ATC normally issues vectors with headings rounded to the nearest 5 degrees, except on surveillance radar approaches (ASR/PAR).  I've never heard a center or terminal radar controller say "Fly heading 234"--it would always be "fly heading 235"

 

The "radar contact" call is only made when radar identification of the acft is first accomplished--after that, handoffs are normally acknowledged by ATC with "roger" or other instructions.  Subsequent ATC controllers won't state "radar contact" on an initial check-in after handoff from another controller as long as the acft remains under radar control.

Example: (from departure leg)
Tower: American 252, contact departure
AAL252: American 252 to departure
AAL252: Phoenix departure, American 252, at 1200 climbing to 5000
Departure: American 252, Phoenix departure, radar contact passing 1300, climb and maintain flight level 230
AAL252: flight level 230, American 252
Departure: American 252, contact Albuquerque Center 127.15
AAL252: Albuquerque on 127.15, American 252
AAL252: Albuquerque Center, American 252 with you through FL200 for FL230
ABQ Ctr: American 252, Albuquerque Center, roger
ABQ Ctr: American 252, contact Fort Worth Center, 123.25
AAL252: Ft Worth on 123.25, American 252
AAL252: Ft Worth Center, American 252 with you level at FL230
Ft Worth Ctr: American 252, Ft Worth Center, roger (if no further instructions are given) -or- American 252, Ft Worth Center, climb and maintain FL290

Bob,

You are correct.  These issues have been around a while and are actually on the slate to be fixed in the next version.

It's still undecided if the rounded headings will work well enough for vectors to final, but other, more general headings, should get rounded.  Years ago, the headings were all rounded and it resulted in criss-crossing the desired track on long vectors to final, which was unacceptable.

Dave

On 8/28/2022 at 8:06 AM, Dave-Pilot2ATC said:

It's still undecided if the rounded headings will work well enough for vectors to final, but other, more general headings, should get rounded.  Years ago, the headings were all rounded and it resulted in criss-crossing the desired track on long vectors to final, which was unacceptable.

Dave;

I wrote a program back in the FS9 days that did radar pattern vectors (and ASR/PAR surveillance approaches as well), and instead of aiming to keep the acft on a desired ground track in the radar pattern, I computed target turn points for the pattern, and as long as the computed CPA (closest point of approach) remained within a few miles of the turn point, I left things alone.  If the CPA, based on actual ground track, went outside the "bubble", then a corrected vector was issued.  This kept the controller from thrashing the pilot with far too many (and too large) heading changes, which is something I'm noticing happens with vectoring in P2ATC.  I flew an approach into Atlanta the other day and P2ATC was just bombarding me with excessively large 30-degree heading changes back-and-forth. 

Another advantage was the ability to create/use an override database that had custom turn points and a rough equivalent of an MVA at each turn point for airfields in proximity to high terrain.

I ended up shelving it because text-to-speech was really pretty underwhelming back in those days.

Regards

Thanks Bob.

Dave