I'm adding my 2 cents as all of you are testing. I did a flight today from KDFW to KLFT - definitely slows are completely gone! But, almost half way through the trip, I checked the arrival METAR on the Internet for KLFT and it was 010 @ 4. At 80 miles out, METAR was 030 @ 7. RC ATIS at 70 miles out gave me 160 @ 6 and RWY 22L in use. At 40 miles out, RC atis was exactly the same (160 @ 6), and approach told me to expect RWY 22L (ILS rwy), and that's where I landed (winds reported by approach on final was the same 160 @ 6.) Upon landing, I checked ASE METAR and it was 030 @ 7, exactly what the METAR was 80 miles out, but from 70 miles out through landing RC Atis and approach reported 160 @ 6. I'm not sure if this head wind component (7 kts) is enough to force to use RWY 4L or 4R (ILS), but the winds should have been somewhat similar to 030 @ 7 in my opinion.I'm using ASE SP2 B642, FSUIPC 4.651 and:

• Dynamic Rate Change = 50%
• Automatic Downloads = 15 mins
• Force Dest Wx Zone
• Force Hight Priority Processes
• DWC on
• Create Addt'l Weather
• Enhounce Route Cov

Spawning at 41 nm on ASE. I'm going to try a few flights in the next days with the changes some of you have outlined (increasing spawn area, decrease dynamic rate of change), as I'm very interested in following this thread.Thanks,

RC 4.3 when assigning approach runway looks at AI first (TCAS table) and if no AI are located with a landing runway assigned uses winds, etc. If runways have ILS or LOC at one end, that gets priority (where no AI are present) pending an acceptable head wind component.

Yes, I understood that too -- but what about the ATIS? The thing which was odd about the conflicts was that ATIS got the runway right, and I get ATIS sometime before (i.e. further out) than Approach -- like 60-70 nm).Pete

I made four flights from KLAX to KLAS and KLAS-KDEN. FSX were set for 100% Traffic. During four flights, RC vectored me to ILS Rwy and all three approaches, RC selected wrong Runways. AI traffic were lined up landing on opposite runways. I missed one mid air and two runway collisions. Also, before I take off, RC selected runway against to AI departure runway. I have also problems on Taxi ways.AI airplane was taxing on same taxi way and if I didn't run away from the taxi way. AI 757 was going to crashed me. They don't recognized RC controlled airplanes.I think, these problems were generating by ATIS. RC and FSX ATIS are broadcasting conflict information. AI traffic landings are according FSX ATIS. In this case, RC should disregard its own ATIS and we should hear the FSX ATIS. It cant be at same time two ATIS broadcasting for same runways which will generate collisions. RC should not disregard FSX controlled ATIS, unless RC start to control all AI traffics, also.

Guys,I have just arrived back in Heathrow and again have not had a problem with the FSX/ASE(DWC) winds and landing information,From getting my initial weather for LKPR ,checking Heathrow weather at that time,(2Hrs before landing).to en route weather and then getting the weather at the 50 mile mark and then from the tower ,all the weather reports came out with no hidden surprises.As far as I am concerned the latest tweak from Peter has solved my problems.Norman Bowman PS I will try a flight stateside on Saturday and see if I encounter any problems!

Have you looked at the RC log TCAS table to see what RC is getting at about forty nm out?

On one of the two flights in which I was directed to the wrong end of the runway, with a tailwind and against the AI flow, the AI runways RC was seeing all the way were a mix of Runways 16 and 28 (this is at EIDW). Most were 28. ATIS gave me 28, the winds were good for 28, RC approach directed me to 10, one AI were most certainly not using.I also notice oddities like this in the RC log (departing EGCC):

<choose_departure_atis_runway> 51 is best (wind/length) 231 is best (wind/length) check for ai planes taxiing out 233 is best (fs9 w/ taxiing ai) </choose_departure_atis_runway> <say_departure_id> EGCC 2 reporting station = wind_surf_vel = 11 wind_surf_dir = 224

Okay, it chose 23R -- but logging "5L is best" for wind looks bad when the wind was known to be 224 @ 11.The arrival ATIS (EIDW) said:

