This zig-zagging to line up for FAF is getting frustrating. From KONT to KLAS apprx 150 mile flight in the PMDG 737, about 60 miles out the see-sawing began. It was like a drunk staggering. I can't believe this is realistic. I've read posts here on this phenomenon. Some suggest slowing down, inasmuch as ATC doesn't command speed adjustments. Slowing down to 200kts 40 miles out didn't change the frequent left to right vectoring. John R. FranklinVictorville, CA

I've done a lot of testing of this. My observations are:1) There is 'base course'. Usually your last enroute leg inbound course.2) The vector is calculated to take you to a point in space that FS decides is needed for final approach. A function of geometry I'm sure but I never did well in math.3) The 'see saw' is always back to the base course and then returns to the same vector course.4) The 'see saw' always precedes a frequency change.My conclusions are that the vector is a product of some type of geometrical calculation. That calculation is dependent on the base course. The 'given' in the mathematical equation so to speak. Each controller runs the geometry. A hand-off of the solution doesn't occur. Controller #1 runs the math, decides the vector and assigns the heading. Then, when it comes time to 'hand-off' to the next controller, it has to return you to the 'known' in the equation. Your base course. Hand-off occurs and then the next controller runs the geometry and gets the same answer and directs the same vector resulting in the 'see-saw' effect.Realistic...no. And I don't believe anything will help except code change in the core FS engine. You might try Radar Contact. I use that almost exclusively and it provides a much better and realistic ATC environment.Now, if we could only find a solution for that confounded wind shear that keeps tearing my airplane to pieces. Not even maneuvering speed helps...Hope this helps you.BobL

Thanks, Bob. Your explanation sounds is plausible. You know, I think Tim Metzinger's tutorial which includes either real or fictional vectoring, at least for me, is a more satisfying way to fly because it bears a realism (albeit no actual sound of pilot/atc interaction)that engenders a calmer mindset when flying IFR. As a matter of fact, I wish transcripts of real ATC vectoring existed (of course taking into consideration changing weather dynamics etc.) for airports I frequent like to fly to and from e.g. KONT, KLAX, KLAS, KSAN, KPHX. I think normal kinds of flight scenarios, something like Tim has done, would be a great addition to FS9...a flight adventure without the aircraft sort of thing. Kind Regards,John

I also use RC 3.1 and include in the FS format flight plan the STAR waypoints that are common to all approaches up until (if specified) waypoints specific to what might be the active runway. I have found that RC approach vectoring follows this plan until a reasonable distance from destination. The new version 4 has been announced as hoping to analyze AI trends at the desination and sequence you into the pattern accordingly. It will also offer better traffic avoidance since it will have some control over AI. 3.1 recognizes AI and will issue cautions to you and also give a go-around if the runway is not clear as you are on final.It should also be noted that you can specify your aircraft class in the RC start options (heavy, jet, etc.).In RC you can also specify during flight that you will follow your own IAP procedure. In that case you would include the IAF in your plan for your anticipated runway and vectoring will not occur but you will proceed as directed on the runway specific approach plate. You have the option in RC of preflight selection of the destination runway but as stated you can request a different runway when you are handed off to approach and have RC vector you or follow your own procedure.I have not used FS ATC in FS9 so I can not comment on what work-arounds are available. If you are not doing so, I suggest including STAR waypoints until about 30 nm from destination.