First of all, I've been using Radar Contact 4.3 for FSX on all of my IFR flights due to its fantastic realism and attention to detail and recognition of international standards, and I'd like to congratulate everyone who has contributed to the development of this essential addon to Flight Simulator.I'm not sure what the plan is for a next version, but if one is in the works, I would like to make the following suggestions to make RC even better than it is now.I'll just start with three I know have already been suggested, simply to emphasize how important I think they are. First, ground control is a bit lacking, and to have specific taxi instructions and advisories would be great. And the second is the ability to send special squawk codes to indicate emergencies and other scenerios. And the third, I know has been reported to be impossible due to limitations to FSX's API, but it's just so annoying I want to say it again. I can't count the number of times I've been cleared to land or takeoff on a runway that is not active to the AI traffic, resulting in a near headon collision. I have "Detect Vehicle collisions" turned off simply due to this. Also, airports which have parellel runways usually dedicate one for landing and one for takeoff. I'm on the taxiway for 15 minutes in Atlanta waiting to takeoff because of 5 landing jets on my runway, when the other runway is barely being used! Again, I know this is a known issue which seems to be FSX's problem and not yours, so I won't blame you if you can't do it.Beyond that, I would think RC should be a bit more picky regarding pilots' behaviors, especially with lights. When you are in a final approach and the tower is unable to see your landing lights, they should give you a stern warning, which would reflect your performance at the end of the flight. Similarly, tower should not clear you for takeoff until your landing lights (and all other required lights) are turned on. It would be even better if you were on approach 35 miles from the airfield and an AI aircraft in your vicinity noticed your landing lights were not turned on and, if the pilot was on the same frequency, could alert the controller that there is an approaching airplane at under 10000 MSL without the lights turned on. I'm not sure how something like this would be handled in real life, though.Also, there are quite a few medium size airports which are identified using the generic ICAO code. It just sounds odd to hear Kilo Papa Victor Delta instead of Providence, or Kilo Bravo Uniform Foxtrot instead of Buffalo. I doubt you can be as extensive as Flight Simulator's default ATC, but it would be nice if at least most of the medium-large hub commercial airfields are named.Another feature which I think would vastly improve RC is giving your copilot a little more intelligence by setting defaults for him/her in the RC control panel. For example, currently, if center gives me a direction to start my descent, the copilot simply heeds the instruction and I'm left having to descend. Instead, I'd like to indicate what I'd like the copilot to do by default to specific instructions: - When ATC asks to descend from cruising altitude: a.) Copilot heeds instruction b.) Copilot requests PD c.) Hand comms to captain - After clearance delivery confirms: a.) Copilot requests taxi b.) Copilot requests clearance to start/pushbackPerhaps, alternatively, you can dictate what specific responsibilities the copilot has, assuming you have given him/her comms. For example, the copilot will acknowledge all traffic advisories and controller handoffs, but leave the descent and other instructions to you.Once again, even without these features, RC is one of the best addons out there, and is essential to any flight simulator addict. It never fails to impress... except in those occasions where it takes the GUI forever to respond to my keyboard. ;)