[ 54423 ]=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=BEGIN ARRIVAL ATIS=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <say_atis> 10 arrival ext_weather_or_fs9 <choose_arrival_atis_runway> 100 is best (ils/wind/length) 160 is best (ils/wind/length) 280 is best (ils/wind/length) </choose_arrival_atis_runway> <say_arrival_id> EIDW 10 reporting station = wind_surf_vel = 9 wind_surf_dir = 224

again shows Runway 10 as 'best' even though it is plainly against the wind, 16 as used by some AI was closer. ATIS did choose 28 though

<Say_Runway> 280 10 <say_number> 2 10 <say_number> 8 10 </Say_Runway>

But I still got 10 from approach! The AI usage didn't really vary all the way -- never 10, mostly 28, a few 16.I really don't understand what RC was doing.However, that said, all this was when UT2's spawning distance was only 20 nm. I've maximised it now (50 nm?) so we'll see how it gets on now -- RC wouldn't have got so many AI runway users at 40 nm as it will now. There would have been some because I still use MyTraffic too, to fill in those airlines (mostly charter) which UT2 doesn't provide.I've also added an AI runway usage logging option to FSUIPC, as I find it quite difficult wading through the masses of other stuff in an RC log.RegardsPete

Hi Pete,The last 10 or so flights I have had correct runway assignments until my last flight into KDFW, atis reported at 70nm out runway 18L winds 296/03. At 5miles from threshold with clearence to land, I hear landing permissions for 36R for the AI (UT2). Just thought I would let you know. Talk about a false sense of security :)I have UT2 spawn set at 25, might try 50 as well.CheersJulian

The last 10 or so flights I have had correct runway assignments until my last flight into KDFW, atis reported at 70nm out runway 18L winds 296/03.

Even though 3 knots isn't so important in determining direction , it's odd that 18L was chosen? 36R would have been more sensible, one would have thought. I presume there's an ILS at either end?

At 5miles from threshold with clearence to land, I hear landing permissions for 36R for the AI (UT2). Just thought I would let you know.

With such light winds FS's ATC is a bit wobbly assigning AI runways in any case.Your experience is actually different to mine -- in my cases Approach assigned a different runway to the ATIS prediction, with no change in winds or, as far as I could tell, AI.

I have UT2 spawn set at 25, might try 50 as well.

Yes. I've only done one flight since I changed mine, and that was okay. More to follow ...Pete

Even though 3 knots isn't so important in determining direction , it's odd that 18L was chosen? 36R would have been more sensible, one would have thought. I presume there's an ILS at either end?With such light winds FS's ATC is a bit wobbly assigning AI runways in any case.Your experience is actually different to mine -- in my cases Approach assigned a different runway to the ATIS prediction, with no change in winds or, as far as I could tell, AI.Yes. I've only done one flight since I changed mine, and that was okay. More to follow ...Pete

Yes, 36R is an ILS. I would have assumed, maybe wrongly, that RC was reading what the AI were doing in regard to landing runway, and even more so since the wind component was @ 3knts. To RC, the AI was invisable, maybe due to delayed spawning. As you said though, assigning a runway different to prediction makes this even more puzzling.CheersJulian

I noticed Pete has FSUIPC 6.454 Interim up on his forum as well as a new Wideclient. The notes explain a tweak to old AI in the TCAS tables which I believe RC reads. Perhaps this is another adjustment to the RC/AI interaction on approach? I haven't had a chance to try this new version yet though...

I noticed Pete has FSUIPC 6.454 Interim up on his forum as well as a new Wideclient. The notes explain a tweak to old AI in the TCAS tables which I believe RC reads. Perhaps this is another adjustment to the RC/AI interaction on approach? I haven't had a chance to try this new version yet though...

