by Guido_Ostkamp on 05-21-03 at 17:58z

Hi everyone,

some days ago, Ray Proudfoot suggested the following ...

> If anyone wants to talk about Radar Contact then post a
> message and I'll chip in. I've been on the beta team for
> the last 9 months and we're still testing new features!
> BUT, don't post here - create a new thread.

so I am happy to do it. Please, Ray, jump in!

For those of us, who have no idea what Radar Contact and
similar software is about: It is a complete ATC (Air traffic
control) system flightsim add-on simulating all the
communication between YOU (the pilot) and the controllers
down on the ground. It is used offline, so there are no
additional online charges in contrary to flying online with
VATSIM, IVAO etc.

I have been a happy user of ProFlight98 in the FS98 days,
then later with FS2000 switched over to "Radar Contact"
after learning that the features were superior compared to
ProFlight in certain areas. I currently own RCv2 (I believe)
with one update.

While I preferred the user interface of ProFlight - I found
it much easier to use some well known Ctrl-Shift-<key>
keyboard shortcuts to directly address things instead of the
slowly responding one line cursor walking menu system in
Radar Contact - the flight features included were amazing. I
still have not taken it to the limit.

However, there have also been some glitches. One that I am
experiencing sometimes, is bad vectoring when targets are to
close to each other, so for example, if I am performing my
short mail service flights for Tradewind Carribean Airlines
and there is not much distance and no waypoints to the next
airport.

Does RCv3 now handle short distances better?

It seems also a bit complicated to position the aircraft at
the terminal as the adventuring system used in RCv2 and
earlier underwent some changes, and if I understand
correctly, is going to by phased out in one of the next
versions of flightsimulator. Earlier one could load a
situation file (stored position, time etc.) and then run an
adventure on top of it. Thus it was possible to run GPWS
add-ons or RCv2 and other things. This seems to be handled
differently in FS2002.

I have heard, that RCv3 is no longer being run as adventure,
but as a seperate application. I would be interested to hear
details about this, especially how performance drops by
running an additional application side-by-side with FS. I am
still on a 4 years old 450 Mhz rig here and basic scenery is
still flyable even with RCv2 activated. What kind of
additional app is there, is it slow Visual Basic stuff or
fast C-Code?

Does it integrate with the standard AI airplanes or do I
still have nothing flying around me? Am I able to listen to
any ATIS on the way?

Is it possible to integrate real weather, so update from
time to time and have the runways etc. calculated depending
on it? I am not sure if this was already possible with RCv2.

I can also imagine, that having a seperate application
instead of precompiled adventure allows to have dynamically
changes in the flightplan, maybe redirections to another
airport?

Is there a seperate database like with FSNav that has to be
scanning the installed scenery?

What else has been vastly improved since RCv2?

What problems did you detect?

What are the highlights?

How do you compare RCv3 to competitors, maybe ProFlight
(don't know if there still is a new version of this around)?

Do you expect any upgrades regarding FS2004?

Can we expect RC to be still be ahead of an upcoming FS2004
with improved ATC? Is it still worth the money?

Regards,

Guido

-OLR.PL v1.82-

Table of contents
Messages in this discussion
"RE: Radar Contact"
Posted by RayProudfoot on 05-21-03 at 22:47z
Hi Guido,

Wow! So many questions. I'll do my best to answer them but for anyone who wants to know what RC can do in detail the best place to start is the RC web site www.jdtllc.com/

Having had this program on my system for the last 10 months I can honestly say I would not want to fly without it. Now that it is a stand-alone program as opposed to an adventure it is far more versatile and beats the default FS ATC into a cocked hat. It is written in Visual Basic but this does not cause any particular problems compared to C or C+. My biggest bugbear of RC v2 was the very awkward system of key controls. RC3 transforms this and even though it still relies on key presses the responses are instantaneous.

I've recorded my own voice as an additional controller and together with another UK contribution this gives a nice alternative when flying in European/UK skies. I've also recorded real-world ATC at Manchester and you can hear these being played when you fly into or out of EGCC. No other program I know of will give you this degree of versatility.

<<Does RCv3 now handle short distances better? >>

I fly the EGCC-EGLL route regularly in a 767 and RC handles it really well. It also handles 12 hour flights equally well. Comms can be handed over to RC so you don't have to acknowledge every transmission yourself. RC will also control default FS aircraft but cannot control specialist aircraft such as the 767PIC. Then again, what can?

