The manual says 60nm is default but the program came with 80nm which I left it at. After being vectored in for landing and descent on 16R on a flight from KSEA to KSMF FS2002's ATC vectored me in too close to the airport to properly intercept the localizer before the glideslope started descending and I ended up going around, I barely got through on the next attempt where the G/S started descending again but much closer to localizer intercept so I was able to flip to LOC and back to APPR mode on my Phoenix A320 without it's autopilot flipping out (usually if you don't have LOC intercept before the G/S descends below you, you're in trouble). I've never had this problem before with using the default "real weather" in FS2002. Any ideas?

Cpaluda,I don't really see how the force feature and distance has anything to do with this, but I'll give it a try. Increase your force distance to 100nm. Also, check and see if on the AS main screen a valid ICAO airport is entered and the Destination/Force box is checked on the main screen.Hope this helps,JimActiveSky Support

Ok, I'll try the 100nm thing, yeah force and destination were definitely input. I wonder if it was just something to do with being very windy at my KSMF destination last night. I don't think I've encountered that high of a wind before. It was something like 28 knots coming almost from the runway heading (landing 16R and winds at 158 or something like that).

Hi,With headwinds like that, the opposite would be true - assuming you are flying standard appropriate speeds and vertical descent rates, you would end up coming down earlier, not later. Your groundspeed is decreasing giving you a higher angle of descent.If it was a tailwind, it would make sense! You'd be at a higher groundspeed and a lower angle of descent.From the sound of it, I don't think this is related to wxRE but rather that you were probably flying faster than ATC expected you to, and you were not using enough descent rate for that speed. I don't know if FS2002 ATC takes wind speed into account on timing of descent instructions, but it is possible and there may be an inconsistency here? If you'd like to explore this further we can do some tests. Can you duplicate this using the same METAR winds with an approach to the same airport? Let me know the details so I can give it a go and see if there is a problem.. Thanks!-Damian[table border=0" cellspacing="30" cellpadding="0][tr][td align = "left"]Damian ClarkHiFi Simulation SoftwareDeveloper of ActiveSkyThe next-generation weather environment simulation for FS2002!http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky[/td][td]http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg][/td][/tr][/table://http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/ima...][/tr][/table

Hmm, don't know how I'd duplicate it since I was using online mode and have already been back in so anything is probably overwritten. Anyway, as far as the descent thing, that doesn't actually apply in this case. I was directed to descend to 2000 and turn to the localizer intercept heading (which is the vectoring that was too close), but I was at 2000 well before time to turn onto the localizer and glideslope. In other words, I was already at the directed altitude well ahead of time. I will try a couple of tests with some general aviation aircraft from airports closer to the one I had problems with and see what happens. The only thing I could think of was some screwy thing with the wind. The only other thing I could think of would be something to do with the QNH setting being off from what it really was but I matched up to the ATIS reports all the way in. Because if I was off enough of course then I could have been significantly higher than 2000. I just feel it is a weird problem with FS2002 because the intercept vector seemed really close in that usually by the time I complete a turn onto the localizer and finally hit the glideslope I'm usually 5-6 miles out but I was like 5 or closer and hadn't even gotten to the intercept point yet.

Ok, I seem to have fixed it with a reinstall of flightsim. I think I had some type of corruption somewhere cause it's working fine now.

Glad to hear you got everything working correctly. Let us know if you have any other questions or problems.JimActiveSky Support