ATC is a bust...

[snwboardn 87]

20 minutes ago, Aceman2020 said:

They can just truncate quote to 3 lines when quoted. You should not be able to edit someone quote.

I have never seen a forum where you can't edit someone's quote. 

[Dillon 2,198]

35 minutes ago, andyjohnston.net said:

That may be what it stands for, but flying IFR means using the ATC to get you on your course, keep you away from other traffic etc.  And then at the end they vector you around to either capture the ILS or until you have a visual on the runway.

 

Correct!

[Dillon 2,198]

45 minutes ago, JughedJones said:

I did two flights last night the the TBM.    One from KPDX to KSFO and one from LOWI to EDDH. 

 

Both were visually stunning flights, but moreover, the ATC was perfect.  Gave me perfect step by step instructions and lined me up to final at the proper altitude to catch the localizer.   

 

I was incredibly happy with the whole thing.  

 

Sorry there's no tips here, just want to chime in and say, with a SIDS and STARS trip, it went off without a hitch. 

All my flight was with the CJ4, I wonder does that have something to do with it.  First it was the Longitude now this...

[Doug47 574]

59 minutes ago, andyjohnston.net said:

That may be what it stands for, but flying IFR means using the ATC to get you on your course, keep you away from other traffic etc.  And then at the end they vector you around to either capture the ILS or until you have a visual on the runway.

 

IFR means flying by instruments and not looking out the window for landmarks. ATC separates traffic. But again, if you need ATC to ‘get you on your course’ or need it to ‘find the runway’,  holy sheesh kabob. You don’t need a GPS to do any of that. Of course ATC vectoring currently would help if needed and be realistic depending on your location, type of airport. 
 

I can’t see how a default ATC though could ever cover the world with different systems used and be reasonably accurate. For the payware developers me thinks. 

[molleh 451]

4 hours ago, Doug47 said:

I can’t see how a default ATC though could ever cover the world with different systems used and be reasonably accurate. For the payware developers me thinks. 

I don't get why we are so eager to pass the buck and let Asobo off the hook here. There's room for them to improve within reasonable expectations.

[Wothan 180]

For a 2020 title I had expexted a much better ATC,

I will even say that it is worse than FSX/P3D.

[Doug47 574]

6 hours ago, molleh said:

I don't get why we are so eager to pass the buck and let Asobo off the hook here. There's room for them to improve within reasonable expectations.

I see your point. I wonder though if we’re asking almost the impossible from a default atc? The time and effort involved I think would be better spent on the flight model, weather issues and so on. 

[HighBypass 2,339]

13 hours ago, Aceman2020 said:

I agree from my limited ATC experience so far. I guess they will vector you in based on the wind so you might have to switch approach plates on the fly...which is annoying.

Hopefully one can use ATIS and/or a METAR to make sure that it's less of a surprise. Can you not also request a runway from ATC?

I never thought that editing a quote was strange (my emphasis above for example) - yes it can be used maliciously, or for amusement, but one usually gets picked up on that kind of trick.

Default ATC has always tried to vector you onto the localiser or a visual approach when you're IFR ever since FSX at least.. 

[atlflyer 138]

15 hours ago, Skywolf said:

Two words or one name - PilotEdge

pilotedge supports msfs2020 now?

[cantremember 27]

I haven't done much yet with the ATC, but I have 3 problems so far with it:

- Constant frequency changes, sometimes just keeping me for a few seconds on a frequency before they change their mind again.

- ATC harassing AI traffic at cruise altitude that they are 20k feet above their assigned altitude and need to descend.

- They always speak in feet, and never use flight levels, even for very high altitudes

[HiFlyer 9,374]

3 minutes ago, cantremember said:

I haven't done much yet with the ATC, but I have 3 problems so far with it:

- Constant frequency changes, sometimes just keeping me for a few seconds on a frequency before they change their mind again.

- ATC harassing AI traffic at cruise altitude that they are 20k feet above their assigned altitude and need to descend.

- They always speak in feet, and never use flight levels, even for very high altitudes

Everyone understands feet. Not everyone who will be using this program however, especially newbies, will know what the heck a flight level is.

Edited August 25, 2020 by HiFlyer

[snglecoil 1,828]

29 minutes ago, atlflyer said:

pilotedge supports msfs2020 now?

Soon, they have a client ready to go, but Simconnect which allows their client to talk to MSFS is currently broken. Vatsim is in the same boat.

[Charlie15842 3]

18 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Everyone understands feet. Not everyone who will be using this program however, especially newbies, will know what the heck a flight level is.

Well I guess its more a "There is no transition altitude implemented" thing.

More important would be the implementation of atmospheric pressure in hectopascals. This one I really find annoying. 

[atlflyer 138]

13 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

Soon, they have a client ready to go, but Simconnect which allows their client to talk to MSFS is currently broken. Vatsim is in the same boat.

also going to be hard when the taxiways are not marked correctly in the game. Going to have to stare at the airport chart to figure out which way to go. 

[FPStewy 538]

57 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

Default ATC has always tried to vector you onto the localiser or a visual approach when you're IFR ever since FSX at least.. 

Your right on that, here's something to test out, jump into a plane put in a dep/arrival but the arrival is a towered airport and let ATC do it's thing it will vector you into a LOC with a transition. That I did find it did very well, however problems seem to arise when requesting a diff approach.