What's all this about "vectoring back and forth 30 degrees"? Would it not be easier to just compile your flight plans such that the entire route is connected from departure to arrival? No vectoring required. I guess you guys just want to do it exactly like it is done in the real world, but compromises can be made. As Rhett has already indicated, using "direct to" is a very simple solution.

I always felt the problem with FSX ATC was that it was called "ATC". I always preferred to think of it as simply an in-sim function that can be used in an ATC-like fashion. I always felt it was intended that it would get some continued improvements that didn't happen. The P3D version would be good to see with an upgrade of some kind.

2 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

What's all this about "vectoring back and forth 30 degrees"? Would it not be easier to just compile your flight plans such that the entire route is connected from departure to arrival? No vectoring required. I guess you guys just want to do it exactly like it is done in the real world, but compromises can be made. As Rhett has already indicated, using "direct to" is a very simple solution.

Even if you do a straight line IFR flight, if you're off by one degree for 30 miles, rather than giving you 5 degrees right or left for a period of, say, 10-15 minutes, they vector you left or right 30 degrees for 30 seconds to get you "back on course". Which is absurd. It often happens over and over again. 

11 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. VOXATC handles its own ATC and AI aircraft. It has nothing to do with the sim's ATC and AI traffic which must be disabled when you use VOXATC. When combined with fsaerodata and AIG traffic, the result is very realistic. I'm hoping that MSFS can duplicate this since nothing else presently does.

VoxATC might be the winner! Just checked it out and me likey! Of course now we're going to have to see about v5, because I'm upgrading come Tuesday. So that might put all this on hold for a few days. 

3 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

What's all this about "vectoring back and forth 30 degrees"? Would it not be easier to just compile your flight plans such that the entire route is connected from departure to arrival? No vectoring required. I guess you guys just want to do it exactly like it is done in the real world, but compromises can be made. As Rhett has already indicated, using "direct to" is a very simple solution.

I’m speaking strictly about the approach phase when ATC repeatedly vectors you back and forth on your way to the airport.  It seems to keep overcorrecting itself.  In cruise I have no vector issues.

Even if you have a fully connected STAR all the way to the Approach ATC will ignore it and vector you back and forth, even when a straight line would do.

Edited April 12, 20206 yr by regis9

3 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

What's all this about "vectoring back and forth 30 degrees"? Would it not be easier to just compile your flight plans such that the entire route is connected from departure to arrival? No vectoring required. I guess you guys just want to do it exactly like it is done in the real world, but compromises can be made. As Rhett has already indicated, using "direct to" is a very simple solution.

Fly an aircraft without a FMS or even a GTN. No diect to 😉. I know, I know, it is hard. Get you a lousy weather on a VOR to VOR route without a STAR. You need a vector approach at the end most of the times.

If you fly full IFR, the old ATC will ask you, long before the arrival area, to deviate from the course given by the NAV radio and to keep some heading. You don’t have radio instrument guidance anymore, no visibility and most probably side winds. The ATC is not happy that you don’t keep the heading and asks you to zig zag until the final approach. A pain.

There is a solution. You depart IFR, go VFR en route and wait for being beyond the last VOR close to your destination to declare IFR again and  benefit from the vectoring. Kind of gamey.

 

 

Just now, domkle said:

There is a solution. You depart IFR, go VFR en route and wait for being beyond the last VOR close to your destination to declare IFR again and  benefit from the vectoring. Kind of gamey.

I normally change to flight following once I get my approach clearance and ATC asks me to follow vectors.  This way i can follow the STAR and still have the benefit of the ATC chatter.  Part of what I meant by tricking it to do the trick 🙂 

Where this doesn’t work as cleanly are cases where there is no STAR or the STAR is vector heavy.

 

 

1 minute ago, regis9 said:

I normally change to flight following once I get my approach clearance and ATC asks me to follow vectors.  This way i can follow the STAR and still have the benefit of the ATC chatter.  Part of what I meant by tricking it to do the trick 🙂 

Where this doesn’t work as cleanly are cases where there is no STAR or the STAR is vector heavy.

 

I'm curious: as a real world pilot, what's the simming interest in STARs? Most real world pilots I know don't care for them. Sim pilots seem to love them. Maybe because gas is cheaper online? 😉

2 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

 

I'm curious: as a real world pilot, what's the simming interest in STARs? Most real world pilots I know don't care for them. Sim pilots seem to love them. Maybe because gas is cheaper online? 😉

Lol, all gas is pretty cheap right now 🙂

For me it’s a few things, some airports have interesting STARS so it’s about managing speed and altitude constraints.  As sim pilots we’re trying to replicate the real world as much as possible so flying a STAR into a busy airport is more immersive.  I understand that IRL ATC will sometimes give shortcuts, or vector off the star as traffic allows, but at the core you should plan to fly the star.

Finalldy, vectoring is poorly implemented with default ATC so vectors often end up with insanely long downwind legs and lots of micro adjustments to heading so I probably end up burning way less virtual fuel with a STAR 🙂

7 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

 

I'm curious: as a real world pilot, what's the simming interest in STARs? Most real world pilots I know don't care for them. Sim pilots seem to love them. Maybe because gas is cheaper online? 😉

LOL. Yeah, in the USA they're not a big deal mostly except for the few ODP STARS out there. But in Europe and much of the world they are the bee's knees...   

28 minutes ago, Sticky said:

LOL. Yeah, in the USA they're not a big deal mostly except for the few ODP STARS out there. But in Europe and much of the world they are the bee's knees...   

Interesting! What is the particular reason for that, do you know?

Maybe it's because I have relatively short flights in my PMDG 737 NGX (and use the "flight following" option), but my aircraft is never vectored anywhere. It follows the flight plan in the FMC to the letter every time. If I use a STAR for arrivals, I simply connect the end of the STAR to a suitable waypoint that can then be connected to the approach phase.

Am I missing something here?

3 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Maybe it's because I have relatively short flights in my PMDG 737 NGX (and use the "flight following" option), but my aircraft is never vectored anywhere. It follows the flight plan in the FMC to the letter every time. If I use a STAR for arrivals, I simply connect the end of the STAR to a suitable waypoint that can then be connected to the approach phase.

Am I missing something here?

It's the flight following option that is the difference for you.  I normally fly using IFR ATC, but will often switch to flight following on approach to avoid poorly done vectors.  The only downside is having to vector myself if/when the STAR ends and there's vectors to the approach. 

Disappointing that v5 won't have ATC improvements and/or fixes.  Oh well, hopefully MSFS 2020 will do a good job with ATC.

I just ignore the vectoring instructions and fly the approach myself.  One thing I *really* hate about the default ATC is that they give altitude instructions when you're only 300ft from the previously commanded altitude, so if you're climbing at 3000ft/min and you overshoot by 300ft because 10 seconds before you had to change frequencies from departure to center, then ATC will forever command you to descend requiring you to cancel the IFR flight plan and reload a modified plan if you've passed any waypoints.

Lockheed Martin should have fixed this as it's been a known issue for a long time.

Dave

I found a long forgotten feature in Radar Contact today. 😀 On my round the world tour I incorrectly chose the smaller airport on the east coast of Fiji instead of Nadi on the west coast.

There is an option in RC to request an alternate. Enter the ICAO and hit Enter. That is now your new destination. Unfortunately there is no option in EFB to choose an alternate but nevertheless, I got down with the new vectors supplied by RC4.

Can your chosen ATC program handle alternates?