First of all, I've been using Radar Contact 4.3 for FSX on all of my IFR flights due to its fantastic realism and attention to detail and recognition of international standards, and I'd like to congratulate everyone who has contributed to the development of this essential addon to Flight Simulator.I'm not sure what the plan is for a next version, but if one is in the works, I would like to make the following suggestions to make RC even better than it is now.I'll just start with three I know have already been suggested, simply to emphasize how important I think they are. First, ground control is a bit lacking, and to have specific taxi instructions and advisories would be great. And the second is the ability to send special squawk codes to indicate emergencies and other scenerios. And the third, I know has been reported to be impossible due to limitations to FSX's API, but it's just so annoying I want to say it again. I can't count the number of times I've been cleared to land or takeoff on a runway that is not active to the AI traffic, resulting in a near headon collision. I have "Detect Vehicle collisions" turned off simply due to this. Also, airports which have parellel runways usually dedicate one for landing and one for takeoff. I'm on the taxiway for 15 minutes in Atlanta waiting to takeoff because of 5 landing jets on my runway, when the other runway is barely being used! Again, I know this is a known issue which seems to be FSX's problem and not yours, so I won't blame you if you can't do it.Beyond that, I would think RC should be a bit more picky regarding pilots' behaviors, especially with lights. When you are in a final approach and the tower is unable to see your landing lights, they should give you a stern warning, which would reflect your performance at the end of the flight. Similarly, tower should not clear you for takeoff until your landing lights (and all other required lights) are turned on. It would be even better if you were on approach 35 miles from the airfield and an AI aircraft in your vicinity noticed your landing lights were not turned on and, if the pilot was on the same frequency, could alert the controller that there is an approaching airplane at under 10000 MSL without the lights turned on. I'm not sure how something like this would be handled in real life, though.Also, there are quite a few medium size airports which are identified using the generic ICAO code. It just sounds odd to hear Kilo Papa Victor Delta instead of Providence, or Kilo Bravo Uniform Foxtrot instead of Buffalo. I doubt you can be as extensive as Flight Simulator's default ATC, but it would be nice if at least most of the medium-large hub commercial airfields are named.Another feature which I think would vastly improve RC is giving your copilot a little more intelligence by setting defaults for him/her in the RC control panel. For example, currently, if center gives me a direction to start my descent, the copilot simply heeds the instruction and I'm left having to descend. Instead, I'd like to indicate what I'd like the copilot to do by default to specific instructions: - When ATC asks to descend from cruising altitude: a.) Copilot heeds instruction b.) Copilot requests PD c.) Hand comms to captain - After clearance delivery confirms: a.) Copilot requests taxi b.) Copilot requests clearance to start/pushbackPerhaps, alternatively, you can dictate what specific responsibilities the copilot has, assuming you have given him/her comms. For example, the copilot will acknowledge all traffic advisories and controller handoffs, but leave the descent and other instructions to you.Once again, even without these features, RC is one of the best addons out there, and is essential to any flight simulator addict. It never fails to impress... except in those occasions where it takes the GUI forever to respond to my keyboard. ;)

ground stuff is in v5no one has never said anything about the landing lights. what if the weather is 1/4 mile? i'll have to talk to the controllers about it.ther are over 100 airports that have their names pronounced. we picked the busiest airports according to the flight plans of the major ai packages. there is only so much the volunteers are willing to record. what the co-pilot can and can't do is based on whether the plane has an ms autopilot. without it, the rc co-pilot can't control the plane. i would rather devote my limited time to atc aspects as opposed to things like the co-pilot. after all, this is an atc program, not a co-pilot program. if you have a ms autopilot controlled plane, it would seem you can limit what the co-pilot now to do the basics, or none.consider the rest of what is in v5, you'll forget about the co-pilot.jd

Thanks for your reply, jd.

no one has never said anything about the landing lights. what if the weather is 1/4 mile? i'll have to talk to the controllers about it.

That's a good question. I guess you can't account for everything, but it's still a nice-to-have.

what the co-pilot can and can't do is based on whether the plane has an ms autopilot. without it, the rc co-pilot can't control the plane. i would rather devote my limited time to atc aspects as opposed to things like the co-pilot. after all, this is an atc program, not a co-pilot program. if you have a ms autopilot controlled plane, it would seem you can limit what the co-pilot now to do the basics, or none.