<<It seems also a bit complicated to position the aircraft at the terminal as the adventuring system used in RCv2 and
earlier underwent some changes, and if I understand
correctly, is going to by phased out in one of the next
versions of flightsimulator.>>

Correct. The way RC3 works you need to start at the gate but if you want total realism you would do that anyway. RC will not move the aircraft for you.

<<Does it integrate with the standard AI airplanes or do I
still have nothing flying around me? Am I able to listen to
any ATIS on the way? >>

It is aware of Ai aircraft on the ground and in the air but cannot control them. Blame MS for not issuing an SDK. If another Ai aircraft is on finals and you request take-off you will be told to hold short. Similarly, when on finals if another aircraft moves onto the active you will be issued with a go-round. You can listen to default ATC and RC simultaneously if you want.

<<Is it possible to integrate real weather, so update from
time to time and have the runways etc. calculated depending
on it? >>

Yes. RC is compatible with FSMeteo and ActiveSky. It gives you complete control on departure and arrival runways based on the prevailing wind.

<<I can also imagine, that having a seperate application
instead of precompiled adventure allows to have dynamically
changes in the flightplan, maybe redirections to another
airport? >>

Yes. When you compile a RC flight you can include an alternative airport. You can also declare an emergency at any time during the flight and RC will vector you to either the departure airport or a suitable alternative.

<<Is there a seperate database like with FSNav that has to be scanning the installed scenery? >>

It comes with a set of files that include all frequencies for FS airports and other relevant data. There is no scanning of FS files like FSNav. All files are either in EXcel format or plain text files so you can edit them yourself if you need to.

<<What else has been vastly improved since RCv2? >>

This would take me ages to list. You can see the differences at a glance here... www.jdtllc.com/getting_started.htm#RC%20Comparison

<<What problems did you detect? >>

Several during beta-testing but nothing of any significance once released last December. John Decker continues to improve RC3 and we're still receiving enhancements to test. It is a very stable quality product. I have no hesitation in recommending it.

<<What are the highlights? >>

For me personally it's the ability to record and integrate real-world ATC. I can't tell you how much this enhances the realism. To hear EGCC controllers as I taxi around Manchester makes it unbeatable for me. It also handles routing and vectoring very well - much better than RC2 in my opinion.

<<How do you compare RCv3 to competitors, maybe ProFlight
(don't know if there still is a new version of this around)? >>

I only used ProFlight98 which was very good but its limitation was that it was an adventure. RC3 being a separate executable is much more flexible. To be honest I don't think RC3 has ANY competitors. No other program comes even close to what this achieves.

<<Do you expect any upgrades regarding FS2004? >>

Pete Dowson is adapting FSUIPC to work with FS2004 and there should be no reason why RC3 won't work once Pete has finished. The ATC in FS2004 will be improved but I still believe RC3 will be my first choice. I'd be surprised if any update for FS2004 was charged for but John Decker has the final decision on that.

<<Can we expect RC to be still be ahead of an upcoming FS2004 with improved ATC? Is it still worth the money?>>

The gap will be less wide and really this will be a subjective deciision. RC3 can still do things that FS2004 won't be able to. Like recording your own voice set, integrating recorded ATC for specific airports being two examples.

Bear in mind that one of the co-developers is a Air Traffic Controller at Memphis so the procedures used in RC3 are 100% realistic. However, the program interface is flexible enough to allow for European differences such as different Transition Levels.

I hope this gives you a good idea as to how highly I rate RC3 - probably one of the best addons currently available for FS.

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: Radar Contact"
Posted by Guido_Ostkamp on 05-26-03 at 16:57z

Hi Ray,

> Wow! So many questions. I'll do my best to answer them but
> for anyone who wants to know what RC can do in detail the
> best place to start is the RC web site www.jdtllc.com/

thanks for sharing your experiences, which is very much
appreciated and sorry for me being late with this followup.

Looking at the referenced pages I just found out that I
missed the update announcement - they say it may have been
sorted out by providers because of being treated as spam or
virus. Meanwhile I got in contact and received the details.

Unfortunately they seem to have stopped shipping the stuff
through a German location and now do it themselves, which
means one has a long waiting time while the CD is shipped
from the US.

I also could not clarify yet, whether the update, which is
available for download on their page will be included on the
latest CD.

