:-lol :-lol :-lol that's a good one, Larry!I'd prefer to be a hard-core barman.That's "as real as it gets":-hah Rodger

Not if you live in the United Kingdom... 7000 Mode C for all aircraft who are not receiving a radar service. Dunno if that is ICAO or not, USA seems to deviate heavily from ICAO standards where as the UK (and rest of the world for that matter) less so.Actually this is the biggest annoyance of MSFS ATC for me... it's based on FAA rather than ICAO standards. Ah well...

"Something that "won't" impress a good looking girl at a bar! :-lol" That made my morning. Nothing more true. Ian.

Learn something new every day.

Gee-I find it acts like a chick magnet! Too bad I'm married... :-(http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

For everyone it's different- I earned my PPASEL at ERAU where every flight was flown with a DP or star (even as a student pilot) in KDAB. Granted, they were VFR landmarks, but ERAU was like flying the line- I still have my maneuvers guide in storage. It was an amazing experience.Fling here in Boston, it's far different. Your general VFR stuff, but Riddle trained me VERY well with excellent habits, even if I do not fly professionally.

I understand that the FS team has to make ATC fairly generic, it can't give every single airprot out of over 22,000 that are in FS special treatment. However asking MSFS to maybe incorporate ICAO and FAA standards I don't think is asking that much - I would guess that over 50% of the world is operating closer the former. We in the UK and most of Western Europe for that matter are - and that is one of the largest markets for FS.VFR can be awkward to implement accurately as it varies so much from airport to airport and country to country. However IFR is less so and perhaps the FS ATC could even incorporate SIDs/STARs - if PMDG and PSS can implement these in to their addons I don't see why FS can't implement a database for ATC and addons to use, perhaps FS could even use this for default GPS/Flight Computer systems. I know Jeppesen could provide this sort of data and the MSFS team already use some of their data - why not SIDs/STARs too.

Do you guys think adding the program Radar Contact would be the answer to your dreams for FSX?RH

I think the situation-at least what I am familiar with-is the Sid's/Star's are more likely when operating out of, or very near class "B" airspace-which again will apply more often to a heavy iron driver than a GA one. My point above I guess was more that when people say they want atc to be more realistic-it again is dependent on the type flying and where you do it, and-and the wishes could be very different and relative as to what makes more realistic to each user.The first 12 years of my GA ifr flying-I operated out of a class C airport-and crossed the United States in all directions 3 times(except the very NE). In that time I only got 2 Sid's and no Star's-one Sid going out of Denver, Centenial which stated to climb and fly radar vectors, and one going out of KSee (outside San Diego)which was to fly a radial. On that one-right after takeoff and contacting approach I was immediately given vectors and did not have to follow the procedure.In the past 2 years I now operate out of kPtk-an airport that borders the Detroit Class B airspace. I now always have to file ptk 8 departure, runway heading, radar vectors. (Ptk 8 departure basically says to file to a nearby fix).As soon as I takeoff-I am handed to Detroit departure-who almost most always either gives me a vector, or sends me to a fix-invariably a different one that I didn't file (due to traffic patterns in the B airspace).Coming in now-I am about 25% of the time given a star (vectors otherwise)-but again before I even get near the procedure the radar vectors take over-I still haven't flown one yet.Again-not against fs having these added-especially for class B operations-but I'd sure like to see changes of clearances-both on the ground and in the air, change of fixes to fly to and changes of altitude,deviations for weather, ability to request multiple approaches/holds, being sent to holds due to weather or traffic, and lots of other little things that at least in my flying are more likely to occur.Will fsx have either sids/stars , my wishes, or some improvements in both?Improvements? I would expect so.Everything everyone wants-noWill everyone be happy-no-always! :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Ha. Me too, and it sure as hec does not work on her. Ian.

Radar Contact in my opinion is much better than the FS9 default except for VFR procedures which I believe they are working on for the next version. If fsx ATC isn't much improved over the current FS9 version I'll upgrade to the next version of RC if VFR is implemented and of course if it is compatible with FSX.Ian.

Only VATSIM comes close to my dreams for ATC in FSX :-D

How are VATSIM and Radar Contact different?RH

>I know Jeppesen could provide>this sort of data and the MSFS team already use some of their>data - why not SIDs/STARs too.MSFS doesn't need to get SIDs/STARs data. I believe Radar Contact doesn't have this data built in either - yet it 'supports' SIDs (now called DPs) and STARs - it is your (users responsibility) to have charts and fly them. You don't need this info for the purpose of writing the ATC simulation.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

How are VATSIM and Radar Contact different?On VATSIM you talk to real people.Daniel P.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpgMember of SJU Photography. [A HREF=http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=9004]Click Here[/A] to view my aircraft photos at JetPhotos.Net!The official psychotic AA painter. :)