I was talking more about the co-pilot's control over comms (when you press Ctrl+Shift+F), automatically responding to the ATC's requests. I mean, sure, I can simply transfer control to myself when it's around time ATC will start my descent, but sometimes I forget, and I get frustrated that I have to go through the motions of leaving thin air too early. I guess you can attribute that to my own incompetence rather than the lack of RC's features, but that darn co-pilot will just say 'yes' to anything. ;)Personally, I never give controls of the plane to the co-pilot. It kinda defeats the whole purpose of Flight Simulator if I did so, so I'm glad you're not focusing any time on co-pilot's control over the plane. I just wanted a little more control over how he manages the comms. :)

Having worked at an ATC unit in my past, there's something ive noticed in RC4 that is always incorporated in a real life ATIS.And that is the reporting of 'turbulence', whether it be moderate, severe or extreme at the airfield.Is this likely to be included in RC5?Great product by the way, and very much looking forward to RC5.Andy B

Having worked at an ATC unit in my past, there's something ive noticed in RC4 that is always incorporated in a real life ATIS.And that is the reporting of 'turbulence', whether it be moderate, severe or extreme at the airfield.Is this likely to be included in RC5?Great product by the way, and very much looking forward to RC5.Andy B

i don't recall seeing that in the faa manual, or the uk document. but i'll go look. so we're talking about turbulence at the field, and not at altitude, right?it might not be there, because it might not be available through fsuipc. but i'll check that out too. i know i can get turbulence at an altitude.jd

Its been 10 years since i worked at an ATC unit (i was a flight data, not a controller), but im sure we used to report any turbulence that was moderate and above as well as windshear. I used to do the "voice" atis' before we moved to the new tower and got ######ing betty, the automated voice transmission.I just did a quick search on the net and found some references to turbulence being reported on LHR ATIS, on airliners.net.In response as to whether its just an airfield advisory, i would say not because for example in the reference on airliners.net, they were reporting turbulence on the ATIS at 9000ft. At a guess i would say it would be from the time the aircraft is on the approach frequency.Hope this helps.Andy B

no one has never said anything about the landing lights. what if the weather is 1/4 mile? i'll have to talk to the controllers about it.

You should not add such a feature. Landing lights or strobe lights are NOT a requirement by any atc convention or ICAO procedures. Only nav lights and the red beacon are mandatory. In fact, in low visiblity conditions use of strobes or landing lights are discouraged as they can cause spatial disorientation due to reflection.Landing / taxi light use is strictly company dependent policy or ultimately a pilot-in-command decision, NOT an atc concern. Atc not issuing a clearance due to not having a landing light on is plain silly :( DON'T GET ME WRONG - I appreciate the other suggestions made by the topic starter! It's just a common misconception that landing lights are somehow "mandatory".

I was talking more about the co-pilot's control over comms (when you press Ctrl+Shift+F), automatically responding to the ATC's requests. I mean, sure, I can simply transfer control to myself when it's around time ATC will start my descent, but sometimes I forget, and I get frustrated that I have to go through the motions of leaving thin air too early. I guess you can attribute that to my own incompetence rather than the lack of RC's features, but that darn co-pilot will just say 'yes' to anything. ;)

HiI'm not sure I follow you when you say you have to descend too early. If the copilot has comms, you're in cruise and ATC asks you to descend, why would it not be ok if the copilot acknowledges it? Then you just descend.Or do you mean that ATC tells you to start descent on your own discretion and the copilot responds "ok, we're descending NOW" ?I don't have RC yet so I'm not sure about the phraseology and procedures it uses.

You should not add such a feature. Landing lights or strobe lights are NOT a requirement by any atc convention or ICAO procedures. Only nav lights and the red beacon are mandatory. In fact, in low visiblity conditions use of strobes or landing lights are discouraged as they can cause spatial disorientation due to reflection.Landing / taxi light use is strictly company dependent policy or ultimately a pilot-in-command decision, NOT an atc concern. Atc not issuing a clearance due to not having a landing light on is plain silly :( DON'T GET ME WRONG - I appreciate the other suggestions made by the topic starter! It's just a common misconception that landing lights are somehow "mandatory".

According to Wikipedia (and I know that Wikipedia isn't always the most reliable source of information), landing lights are required for transport category aircraft (airliners and regional jets). I'm not sure if the requirement is at under 10,000 feet or 10 miles from the airport, but I guess you're right that for general aviation, it's merely strongly encouraged rather than flat out mandatory.

