>>Another easy change I want to see. AI aircraft will fly>complex and sometimes curving Offset LDA, GPS, RNAV, Circle to>Land, NDB, VOR approaches under IMC.>>They will only fly straight in ILS and straight in visual>approaches under VMC.>This is true. It was discussed in the circling approach thread in "The Hangar". I could not get AI to do the circling approach into MHTG.They fly straight-in, and consequently through terrain, to the runway.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

This one I have the answer for. After reading an article about it on flightsim.com, I joined VATSIM and started flying with them online about 4 weeks ago. The smile hasn't left my face since. Totally awesome!This gives you real human ATC, plus human operated traffic. It gives the flying a whole new sense of realism (even beyond the strict ATC aspects), and makes you feel part of a community in a way that Forums and such like never will.Getting started is a little scary, and there's a lot to learn, but oh boy is it ever worth it. There are members and servers all over the world.Last night the LA region hosted a modest special event based on Palm Springs. I flew in there from San Diego, with highly professional ATC all the way, then, at LA Center, they had a controller taking the test to be upgraded a level, so there was all kinds of traffic heading in there to make sure he got a real good work out. He was in Russia, I was in Texas, and we were all, virtually, in LA.I'm still flying VFR on VATSIM, but you can fly any approach or procedure in the book and get spot on ATC, and if you think you're pretty good with all the "canned" responses to ATC in FS, then flying on VATSIM (where you actually talk to the controllers) is a whole new ballgame.www.vatsim.net

I rarely respond to traffic calls and just ignore them, since ATC will not terminate your IFR flt. plan if you don't respond.

Meh...VATSIM, at it's best, can't be beat, there's no doubt...Having said that, after 2000 or so hours with VATSIM, around half of which have been completely uncontrolled, well, that gets a little old too.Radar Contact has definitely taken over the bulk of my flight time. It may not be as good as VATSIM can be, but it certainly is more enjoyable, for me, than the all too often empty skies of VATSIM.RCv5 only looks to take it even further, sometime in 2008.As always, YMMV.

SIDs and STARS, as mentioned above :) Holding patterns are another vexing issue for me. These are relatively basic features in every day flying ... they can't be that difficult to add ;)

>>Give me back ATC at my local field. They were there in>>FS2002, but not in FS9 or FSX.>>What is your local field? Does it have ATC in the real world?> R-KGLS is a REAL towered airfield in the REAL world, but not in the world of FSX.I hope the next iteration of FSX will have online updates to existing airfields, etc. Something like obtaining the weather, but it will allow you to obtain information more dynamically.

When was the tower added in Galveston. My Jeppsen USA set does not have a tower for that airport - though it's my FS set and is Spring 2005 like FSX.Let me know the frequency, and I'll work on the code to add it.

>When was the tower added in Galveston. My Jeppsen USA set>does not have a tower for that airport - though it's my FS set>and is Spring 2005 like FSX.>>Let me know the frequency, and I'll work on the code to add>it.Galveston:CT - 120.575ASOS - 119.275GND CON - 118.625Galveston is now Class D.

SIDS (DP) and STARS as others saidand emergency landing options, that would make me a happy chappy with the default ATC.Someone said that the majority who fly big iron don't fly SIDs and STARS but I think that is because they ethier don't know about them or it is too much bother because of the default ATC, if the SIDs STARS option was available I believe many would start using them that didn't before.I have radar contact but am not completely happy with it yet, maybe when RC5 comes but I doubt it.

One very easy change"Cleared for takeoff runway 27R... WINDS 260 AT 9 KNOTS"... would be nice. Not difficult to code I imagine, and it is standard practice to read over the wind here in the UK on takeoff and landing clearences.

I've only had that once in real life here. Most of the time, they just clear you for takeoff, and tell you which way to turnout based on where you're going (i.e. tell them you want a northwest departure on runway 180 and they'll likely tell you "cleared for takeoff, right turnout approved"). If you are remaining in the pattern they might say "cleared for takeoff, make left traffic".I, like many others, would like to see UNICOM operations. I'd also like to see FSS operations and support for advanced comm. procedures like communicating with FSS RCOs that require you to transmit on one station, and recieve over a different one, like a VOR.First and foremost however- I'd like to see voice-recognition for the ATC component. It's ridiculous to talk to ATC with a keyboard- completely removes immersion, and most importantly- the challenge. Seeing a list of available choices is not something you get in real life, and is part of the reason many people think ATC is easy until they try it in real life.

Christian-you might want to try voxatc for voice recognition. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Voice recognition you say. Good idea but it would have to be optional as it may well reduce frame rates even further and it would be throwing many new users in at the deep end without the benefit of an instructor. I well remember my first lesson in a C152 (many years ago) and before we moved I had to get an airways clearance from the tower. I got "Mike fright". The one thing the current system does accomplish is to give new users and appreciation of the patter of ATC comms and not too badly.I guess that one of the general issues with FS is that it is a lot of different things to a lot of different users each with their own agenda. We have those who want to practise IFR techniques to those who are taking their first faltering steps into the air. Another matter of voice recognition is that it would need to be localised (as does the current system)as there are some differences between countries ATC comms. While we are at it why not introduce some local accents because immersion is also destroyed when every ATC controller in the world hails from Uncle Sam.

>>One very easy change>>"Cleared for takeoff runway 27R... WINDS 260 AT 9 KNOTS"...>would be nice. Not difficult to code I imagine, and it is>standard practice to read over the wind here in the UK on>takeoff and landing clearences. >>Every so often, if they think the wind might be a factor, I hear them call winds over the radio when turning to final. Not sure if I have ever heard them call winds before takeoff -- that's not to say it doesn't happen. I'm sure it varies with each locale.

Sweden