I have also no information whether RCv2 can coexist with
RCv3 - so having both systems installed is possible. IIRC
RCv2 had some license key system that might become a problem
once I deinstall the software once and later reinstall it.
Do you have any insight on that?

> It is written in Visual Basic but this does not cause any
> particular problems compared to C or C+.

One always needs large extra libraries for Visual Basic and
to my personal knowledge, Visual Basic is a lot slower than
fully compiled C or C++ code. However, this might not be an
issue for someone who has a fast system - which I don't have
at the moment, unfortunately.

> My biggest bugbear of RC v2 was the very awkward system of
> key controls. RC3 transforms this and even though it still
> relies on key presses the responses are instantaneous.

So I am not alone with my opinion about the scrollbar menu
system in RCv2.

Regarding the new system it seems they have adopted the
mechanism from FS2002 by hitting number keys. Is this
correct? I thought only the program running in foreground
is able to catch and use the keyboard input. How do you
think this is handled in RCv3? Do I have to switch
applications between FS2002 and RCv3 for input? Are does
FS2004 take the input and then send a message to RCv3?

> I've recorded my own voice as an additional controller and
> together with another UK contribution this gives a nice
> alternative when flying in European/UK skies. I've also
> recorded real-world ATC at Manchester and you can hear
> these being played when you fly into or out of EGCC. No
> other program I know of will give you this degree of
> versatility.

Yes, a nice feature, but IMHO not that important for so
majority of users.

> <<Does RCv3 now handle short distances better? >>
>
> I fly the EGCC-EGLL route regularly in a 767 and RC
> handles it really well. It also handles 12 hour flights
> equally well. Comms can be handed over to RC so you don't
> have to acknowledge every transmission yourself. RC will
> also control default FS aircraft but cannot control
> specialist aircraft such as the 767PIC. Then again, what
> can?

Regarding the Comms and aircraft takeover I remember that
this was already working with default autopilot equipped
aircraft in RCv2, so they just kept what was already
working.

I most definetely hope they handle short routes better. I
did a flight between two airports on the island of Hawaii
yesterday and found RCv2 ignoring the ISEC waypoints near
the target and instead vectoring me into a Hawaiin volcano
at the - you guess it - wrong altitude :-(

We definitely need something that is - how do you call it? -
obstacle-aware ;-)

> <<Is it possible to integrate real weather, so update from
> time to time and have the runways etc. calculated
> depending on it? >>
>
> Yes. RC is compatible with FSMeteo and ActiveSky. It gives
> you complete control on departure and arrival runways
> based on the prevailing wind.

I hope this is also true for the real-weather system which
is already included with FS2002.

> <<What problems did you detect? >>
>
> Several during beta-testing but nothing of any
> significance once released last December. John Decker
> continues to improve RC3 and we're still receiving
> enhancements to test. It is a very stable quality product.
> I have no hesitation in recommending it.

Is there a place where I can read more details about the
possible glitches?

> <<Do you expect any upgrades regarding FS2004? >>
>
> Pete Dowson is adapting FSUIPC to work with FS2004 and
> there should be no reason why RC3 won't work once Pete has
> finished. The ATC in FS2004 will be improved but I still
> believe RC3 will be my first choice. I'd be surprised if
> any update for FS2004 was charged for but John Decker has
> the final decision on that.

JD said in his mail it is expected that FS2004 is "on par"
with RCv1 and that RCv3 is still very much ahead of it.

> <<Can we expect RC to be still be ahead of an upcoming
> FS2004 with improved ATC? Is it still worth the money?>>
>
> The gap will be less wide and really this will be a
> subjective deciision. RC3 can still do things that FS2004
> won't be able to. Like recording your own voice set,
> integrating recorded ATC for specific airports being two
> examples.

I am considering the upgrade (or "chewing it over" as you
might say <g>), but until now I don't know whether FS2004
ATC will be landscape altitude aware, so I will probably
have to wait until it is finally out. It would be a problem
for me if RCv3 is still vectoring into the mountains.

> I hope this gives you a good idea as to how highly I rate
> RC3 - probably one of the best addons currently available
> for FS.

Thanks again, Ray.

Regards,

Guido

-OLR.PL v1.82-

"RE: Radar Contact"
Posted by RayProudfoot on 05-28-03 at 22:27z
Hi Guido,

<<I also could not clarify yet, whether the update, which is available for download on their page will be included on the latest CD. >>

I'd be very surprised if it wasn't. You need to bear in mind that RC is still being developed so when we've finished testing a new executable will be available for download.