HiI'm not sure I follow you when you say you have to descend too early. If the copilot has comms, you're in cruise and ATC asks you to descend, why would it not be ok if the copilot acknowledges it? Then you just descend.Or do you mean that ATC tells you to start descent on your own discretion and the copilot responds "ok, we're descending NOW" ?I don't have RC yet so I'm not sure about the phraseology and procedures it uses.

When ATC asks you to start your descent, it's usually between 130 and 160 miles from the airport (in RC, unsure about real life). You have the option to request "Pilot's Discretion" on the descent, and if ATC grants the request, you don't have to descend right away. In real life, most airline pilots like to save as much fuel as possible, and the more time they spend in thin air, the better for fuel costs... plus, it's also a bonus to descend at the best rate and let gravity and your momentum do the work instead of your engines.I often give controls of the ATC comms to my copilot, especially during cruise, since most of that is traffic advisories and handoffs, but when ATC says it's time to descend, my copilot simply acknowledges the request and I'm forced to descend whenever they say so. (You can't "undo" the acknowledgement and say, "Actually, could I get discretion on that?". So, what I would like to do is, somewhere in the setup options, maybe, set a preference that the copilot will, by default, request PD on initial descents instead of automatic acknowledgement.

According to Wikipedia (and I know that Wikipedia isn't always the most reliable source of information), landing lights are required for transport category aircraft (airliners and regional jets).

The Wikipedia article doesn't quote the source, but it may well be true that FAA regulations have exceptions to ICAO regulations regarding landing light use. I'm only familiar with ICAO and JAR regulations. I'm sure it's safe to say it's isn't a realistic scenario to be denied clearance at the takeoff/landing stage due to landing lights though.I'm sure the RC team's time is better spent on other features :(

When ATC asks you to start your descent, it's usually between 130 and 160 miles from the airport (in RC, unsure about real life). You have the option to request "Pilot's Discretion" on the descent, and if ATC grants the request, you don't have to descend right away.

I see what you mean and I wish that would change with RC5 - the "own discretion descent should be default, instead of an optional reply to an assigned descent clearance off the optimum TOD point.In reality, the logic is fairly simple. The clerance to descend from cruise altitude is issued based on two main factors1. Separation (safety)2. Pilot request (Economy)Optimally, the pilot should initiate the process by reporting ready for descent. If other traffic is not present, the ATC will assign the pilot clearance to start descent at own discretion, which the pilot will then report when they actually start to descend.If there is traffic, which usually is the case, the controller may instead need to "talk the plane down" earlier or later, place constraints and stepped descents.That's basically the way I hope it would work in RC. The pilot would normally request descent close to the optimal point. Since RC does not actually separate AI traffic, the commands to start a descent earlier or later could be random or based on the size of the arrival airport, or, perhaps the number of AI traffic in the area.RTF examples (ICAO phraseology):Optimal case:Delta 1121; Delta 1121 request descentATC: Delta 1121 when ready descend 14,000ft altimeter 2991Delta 1121: When ready descend 14,000ft altimeter 2991(a couple of miles later when the FMS shows optimum TOD point)Delta 1121: Delta 1121 leaving FL290 for 14,000ftATC: Delta 1121Other cases (radar controlled airspace):Delta 1121; Delta 1121 request descentATC: Delta 1121 descend FL 190 (meaning start descent now)orATC: Delta 1121 due traffic maintain FL290, expect further descent in fiveorATC could tell the plane to descent even before they make the request