Thanks for the heads up Al, will give it a try.CheersJulian

But I still got 10 from approach! The AI usage didn't really vary all the way -- never 10, mostly 28, a few 16.I really don't understand what RC was doing.However, that said, all this was when UT2's spawning distance was only 20 nm. I've maximised it now (50 nm?) so we'll see how it gets on now -- RC wouldn't have got so many AI runway users at 40 nm as it will now. There would have been some because I still use MyTraffic too, to fill in those airlines (mostly charter) which UT2 doesn't provide.I've also added an AI runway usage logging option to FSUIPC, as I find it quite difficult wading through the masses of other stuff in an RC log.RegardsPete

I have been reading what you have been reporting and I have this issue aswell, I have always had my spawn distance with UT2 set to 50nm, I always get the correct ATIS and runway according to the winds but when approach grabs me it always gives me something completely different, for the last couple months I have been using RC4 with no AI traffic at all, and I always get the correct ATIS and approach always gives me the correct RW, its just when UT2 is active that I have the problems, try flying with no AI at all and see if you experience the same thing.

I have been reading what you have been reporting and I have this issue aswell, I have always had my spawn distance with UT2 set to 50nm, I always get the correct ATIS and runway according to the winds but when approach grabs me it always gives me something completely different, for the last couple months I have been using RC4 with no AI traffic at all, and I always get the correct ATIS and approach always gives me the correct RW, its just when UT2 is active that I have the problems, try flying with no AI at all and see if you experience the same thing.

I think I've determined the reason, but only really when the winds are variable. With light and variable winds and no AI to guide it, RC decides among eligible runways only on the winds. even if they are almost calm, a varying wind direction seems to make it change. I think this is unnecessay. If the winds re very light, their direction isn't so important. More important is to choose a runway and stick to it so a proper approach and descent planning can occur.Unfortunately variable wind direction is quite common when the winds are very light.The reason it is more prevalent when using UT2 is because UT2 traffic for an airport is created as you get near it. I did as you have done, set the spawning distance to its maximum of 50nm. That theoretically should help, but unfortunately RC version 4 gets its AI traffic runway data from the TCAS tables, not from the facility specially added to read runways (I understand this is changed in version 5).The reason this makes a difference is range. The TCAS tables are limited in size (to 96 aircraft in each of air and ground tables), and range: the air range is limited because of the table size -- those furthest will be omitted if the table fills, and the ground tables are limited to 6nm from the airport (because the use of ground tables is purely for final approach, taxiing and parking stuff). The facility to read runways is not limited in either case, but RC is not using it.Aircraft on the ground will get runways assigned a lot earlier than those in the air -- the latter only get the runway assigned upon contacting approach, whilst the ground ones get them before they start taxiing. I suspect UT2 is spawning arrival traffic at the edge of the crrent "reality bubble" (an area of about 80nm around the user aircraft), so those the same side of the airport as the user will take quite a while before contacting approach. Those on the opposite site should be there earlier, of course. My tests, approaching EIDW from EGCC, would mean most if not all EIDW traffic on my side, or south, of the airport.So, there it is -- a combination of factors:1. Light and variable winds not forcing a specific runway2. UT2 not spawning traffic early enough3. RC not reading the runway-in-use data except via the TCAS facilities.I've been seriously wondering whether we should ask for a "minimum surface wind" slider in ActiveSky. ;-)RegardsPete

I've been seriously wondering whether we should ask for a "minimum surface wind" slider in ActiveSky. ;-)RegardsPete

Pete, have you had a chance to ask the HiFiSim guys yet about a mimimum wind slider? I see some really strange AI and RC approach decisions when VRB is in the metar. I am starting to think this would help too. A formal request from you would have the greatest motivation.

Pete, have you had a chance to ask the HiFiSim guys yet about a mimimum wind slider? I see some really strange AI and RC approach decisions when VRB is in the metar. I am starting to think this would help too. A formal request from you would have the greatest motivation.

Hmm. Maybe. It only affected a few days of flights here when we were stuck in the middle of a large high pressure zone with light and variables only. 99% of the time it isn't a problem, at least in the areas I fly, so I clean forgot all about it.I'll mention it to Damian, see what he thinks. The "variable-ness" might have to be limited too of course. A minimum wind of, say, 8 knots with variable direction of 200 degrees or so would still not help. It would have to be some setting such that less that 5 knots = wide variation possible, more than 5 knots = less variation, maybe never more than 90 degrees. What do folks think here?RegardsPete

Hello:Do I have to purchase the full copy of FSUIPC to get rid of the "slows"? I hope not. I am using DWC and the "slows" are driving me nuts. I am landing with no handoff to the tower from RC4.ThanksDon