<<I have also no information whether RCv2 can coexist with RCv3>>

Shouldn't be a problem as they will reside in different folders. But, I doubt you would want to use RC2 once you have RC3. It's so much better.

<<IIRC RCv2 had some license key system that might become a problem once I deinstall the software once and later reinstall it. Do you have any insight on that? >>

Each installation of RC2 or RC3 will generate a code which you should e-mail to RC Support and they will send you the unlock code. No limitation on how many times you do this.

<<Visual Basic is a lot slower than fully compiled C or C++ code. However, this might not be an issue for someone who has a fast system - which I don't have at the moment, unfortunately.>>

Although I have a reasonably fast system (Athlon 2000XP) some of the RC3 testers have quite modest systems. The only aspect of RC3 performance that attracted some criticism was how well the wav files were played back. This has now been optimised and seems to have gone down well with testers and users. However, it is important that you have a suitable sound card such as an Audigy. Older cards could be problematical. Check the RC page at www.avsim.com for more info. Although slow compared to C++ VB is fast enough for what it's required to do.

<<Regarding the new system it seems they have adopted the
mechanism from FS2002 by hitting number keys. Is this
correct? I thought only the program running in foreground
is able to catch and use the keyboard input. How do you
think this is handled in RCv3? Do I have to switch
applications between FS2002 and RCv3 for input? Are does
FS2004 take the input and then send a message to RCv3? >>

Although RC3 doesn't have the "focus" when you press a numbered button to communicate with it the command is recognised and acted upon. I'm not an expert on how John Decker has achieved this but rest assured that FS does not lose the focus when RC is running. I think Pete Dowson has helped here with FSUIPC and AdvDisp to display RC information. The key presses pass directly to RC3 (possibly via FSUIPC) - not via FS2002.

<<We definitely need something that is - how do you call it? - obstacle-aware >>

RC3 has it but it's still in test. John Decker has created a file that shows the highest point within a 30 miles radius of every airport in FS2002 and will vector you accordingly. Even flights into Innsbruck have been successful. That problem has been taken care of!

<<I hope this is also true for the real-weather system which is already included with FS2002.>>

I see no reason why it shouldn't. RC simply reads the weather data within FS2002. How that weather is created is immaterial - it could have come from FS Meteo, ActiveSky or the default FS. The result is the same.

<<Is there a place where I can read more details about the
possible glitches? >>

I don't really understand your question. If the glitches have been resolved then they don't exist and aren't therefore a problem. We (the test team) are still testing new features and report problems back to John Decker. Once John is happy with things he'll release a new version hopefully free of any glitches.

By all means hold back until FS2004 is released and see if that meets your requirements. However, I feel RC3 will still have the edge. Whether you consider the upgrade price is worh it only you can decide but I hope I've given you enough info to convince you RC3 is a quality product well worth investing in.

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: Radar Contact"
Posted by Guido_Ostkamp on 05-29-03 at 18:46z
Hi Ray,

> I'd be very surprised if it wasn't. You need to bear in
> mind that RC is still being developed so when we've
> finished testing a new executable will be available for
> download.

It depends on whether they burn the CDs on demand or have
ordered a larger amount at some copy-works. In the latter
case they would of course first sell off what they have in
stock, even if the update is not included. However, I found
that the current update is not that large, only about 700 kb
so that is not a real problem this time.

I have other SW that requires me to download 10-20 MB
updates which hits me because of this slow 56k modem
connection.

> The only aspect of RC3 performance that attracted some
> criticism was how well the wav files were played back.
> This has now been optimised and seems to have gone down
> well with testers and users. However, it is important that
> you have a suitable sound card such as an Audigy. Older
> cards could be problematical.

I checked with their sound expert, Scott Campbell, and he
said my Soundblaster Live! Value should be ok. It seems that
the soundcard must be able to accept channels from different
programs at a time.

> <<We definitely need something that is - how do you call
> it? - obstacle-aware >>
>
> RC3 has it but it's still in test. John Decker has created
> a file that shows the highest point within a 30 miles
> radius of every airport in FS2002 and will vector you
> accordingly. Even flights into Innsbruck have been
> successful. That problem has been taken care of!

That's good news. I noticed that the latest update has the
remark "No ground awareness in this build" on it, so was a
bit confused whether something exists or not. Good to know,
that it is just around the corner.