The Wikipedia article doesn't quote the source, but it may well be true that FAA regulations have exceptions to ICAO regulations regarding landing light use. I'm only familiar with ICAO and JAR regulations. I'm sure it's safe to say it's isn't a realistic scenario to be denied clearance at the takeoff/landing stage due to landing lights though.I'm sure the RC team's time is better spent on other features :( I see what you mean and I wish that would change with RC5 - the "own discretion descent should be default, instead of an optional reply to an assigned descent clearance off the optimum TOD point.In reality, the logic is fairly simple. The clerance to descend from cruise altitude is issued based on two main factors1. Separation (safety)2. Pilot request (Economy)Optimally, the pilot should initiate the process by reporting ready for descent. If other traffic is not present, the ATC will assign the pilot clearance to start descent at own discretion, which the pilot will then report when they actually start to descend.If there is traffic, which usually is the case, the controller may instead need to "talk the plane down" earlier or later, place constraints and stepped descents.That's basically the way I hope it would work in RC. The pilot would normally request descent close to the optimal point. Since RC does not actually separate AI traffic, the commands to start a descent earlier or later could be random or based on the size of the arrival airport, or, perhaps the number of AI traffic in the area.RTF examples (ICAO phraseology):Optimal case:Delta 1121; Delta 1121 request descentATC: Delta 1121 when ready descend 14,000ft altimeter 2991Delta 1121: When ready descend 14,000ft altimeter 2991(a couple of miles later when the FMS shows optimum TOD point)Delta 1121: Delta 1121 leaving FL290 for 14,000ftATC: Delta 1121Other cases (radar controlled airspace):Delta 1121; Delta 1121 request descentATC: Delta 1121 descend FL 190 (meaning start descent now)orATC: Delta 1121 due traffic maintain FL290, expect further descent in fiveorATC could tell the plane to descent even before they make the request

in v3 and before, you didn't have the option. that is why it is optional in v4.to simulate ATC, the controller sees the big picture, and like you said, asks you to descend for seperation, for weather, for any number of reasons. it's not obvious to the pilot why or where the controller starts your descent. and as in real life, the pilot can ask for it to be discretionary, which simulates the other things that are said, efficiency/cost, staying as high as long as possible. so i think the way it is, meets all the requirements, and doesn't need to be changed. if anything, i might add a vector, when you ask for discretion, once again simulate seperation and traffic when the pilot doesn't want to go with "plan a". they might not like "plan b". :-)jd

in v3 and before, you didn't have the option. that is why it is optional in v4.to simulate ATC, the controller sees the big picture, and like you said, asks you to descend for seperation, for weather, for any number of reasons. it's not obvious to the pilot why or where the controller starts your descent. and as in real life, the pilot can ask for it to be discretionary, which simulates the other things that are said, efficiency/cost, staying as high as long as possible. so i think the way it is, meets all the requirements, and doesn't need to be changed. if anything, i might add a vector, when you ask for discretion, once again simulate seperation and traffic when the pilot doesn't want to go with "plan a". they might not like "plan b". :-)

Hi jdLike mentioned I don't have RC4, so I'm not fully sure how it works in practice but I've understood that the RC controller always first gives you clearance to descend immediately, and you then have to separately ask for the own discretion descent as a reply to that. This is not the most realistic action.In reality the controller always expects the pilot to initiate contact regarding own discretion descent, like in the example I gave above. That is always the default condition - the pilots want to descend optimally and they tell the controller when they are ready. Ok, if you're 60 miles out at FL290, the controller will start wondering if the pilot forgot to ask for descent :( If instead the controller assigns a clearance to start an early descent immediately, the pilots know there's always a reason behind that and they would very rarely reply to that clearance by asking for "own discretion descent". They may not like it but usually keep their mouths shut. In fact if the reason is not obvious, the controller will briefly mention the reason for the clearance like "due to traffic" or "for separation"It's a simple thing but sometimes hard to explain. See the difference?So what I'd like to see in RC5 is that the default condition is always - pilot initiates contact to report ready for descent.To simulate separation - the ATC could, randomly or based on AI traffic or airport size, start an early descent before the pilot makes contact, or give them a late cleareance in response to pilot contact like "expect descent in seven (minutes)" The vector would be an added nice touch!

