Is RC using reallife approahes for airports?

[Guest erwin969]

Is RC using reallife approaches for airports? For example I fly from the UK to The Netherlands, to EHAM. ATC give me a clearing for landing on runway 18R, I fly first above the northsea directly to the airport, than gives ATC me a left heading to fly along runway 18R and than again a right heading to intercept the ILS. I'll see this sort of approaches not only with EHAM but also on other approaches with other airports. When I'm looking to reallife approaches for runways to EHAM, ATC gives better approaches. I hope somebody can answer my question.

[ronzie 21]

Check out the RC43 manual regarding the standard patterns starting on page 54. You will get a straight in if you arrive within a certain runway heading range or you will get vectored to a downwind entry eventually turning base followed by an intercept to the LLZ.If you are in a highly uneven terrain area such as approaching through a mountainous region and you have the STAR and IAP maps when approach contacts you assigning your first vector you can acknowledge and then choose an IAP menu option to entirely do your own navigation. You will not hear from ATC until after you have intercepted the inbound heading and are on final. You will find this described on page 56 in the approach section.

Is RC using reallife approaches for airports? For example I fly from the UK to The Netherlands, to EHAM. ATC give me a clearing for landing on runway 18R, I fly first above the northsea directly to the airport, than gives ATC me a left heading to fly along runway 18R and than again a right heading to intercept the ILS. I'll see this sort of approaches not only with EHAM but also on other approaches with other airports. When I'm looking to reallife approaches for runways to EHAM, ATC gives better approaches. I hope somebody can answer my question.

[Guest erwin969]

Ok, thanks.

[chrispeel 0]

The short answer is no.The vectored approaches are not totally realistic.As Ron says they are standardised but do give a reasonabe feel.To be even more realistic they would have to take account of terrain,noise limits,departure flows as well as inbound traffic.I can't imagine what programming and computer power would be needed to achieve this.A point to remember is RC4 will not separate traffic if you go for an IAP procedure.Other addons may help, like AI Smooth, but you will sometimes see some crazy manoevres from aircraft around you.This is not RC's fault.Blame the AI traffic in MFS.Some of them could do with a chat with FISDO

[ronzie 21]

In the approach phase RC separates AI from you only on final slowing those behind and speeding up if possible those in front. That facility should continue even on an IAP if you merge with an LLZ type service. I think it will also serve on the various VOR and NDB approach procedures as well as long as you land on the designated runway, including teardrop approaches, once merged on the extended centerline, but won't guarantee it.AI Smooth isn't too bad for AI movement moving them into holding patterns although in the hold if you are observing them they might occasionally adapt some interesting attitudes. AI Separation (I think?) has some wild AI slewing around the whole pattern. The latter was disturbing to me to observe on a TCAS display.

---------------------extract--------------------A point to remember is RC4 will not separate traffic if you go for an IAP procedure.Other addons may help, like AI Smooth, but you will sometimes see some crazy manoevres from aircraft around you.---------------------------

[chrispeel 0]

I like San Fransisco best for crazy AI.Landing in the Bay,overtaking on finals,a Beech 19 bound for Fresno skimming the waves.Almost like the real thing.