> <<Is there a place where I can read more details about the
> possible glitches? >>
>
> I don't really understand your question. If the glitches
> have been resolved then they don't exist and aren't
> therefore a problem.

I am a computer science engineer and software developer and
are therefore very interested in what bugs exist and how
they are solved - or if there are just workarounds for it.

> By all means hold back until FS2004 is released and see if
> that meets your requirements. However, I feel RC3 will
> still have the edge. Whether you consider the upgrade
> price is worh it only you can decide but I hope I've given
> you enough info to convince you RC3 is a quality product
> well worth investing in.

JD has just offered me a refund should the stuff not work
well on my system, so I took the plunge and ordered the
upgrade today.

They said, it may take 2-3 weeks to get the CD here. May I
ask, how long you had to wait for it?

One last question:

If you want to use a STAR, and create a flightplan
accordingly, that is include all the intersections etc., how
does the program react when the real weather wind conditions
don't fit the runway the STAR was made for?

I found no way in the manual to enter several STARs at once
for different runways into one flightplan, so that RC can
choose from them.

So I have to download the weather once, save situation, then
jump to the airports, find out about the weather and create
my flightplan including SID/STAR accordingly?

Regards,

Guido

-OLR.PL v1.82-

"RE: Radar Contact"
Posted by RayProudfoot on 05-29-03 at 22:09z
Hi Guido,

I read your messages and JDs replies on the RC forum.
Good news on the sound card front I see. You might be interested to know that JD asked the test group today if there were any outstanding issues with v3.1. Scott has one issue but I expect the beta version of 3.1 will be available in a week or so. Please don't post this on the RC forum as it will probably cause a flood of messages.

<<I am a computer science engineer and software developer and are therefore very interested in what bugs exist and how they are solved - or if there are just workarounds for it.>>

I'm also a software developer so I understand your curiosity. No workarounds as far as I know - just bugs identified and eliminated. This is JDs baby so he looks after it with loving care :-) I expect he will issue a list of improvements when v3.1 is released. I know you won't be disappointed.

<<They said, it may take 2-3 weeks to get the CD here. May I ask, how long you had to wait for it? >>

Certainly. I think it was between 1-2 weeks. I'd be surprised if it took 3 weeks but bear in mind that we received ours direct from JD as opposed to their official system which may be a little slower as you're paying for yours ;-)

<<JD has just offered me a refund should the stuff not work
well on my system, so I took the plunge and ordered the
upgrade today. >>

I think that shows the confidence he has in the product which I would endorse. I doubt you'll be taking him up on the refund offer :-)

<<If you want to use a STAR, and create a flightplan accordingly, that is include all the intersections etc., how does the program react when the real weather wind conditions don't fit the runway the STAR was made for? >>

When you're at the crossing restriction of 40 miles / 10,000 feet you will receive radar vectors for an ILS approach to either the runway you chose when starting RC or alternatively if the winds have changed, you can request a different runway. RC will then vector you to your preferred runway with altitude changes, heading changes and speed checks. You'd be hard pressed to get lost!

Similarly, if you want to fly a specific SID then RC allows you that freedom and you can check back when you're on track again. If all this sounds confusing I'm sure it will all become clear once you have flown a couple of flights.

<<I found no way in the manual to enter several STARs at once for different runways into one flightplan, so that RC can choose from them.>>

No, RC does not have a STAR (or SID) database. It's up to you to provide it with a flight plan including all your waypoints.

<<So I have to download the weather once, save situation, then jump to the airports, find out about the weather and create my flightplan including SID/STAR accordingly? >>

If you don't have FS Meteo then yes, you would certainly need to know the winds at your departing airport but probably not for the destination as you can obtain a weather report at the crossing restriction and choose your landing runway then.

I hope that clarifies things and hasn't left you totally confused!

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: Radar Contact"
Posted by Guido_Ostkamp on 05-30-03 at 21:22z
Hi Ray,

> You might be interested to know that JD asked the test
> group today if there were any outstanding issues with
> v3.1. Scott has one issue but I expect the beta version of
> 3.1 will be available in a week or so. Please don't post
> this on the RC forum as it will probably cause a flood of
> messages.

Wilco and thanks for the info. Do you expect 3.1 to be a
major upgrade regarding download size and functionality? I
hope all 3.x upgrades are free.

BTW: It has now turned out that I was right, the latest
upgrades will not be included on the CD, so I will again end
up with a CD and a collection of patch files.

