As far as RC5 is concerned you can anticipate you will at have least a partial resolution of the STAR problem you describe. If RC were to use a STAR database it would have to be accessible for modification to match your FMC. No guarantees, though.AI in FS have their approaches coded into the APxxxxx.bgl default files or in XML files that have more priority. Neither AFCAD nor AFX deal with AI approach patterns. If you want to take the time you can design AI approach paths using the freeware ADE9X from http://www.airportdesigneditor.co.uk/. It is very flexible and for airport design of runways and taxiways is similar to AFCAD. It can also place scenery elements. It also contains an approach editor that produces a .bgl (after compiling) that can be used. There is a learning curve to it.AFCAD and the parts that AFX inherited from that had some misleading design elements and limitations due to the fact that MS did not release their SDK information until very late in the product cycles. AFCAD was basically reverse engineered from observation and looking at partially decoded .bgl files, not an easy task. The AFCAD designer, Lee Swordy, did a great job along with the members of the Project AI team. It provided (as does AFX) very useful tools for airport traffic and scenery modification but as explained it was limited mainly to user aircraft functions. These are observations of the ADE9X design team some of whom were involved with AFCAD design.If you wish to design approaches for AI to match STAR data look into this. This is beyond the scope of RC's function and it is essentially airport design. You can get some freeware approaches from AVSIM. Look for author Jim Vile or jvile or jvile01.Many default AI approaches are curved and are not modified by airport scenery add-ons. In addition the ADE9X team observed AI action and deduced a runway scoring (preference) system that FS seems to use in most cases. Some interesting things mentioned are that whether IMC or VMC conditions exist, AI will prefer a runway end having an ILS including accepting a tail wind of somewhere between six and eight knots I think. Search on runway scoring and runway priority on the ADE forum here:http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=95if you are interested. This will explain why RC observes AI (when available) as a top priority in its runway scoring system and sudden changes in AI patterns can occur. Real world ATC does not have any problems like this AI behavior since they command and know what aircraft are doing (unless a pilot deviates from instructions).Your point has been taken about dynamically selecting a runway specific STAR in RC while a flight is in progress, especially where waypoint selection is runway dependent further out than 35 nm or so. This occurs mostly in non-US situations. These points have been brought forth by members of the beta group and will be referred during the development of the reworked approach code.As always thanks for your input.

Hi Ron,thanks for an extenisve input.I also have ADE9X and before that installed (bought) the AFX. ADE9X is quite a program - awesome. I have spend a lot of time looking into it. Still, I find ways to tweek and manipulate AI traffic through AFCAD to have landings and take offs on certain runway(s). This "crazy" star-technique by Jim Vile as I recall - the documentation that was lost from PAI - gives a lot of options and lately I found out a lot about how AI traffic reacted when changing the order of runways list in the AFCAD.From all you mention and also from my experience there are so many variables to take into consideration regarding AI traffic. That is the main reason for my suggestion to just let the pilot fly about 30nm at his own discretion in order to handle this problematic issue, just by doing what we all are so familiar with regarding FS - making compromises.Ok - I don't know any english expression, but in my country it's something like knowing when the visit is over. I thank you for listening and I'm looking forward to implement the v5 when it is released sometime. ( if i haven't mused myself to death by that time :( :( :( B) ). V4.3 is doing quite allright in the meantime.Carl

Just so people here understand. After you ack an initial approach assignment you do have the option to fly an IAP to the runway of your choice. This would be about 35nm out. RC will not monitor this, just advise the altitude intercept of the localizer for a safe altitude. Your next contact will be with tower for the initial landing clearance.

Hi Ron,From all you mention and also from my experience there are so many variables to take into consideration regarding AI traffic. That is the main reason for my suggestion to just let the pilot fly about 30nm at his own discretion in order to handle this problematic issue, just by doing what we all are so familiar with regarding FS - making compromises.Carl

5) From SOPAR on a path that corresponds with the STAR chosen will then be followed. However RC only know about the loaded FS flight plan that says; go direct from SOPAR to the airport. Hence RC ATC will complain about me not following the route.6) I ask about a possible solution by letting RC accept any deviation from the loaded flight plan between 70 nm from the airport (that is about the point at which you can get the weather and knowing which RWY to expect for landing) and 40 nm from the airport (which is the point approach will give you the RWY and you can ask for an ILS approach wherby approach will let you fly the rest of your waypoints according to FMC).

Ok, now I fully understand what you mean.Again, not having used RC I was not aware how it works and I assumed that at the final waypoint of your loaded FS flight plan RC will always give you further clearance, start vectoring or allow you to select a STAR to a chosen runway, no matter how far from the airport that final waypoint is. That's the way it would work in reality, of course.The main problem as far as I see it is again the problem of not know which runway will be in use.But since this is apparently being looked at for v5, I rest my case :(