Hi jdLike mentioned I don't have RC4, so I'm not fully sure how it works in practice but I've understood that the RC controller always first gives you clearance to descend immediately, and you then have to separately ask for the own discretion descent as a reply to that. This is not the most realistic action.In reality the controller always expects the pilot to initiate contact regarding own discretion descent, like in the example I gave above. That is always the default condition - the pilots want to descend optimally and they tell the controller when they are ready. Ok, if you're 60 miles out at FL290, the controller will start wondering if the pilot forgot to ask for descent :( If instead the controller assigns a clearance to start an early descent immediately, the pilots know there's always a reason behind that and they would very rarely reply to that clearance by asking for "own discretion descent". They may not like it but usually keep their mouths shut. In fact if the reason is not obvious, the controller will briefly mention the reason for the clearance like "due to traffic" or "for separation"It's a simple thing but sometimes hard to explain. See the difference?So what I'd like to see in RC5 is that the default condition is always - pilot initiates contact to report ready for descent.To simulate separation - the ATC could, randomly or based on AI traffic or airport size, start an early descent before the pilot makes contact, or give them a late cleareance in response to pilot contact like "expect descent in seven (minutes)" The vector would be an added nice touch!

i'll check with doug, who is the other half of radar contact. he retired from ZME after 20 some years. in the 10 years of doing radar contact, with his careful eye for detail and realism, he has never said a thing about how rc does descent clearances. i'm waiting on a call back from him before i make a definitive reply to this.i have an idea what his repsonse will be, but i'll verify it with him. i'll also check with my controllers in england and australia, to get their perspective./edit/ this just inthe controller almost always (saving a little wiggle room for a rare exception (air force 1, emergencies, etc)) issues the initial descent request. the controller does really care what your optimal TOD is, or what your optimal descent rate, or how much AVGAS costs. given the pilot always want's to stay up top, it only makes sense the controller will call the pilot first.if you want to start down before the controllers contacts you, you can always request a lower altitude.i have not heard from my aussie controller, he's probably sleeping. and the uk controllers are probably working. but if they have a different perspective, i'll update this post.jd

Hi jdLike mentioned I don't have RC4, so I'm not fully sure how it works in practice but I've understood that the RC controller always first gives you clearance to descend immediately, and you then have to separately ask for the own discretion descent as a reply to that. This is not the most realistic action.In reality the controller always expects the pilot to initiate contact regarding own discretion descent, like in the example I gave above. That is always the default condition - the pilots want to descend optimally and they tell the controller when they are ready. Ok, if you're 60 miles out at FL290, the controller will start wondering if the pilot forgot to ask for descent :( If instead the controller assigns a clearance to start an early descent immediately, the pilots know there's always a reason behind that and they would very rarely reply to that clearance by asking for "own discretion descent". They may not like it but usually keep their mouths shut. In fact if the reason is not obvious, the controller will briefly mention the reason for the clearance like "due to traffic" or "for separation"It's a simple thing but sometimes hard to explain. See the difference?So what I'd like to see in RC5 is that the default condition is always - pilot initiates contact to report ready for descent.To simulate separation - the ATC could, randomly or based on AI traffic or airport size, start an early descent before the pilot makes contact, or give them a late cleareance in response to pilot contact like "expect descent in seven (minutes)" The vector would be an added nice touch!

I've been a controller for almost 20 years and I do not sit around waiting for pilots to ask for lower. Scott

I've been a controller for almost 20 years and I do not sit around waiting for pilots to ask for lower. Scott

Where do you control Scott?Look, I'm not saying what rc does now is wrong. I'm stating the optimal situation which is more prevailing in the less congested areas where separation is not constantly an issue. You must agree there is very little sense in the controller having to figure out the optimum descent point, that's the pilot's job.What I forgot to add to the original post, is that obviously in areas of more traffic, like most of the US major airports, usually the controller will get to initiate the descent process due to the all the traffic he needs to handle.So my suggestion for RC is still:Small airport / little traffic - pilot requests descentBig airport / a lot of traffic - ATC initiates descent before pilot (separation)