> Certainly. I think it was between 1-2 weeks. I'd be
> surprised if it took 3 weeks but bear in mind that we
> received ours direct from JD as opposed to their official
> system which may be a little slower as you're paying for
> yours ;-)

From what I've seen regarding sending the Flightadventures
CD and some other stuff, I also expect around 1 week. They
promised to send out the stuff today, so maybe the weekend
atfer the next one will see it in my mailbox.

> <<If you want to use a STAR, and create a flightplan
> accordingly, that is include all the intersections etc.,
> how does the program react when the real weather wind
> conditions don't fit the runway the STAR was made for? >>
>
> When you're at the crossing restriction of 40 miles /
> 10,000 feet you will receive radar vectors for an ILS
> approach to either the runway you chose when starting RC
> or alternatively if the winds have changed, you can
> request a different runway. RC will then vector you to
> your preferred runway with altitude changes, heading
> changes and speed checks. You'd be hard pressed to get
> lost!

Well, does this mean that I have no influence on what
happens inside a 40 miles radius round the airport? I
thought the STARs were usually much more detailed and lead
me by waypoints until having only a very few miles left from
end of the runway. So are waypoints within this radius
ignored by RC?

I already got such impression with RCv2.

Regards,

Guido

-OLR.PL v1.82-

"RE: Radar Contact"
Posted by RayProudfoot on 05-31-03 at 19:25z
Hi Guido,

<<Do you expect 3.1 to be a major upgrade regarding download size and functionality? I hope all 3.x upgrades are free. >>

Firstly, all upgrades will be free. I have no doubt of that. Secondly, 3.1 will give you Ai awareness. So, when you contact tower for take-off clearance if an Ai aircraft is closer than 4 miles for a landing on your runway you will be told to hold short. If you're landing and an Ai aircraft taxies onto your runway you'll be given a go-round. V3.1 also has MSAs so no more flying into mountains. There's probably more but those are the big improvements.

<<...so I will again end up with a CD and a collection of patch files. >>

Well, not so much as a collection of patch files since patches suggest error corrections. What you're actually getting are enhancements - quite a different position.

<<Well, does this mean that I have no influence on what
happens inside a 40 miles radius round the airport? >>

Isn't this why we use Radar Contact? In the real world would a pilot really have a free choice as to what headings and altitudes he flies? I doubt it. ATC will give him vectors to fly and altitudes and speeds to adhere to. RC attempts to reproduce this. You will have the option to request a visual approach but essentially you're under RC control. That's the beauty of the product - surely?

Bear in mind that I fly the B767-300 so my experience with RC may differ from those who fly smaller aircraft. I suggest you post a question on the general RC forum if you want advice with different aircraft.

I hope that helps. I'm sure you will enjoy RC3.

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: Radar Contact"
Posted by Guido_Ostkamp on 06-03-03 at 22:05z
Hi Ray,

> <<Well, does this mean that I have no influence on what
> happens inside a 40 miles radius round the airport? >>
>
> Isn't this why we use Radar Contact? In the real world
> would a pilot really have a free choice as to what
> headings and altitudes he flies? I doubt it. ATC will give
> him vectors to fly and altitudes and speeds to adhere to.
> RC attempts to reproduce this. You will have the option to
> request a visual approach but essentially you're under RC
> control. That's the beauty of the product - surely?

I had another look at the manual and aside from the
possibility of requesting a visual approach there is also
something called "IAP approaches". The manual says "this is
a new feature in RC, and may be the single most requested
user-enhancement. IAP approaches allow you to execute a full
approach per your plates ...". It is available 60 miles out
or as early as initial contact to approach.

Then there will be no further calls until established on
final. That means within the 60-miles radius the pilot is on
his own without any radar vectoring support. I am not sure
how this is handled in real life, i.e. whether the approach
controller will give vectors to stay on course according to
the plates.

Regards,

Guido

-OLR.PL v1.82-

"RE: Radar Contact"
Posted by RayProudfoot on 06-05-03 at 22:18z
Hi Guido,

<<I had another look at the manual and aside from the
possibility of requesting a visual approach there is also
something called "IAP approaches". >>

At this point I have to hang my head in shame and admit I have only glanced at the manual :-( Good for you! So it seems you can fly your STARs and not be admonished. Even with that option I think I will stick to the ATC guidance - it just makes things more realistic.

