I am confused over the protocol of handling both ATC requests in addition to the FMC flight plan.Example.When flying from EGBB to EGJJ without requesting IFR clearance, i use the FMC to fly the route inclusive of SIDS and STARS. This is fine but since i dont interact with the ATC it doesnt seem very realistic - but i can fly the exact route as planned.However i have just loaded my flight plan (through FSX) and requested IFR clearance with the ATC. I begin the flight and all is well. My flightplan has set alttitudes coincident with each waypoint, so the plane will aim for these altitudes as required. But the instructions coming from the ATC dont reflect the altitudes i have programmed and i am requested to climb and maintain say 10000 feet when my next waypoint is say 15000 feet- so therefore i am deviating from the intended path and this is messing up my 'flight calculations'Furthermore when beginning my decent under the FMC to follow the correct approach path, i am then told by FSX ATC to turn here, turn there and thus deviate from the flight plan.Now i dont mind doing either and sticking to one method of doing things (for consistency). But i suppose my question is what do they do in real life. Do they fly the flight plan to the book and all ATC do is give the odd clearance.OR - are pilots required to fly the directions of the ATC regardless of what they have programmed into the FMC???It seems a shame to go to the trouble of programming a route into the FMC if ATC are going to tell you otherwise????Can anyone clarify this situation??ThanksTom

In real life you do what ATC tells you to do (they can lead you all over the place or let you follow your plan and everything in between). The problem here is that FSX ATC isn't exactly er... real life. It usually makes a mess of ANY approach, constantly changing directions, etc. So, to put it short, in FSX you do NOT do what ATC tells you to unless you like to turn the HDG knob often. :( This means that if you want realistic ATC, you have to fly online with an ATC service or buy something like Radar contact: FSX won't give you realistic ATC out of the box. BTW I don't do both: I usually do whatever I want to do and follow my own plan. :(

It seems a shame to go to the trouble of programming a route into the FMC if ATC are going to tell you otherwise????Can anyone clarify this situation??ThanksTom

FSX ATC does not use even the STARS that are included in the default GPS (click the PROC key to see the selection of approaches available on a given ILS). I believe the reason for this is partly the responsiveness of the AI (that is, getting the AI that are around in into the airport and landing). Also, partly the responsiveness of the GPS when it is in APP mode. Further away gives the GPS more time to get you lined up well and on glide slope.FSX ATC generally will vector you much, much further from the airport onto final, and almost always on a 90 degree angle to your final runway heading. At about 20 miles, they'll turn you 30 degrees toward the localizer so you can intercept it. I think the reason you're so far away is to give every type of aircraft enough time to get a good capture on the localizer before you cross the outer marker and receive your final clearance.Hopefully, in the next version of Flight Simulator (fingers crossed) SIDs and STARs will be included.Just my opinion here.Cheers,

I hate the the default ATC seems to forget about me sometimes. I can remember three recent incidents.I was coming from the west in to KBOS, The sent me south of NYC. I I kept listening to them, who knows where I would have ended up.Approaching KFLL from the west, they vectored me over Cuba and then canceled my flight plan.Approaching DTW from the south, they vectored me 60 miles north of DTW before turning me back towards the airport.What does Radar Contact do? How does it differ from the default ATC? I like the default ui and the fact that I have added many of the airlines with EVP. Is it roughly the same but better or is it completly different? I looked at their home page but I couldn't get a feel for it.

FSX doesn't contain STARS but many times, it's possible to simulate flying a STAR by inputting the STAR waypoints into your original flightplan. The trick is that when you're approaching the destination airport and ATC gives you the usual initial vector to begin the approach, you tell them to wait, and check the ATC dialog box to see if there is an alternate approach using one of the STAR waypoints as a transition. Then you request that approach, and they always approve your request. Sometimes, the transition point you're looking for is not always available, but often it is. So it is possible to fly a STAR (or fly to an IAF shown in an instrument approach plate) when using the default ATC in the sim, rather than being vectored around, which is not the way it's usually done in the real world.

While I can't say that civilian ATC will not lead you all over for an approach, military ATC can and will if you are shooting ground controlled approaches. Flying GCAs into El Toro would take one almost out to Catalina Island. Los Alamitos had one flying over Disneyland (great at night as you get to see the fireworks from overhead). March AFB wanted us to ensure gear down and locked on a CH-46 (permanently down).

