2 hours ago, jarhead565 said:

This is correct. The people who actually know the rules in the real world have confirmed this is allowed.

 

1 hour ago, mtr75 said:

So it's allowed to vector IFR aircraft straight into a mountain? Right. Understood.

And I never said clearing an aircraft to some random altitude like 8,800 feet wasn't allowed, I said it wasn't done. And it's not.

 

On 8/13/2020 at 12:12 PM, mtr75 said:

Never in the history of aviation has an aircraft been asked to climb to or descend to some random altitude like 7,800. Never. An approach clearance, a la "Descend and maintain 3,600 until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 33 approach", sure. But just randomly? Nope. Absolutely bizarre. 

 

On 8/13/2020 at 12:31 PM, mtr75 said:

Yep. Level thousands for IFR (7,000, 8,000, etc.) and +500 for VFR (7,500, 8,500, etc.). They would never give you 7,800.

 

On 8/13/2020 at 12:34 PM, mtr75 said:

This has nothing to do with anything you've listed here. The altitudes given by ATC are incorrect and nonsensical. And as a RW pilot you know that as well.

I replied to the question about 8,800' being an assignable altitude, which it is. You seem to be in denial about this and do not want to accept the fact that other people are correct. 3,200/4,700/10,200 can all be assigned by ATC (In the US). I have issued instructions like this dozens of times and I have never been questioned by pilots. 

I don't think anyone is arguing about the fact that 8,800' is wrong because it does not clear terrain along the route. That is very clear. 

Admitted newbie here. Have been following this thread, and no one has mentioned whether we are "maintaining 7900" yet. Please inform as I'm in the Alps, and snow is threatening. 

P. S. My AI isn't working either 

 

 

3 hours ago, mtr75 said:

And I never said clearing an aircraft to some random altitude like 8,800 feet wasn't allowed, I said it wasn't done. And it's not.

Not sure what world you live in, but as mentioned over and over again, it's very common and it's done frequently. 

12 hours ago, jarhead565 said:

 

 

 

 

I replied to the question about 8,800' being an assignable altitude, which it is. You seem to be in denial about this and do not want to accept the fact that other people are correct. 3,200/4,700/10,200 can all be assigned by ATC (In the US). I have issued instructions like this dozens of times and I have never been questioned by pilots. 

I don't think anyone is arguing about the fact that 8,800' is wrong because it does not clear terrain along the route. That is very clear. 

Since you clearly didn’t get it the first time, I did not say it was not assignable. Thanks. 

11 hours ago, Dave_YVR said:

Not sure what world you live in, but as mentioned over and over again, it's very common and it's done frequently. 

No it’s not. On approaches, yes. They do not give cruise altitudes like 8,800. Period. 

Mike, there's a big difference between "instructions that have never been given in the history of worldwide aviation" and "was very hopeful for MSFS."  We were ALL very hopeful for MSFS, but it looks like they weren't able to improve ATC any better than everyone else who has tried it.

At worst, you'll be flying MSFS the same way you've been flying previous sims with regard to ATC.  

Hook

1 hour ago, mtr75 said:

No it’s not. On approaches, yes. They do not give cruise altitudes like 8,800. Period. 

Well I'd bet my pension on the fact that "they" do give cruise altitudes like that if requested and/or if needed by ATC. 

1 hour ago, mtr75 said:

Since you clearly didn’t get it the first time, I did not say it was not assignable. Thanks. 

But you did say that these assignments were "instructions that have never been given in the history of worldwide aviation" and "Never in the history of aviation has an aircraft been asked to climb to or descend to some random altitude like 7,800. Never."

You were wrong. Move on.

•  

It seems to me that the fundamental point of the OP is being lost here, i.e. the MSFS ATC has some flaws and they need to be fixed.

Responses such as "well, don't buy it then" are not helpful and are simply hyperbolic reactions on the part of some folks who for whatever reason can't tolerate criticisms of the new sim.