As far as whether it matches real life I suspect it all depends on the time of day. In busy times Approach will have a difficult job vectoring the aircraft. But, during quiet times the aircraft may well be left to their own devices with only minimal ATC intervention.

So RC can be all things to all men (and women! :-) ).

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: Radar Contact"
Posted by Ben_Chiu on 06-05-03 at 23:07z
Greetings Guys:

> <<I had another look at the manual and aside from the
> possibility of requesting a visual approach there is also
> something called "IAP approaches". >>

IAP stands for Instrument Approach Procedures. While STARs are typically included with IAP plate distributions, STARs only lead into IAP's.


> Even with that option I think I will stick
> to the ATC guidance - it just makes things more realistic.
>
> As far as whether it matches real life I suspect it all depends on the
> time of day. In busy times Approach will have a difficult job vectoring
> the aircraft. But, during quiet times the aircraft may well be left to
> their own devices with only minimal ATC intervention.

From my experience it depends on the area you're flying in. For example, up here by SBP, most approaches are flown with minimal ATC (and most are full approaches due to this), while down in LA or up in SFO you'll be vectored everywhere--which is quite a shock to folks that normally fly in the high radar concentration areas.


> So RC can be all things to all men (and women! :-) ).

One of the nice features/additions to FS2004 is the ability to request a particular IAP, vectors or visual approach on the fly. In addition, you can selecting your IAF. While the BETA ATC does tend to mess up on occasion and give you vector headings that won't intercept properly, it's actually pretty slick now. It's at the level of Flight Unlimited 3 ATC now--which is pretty darn good.

Ben


-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Ben Chiu
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: Radar Contact"
Posted by Guido_Ostkamp on 06-07-03 at 17:47z
Hi Ben,

> From my experience it depends on the area you're flying
> in. For example, up here by SBP, most approaches are flown
> with minimal ATC (and most are full approaches due to
> this), while down in LA or up in SFO you'll be vectored
> everywhere--which is quite a shock to folks that normally
> fly in the high radar concentration areas.

I don't understand that point. I thought 'high radar
concentration' (=large number of radars) was meaning
'vectoring everywhere'. Doesn't it?

Regards,

Guido

-OLR.PL v1.82-

"RE: Radar Contact"
Posted by Ben_Chiu on 06-07-03 at 18:30z
> Hi Ben,
>
> > From my experience it depends on the area you're flying
> > in. For example, up here by SBP, most approaches are flown
> > with minimal ATC (and most are full approaches due to
> > this), while down in LA or up in SFO you'll be vectored
> > everywhere--which is quite a shock to folks that normally
> > fly in the high radar concentration areas.
>
> I don't understand that point. I thought 'high radar
> concentration' (=large number of radars) was meaning
> 'vectoring everywhere'. Doesn't it?

Yes. So it's quite a shock to folks that are used to being vectored everywhere when they fly IFR over here.

To answer your other question, the distance issue you have, in the real world the marker beacons give you your distance on the ILS. With non-GPS or non-RNAV non-precision approaches, your location/distances before the IP begins are usually tracked by cross referencing your VOR's, and/or station passage, but it's not uncommon for ATC to give you your location as they clear you for the approach. For example: "Cessna 123, 3 miles from Crepe, turn right heading 048, descend and maintain 4000' until established on the localizer, cleared for the approach ILS 11 San Luis Obispo."

You might try joining us on our Sat night flights. We do a lot of IFR procedures with live ATC.

Hope this helps!

Ben


-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Ben Chiu
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: Radar Contact"
Posted by Emile on 06-08-03 at 07:50z
Hello Ben,
>You might try joining us on our Sat night flights. We do a lot of IFR procedures with live ATC.

"Sat" night flights or Sunday?

Regards
Emile
EBBR Brussels
Belgium

"RE: Radar Contact"
Posted by Ben_Chiu on 06-08-03 at 22:29z
Greetings Emile:

> >You might try joining us on our Sat night flights. We do a lot of IFR
> procedures with live ATC.
>
> "Sat" night flights or Sunday?

Our Saturday nights. 0200z - 7pm PT

Ben


-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Ben Chiu
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: Radar Contact"
Posted by Guido_Ostkamp on 06-08-03 at 11:36z
Hi Ben,

> You might try joining us on our Sat night flights. We do a lot of IFR
> procedures with live ATC.

Unfortunately your Sat night is my early Sunday morning
(4am here), which makes this impossible.

Thanks for your comments!

Regards,

Guido

-OLR.PL v1.82-