FSX doesn't contain STARS but many times, it's possible to simulate flying a STAR by inputting the STAR waypoints into your original flightplan. The trick is that when you're approaching the destination airport and ATC gives you the usual initial vector to begin the approach, you tell them to wait, and check the ATC dialog box to see if there is an alternate approach using one of the STAR waypoints as a transition. Then you request that approach, and they always approve your request. Sometimes, the transition point you're looking for is not always available, but often it is. So it is possible to fly a STAR (or fly to an IAF shown in an instrument approach plate) when using the default ATC in the sim, rather than being vectored around, which is not the way it's usually done in the real world.

Actually ATC vectors you in a logical pattern, but it does have some problems. It generally places you in a parallel course before vectoring you 90 degrees for the approach then clearing you to the approach at about a 30 degree. Problem is because these are heading vectors and not as precise as when in AP following a GPS track, as you drift off the track ATC will vector you back on to it. That is why it seems it's constantly vectoring you. It's the same as if you used the ATC assigned heading to follow your flightplan, you will drift off it, and when you reach a tolerance (I believe it's about a 3 degree variation) it will vector you back. Using the NAV AP mode is more precise so there is no revector.

I rarely use SIDS and STARS in my flight plan when using FSX ATC. I just let them vector me until I join the first leg of the flightplan and then vectors again for the approach, but they can send you a long ways out of your way and flight paths don't reflect real world operations. I would like to use SIDS and STARS and interact with ATC as well, but I don't fly online as I rarely have enough time to complete a flight in one sitting. Can anyone here that has Radar Contact advise how it interacts with data programmed into the FMC. Do you have to program your flight plan into Radar Contact as well? How do you find Radar Contact compared to FSX ATC?Thanks Martin

Radar Contact isn't perfect, but I always use it for IFR flights since it will handle SIDS and STARS and I can ask ATC to allow me to fly an instrument approach instead of being vectored.This thread covers some of the benefits of using it http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=269534Its primary weakness is gound handling; you are just told to park at the ramp, no taxiways are provided. This is to be addressed in version 5 I believe.Guys, I can't stress enough what a difference it makes to your IFR flying when compared to the default ATC. I really recommend you get it.Martin - Radar Contact will load an FS plan. I use FSbuild as it will create SIDS/STARS and add them to the FS Plan as waypoints, they are loaded and understood by Radar Conatct. You program your FMS with the SID/STAR and airways etc in the normal way and Radar Contact will understand the whole flight plan and act appropriately. At the larger airports you will normally be vectored, but you can ask for an instrument approach and fly a plate. It rocks!Steve

Radar Contact isn't perfect, but I always use it for IFR flights since it will handle SIDS and STARS and I can ask ATC to allow me to fly an instrument approach instead of being vectored.This thread covers some of the benefits of using it http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=269534Its primary weakness is gound handling; you are just told to park at the ramp, no taxiways are provided. This is to be addressed in version 5 I believe.Guys, I can't stress enough what a difference it makes to your IFR flying when compared to the default ATC. I really recommend you get it.Martin - Radar Contact will load an FS plan. I use FSbuild as it will create SIDS/STARS and add them to the FS Plan as waypoints, they are loaded and understood by Radar Conatct. You program your FMS with the SID/STAR and airways etc in the normal way and Radar Contact will understand the whole flight plan and act appropriately. At the larger airports you will normally be vectored, but you can ask for an instrument approach and fly a plate. It rocks!Steve

My problem with RC (besides the robotic voices) was in FSX it didn't seem to handle AI as well as it did in FS2004. I could never get it to issue intermediate altitude instructions to AI aircraft, as well as other types which FS2004 handled just fine.

My problem with RC (besides the robotic voices) was in FSX it didn't seem to handle AI as well as it did in FS2004. I could never get it to issue intermediate altitude instructions to AI aircraft, as well as other types which FS2004 handled just fine.

I can't say I have noticed the problem with AI aircraft. In relation to the voices, the robotic voice is your co-pilot. The rest are fine and even better since the meatwater voice updates were released.