There's a quote in an Italian song that translates to "those who content themselves enjoy things so so".  If you don't speak out and complain about things when they're not right then they will never be fixed or improved, and all you'll ever end up with are products or services that are mediocre or poor quality.

mtr75 is a licensed private pilot, so I think he knows a little bit about ATC, probably more than most of us here.  Maybe we should listen to him.

Dave

2 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

mtr75 is a licensed private pilot, so I think he knows a little bit about ATC, probably more than most of us here.  Maybe we should listen to him.

Dave

If it weren’t for the fact that he’s crossing swords with 2 ATC controllers, I would agree.

my point is that it’s akin to slagging off a group of scientists because they haven’t been able to make cold fusion work.  As nobody has ever proven to have done it, it’s a bit much.  Nobody, including me will try to say that the Atc is perfect, or even particularly good, but making ai routines is not easy.

6 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

the MSFS ATC has some flaws and they need to be fixed.

I think everyone here knows MSFS ATC has flaws.  The same as every other fight sim ATC ever made.  The question isn't whether they NEED to be fixed, it's whether they CAN be fixed.  If it is important enough, and it can be fixed, someone will do so.  My question is why hasn't this already happened, and not just with MSFS.

Hook

1 minute ago, ShawnG said:

it’s akin to slagging off a group of scientists because they haven’t been able to make cold fusion work.

Perfect!  Love it.  Thank you.

Hook

9 minutes ago, LHookins said:

My question is why hasn't this already happened, and not just with MSFS.

That would be the answer of the decades 🙂

I think it may have to do with the AI and keeping track and syncing everything within that realm.

One of my friends actually began working on his own ATC code from scratch for FSX, back in the day, and within just a few days or so he got it working really well as far as vectoring us around for both flight and approaches. It even worked in MP sessions for both of us. What it did NOT do was track or interact with the AI.

If 1 person can get it to work within a few days, then obviously MS can make it happen as well. I'd rather have a solid and proper atc system in place that at least works in MP for humans. If they need to leave out the AI from atc then so be it for now.

Edited August 15, 20205 yr by hangar

5 minutes ago, LHookins said:

I think everyone here knows MSFS ATC has flaws.  The same as every other fight sim ATC ever made.  The question isn't whether they NEED to be fixed, it's whether they CAN be fixed.  If it is important enough, and it can be fixed, someone will do so.  My question is why hasn't this already happened, and not just with MSFS.

Hook

There is no doubt in my mind that they can indeed be fixed.

At my old job I sometimes spent many hours trying to figure out how to solve various problems using code, and almost gave up on several occasions.  It took some perseverance, research, and much trial and error, but in almost every case I eventually figured out how to do it, and I'm not a software engineer.  If I could do what I did, then I have no doubt that the software engineers at Microsoft/Asobo can figure it out.

Will it take more time and resources?  Yes.

The question is: are they willing to devote the necessary time and effort to making realistic ATC?

I'd gladly pay extra for good, accurate, professional quality ATC.

Dave

17 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

It seems to me that the fundamental point of the OP is being lost here, i.e. the MSFS ATC has some flaws and they need to be fixed.

Responses such as "well, don't buy it then" are not helpful and are simply hyperbolic reactions on the part of some folks who for whatever reason can't tolerate criticisms of the new sim.

There's a quote in an Italian song that translates to "those who content themselves enjoy things so so".  If you don't speak out and complain about things when they're not right then they will never be fixed or improved, and all you'll ever end up with are products or services that are mediocre or poor quality.

mtr75 is a licensed private pilot, so I think he knows a little bit about ATC, probably more than most of us here.  Maybe we should listen to him.

Dave

There seems to be a few points that he is trying to make.

1. 8,800' would never be and has not been assigned by ATC other than on approach, ever in the history of aviation.

2. The new ATC implementation is bugged and should be better for a brand new game.