10 minutes ago, kerosene31 said:

Quite simply you can't rely on MSFS 2020 ATC to even get you anywhere near lined up with a runway.  Far too often, it just vectors you off randomly and makes no sense.  FSX ATC was far from perfect, but most of the time at least it put you pointed towards a runway for a reasonable landing.  FSX was far from perfect, but it was consistent and you could usually rely on it to not virtually kill you.  Maybe you'd get a 50 mile approach in a 172 in FSX, but it got you there. 

Also, as a FA flyer, the ATC loves to ask you to climb to 20,000 feet +.  I'm in a 172 and we're over flat terrain.  This isn't one of those once in awhile kind of quirks, but all the time. 

I never expect the default to use proper procedures or anything.  If you fired up a quick flight in FSX you could rely on it to point you towards a runway.  In 2020 I regularly have to switch to VFR or ignore it, as it is flat out doing things that make zero sense. 

There never has been a default ATC in any sim I have used, so no surprise this one wasn't any good either. 

It’s good enough that I use it nearly every flight.  While a total ground up redo (ie to actually control / separate traffic) would be great, there are some more basic improvements I’d like to see:

- provide climb/descent clearances earlier, not right as you’re arriving at the previously cleared altitude.

- a fix for the issue where the initial descent clearance never comes of comes very late

- on a STAR with stepped descents, just clear me to descend via the STAR to a certain altitude instead of clearing me to each stepped altitude

- after takeoff, give me a vector or clear me direct to my first waypoint instead of just telling me to proceed on course.

- provide actual vectors and/or other useful guidance on the path to final approach

- utilize proper air pressure units depending on where you are in the world.

There’s more, but even this list would improve the quality of life in using the ATC system.

Edited January 19, 20233 yr by regis9

31 minutes ago, regis9 said:

It’s good enough that I use it nearly every flight.  

For me its not good enough, but I still use it every flight, because I have no choice... 

2 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Unfortunately hills and mountains seem to be all over the world, which to me, makes it totally useless. 

Well it would be useless if it didn't manage mountainous terrain--but it does, so it's not useless.  I use it every day, I ought to know.  FSX absolutely shot me into mountains far more than MSFS ATC does--now.  Initially, some, but this has not happened to me for ages.  I also use the World Map Planner and input the same waypoints and this is likely also why ATC does not "vector me off randomly".  If I decide to omit a way point on the fly sure ATC will be directing me to the former waypoint. 

If ATC can direct you thru this sequence and be spot on, this is an acid test.  I did it in weather, and ATC directed every step of the descent and RNAV approach.  Go try it yourself:

 

2 hours ago, regis9 said:

It’s good enough that I use it nearly every flight.  While a total ground up redo (ie to actually control / separate traffic) would be great, there are some more basic improvements I’d like to see:

- provide climb/descent clearances earlier, not right as you’re arriving at the previously cleared altitude.

- a fix for the issue where the initial descent clearance never comes of comes very late

- on a STAR with stepped descents, just clear me to descend via the STAR to a certain altitude instead of clearing me to each stepped altitude

- after takeoff, give me a vector or clear me direct to my first waypoint instead of just telling me to proceed on course.

- provide actual vectors and/or other useful guidance on the path to final approach

- utilize proper air pressure units depending on where you are in the world.

There’s more, but even this list would improve the quality of life in using the ATC system.

The first one alone would already be a big improvement. Provide the clearances earlier and randomize it a bit. Currently, clearance comes like a couple hundred feet before reaching an altitude, when the aircraft is already levelling off. 🙄

 

I always use the default ATC, I think the integration within the sim (UI) and 'control' over AI is unparalleled by other ATC solutions. I've tried many, but they don't come close to the simplicity of the default ATC, flawed as it may be. Although I do remember Radar Contact and its transparent UI provided by FSUIPC? I think that was one of the best ones I tried.

 

2023 really needs to be the year for ATC/AI improvements. Almost 20 years since the release of FS9. You'd think they could cook up something better by now...

I think it's pretty simple as to why we don't have any viable ATC options: it's really, really hard to do, correctly and realistically. Here's to hoping Asobo and Co throw a lot of people on it and completely overhaul it. 

6 hours ago, G550flyer said:

It does for me Sir. Don't you know there are places in the world where the ATC is NOT responsible for terrain clearance? Take Honduras for example. When going into this field, MHPR, they will clear you low before you are clear of terrain. It you were foolish to descend, you will hit terrain. Again, you have to stay on your Ps and Qs when operating. I remember going into Moscow and I was cleared 300 below MSA. Just because he clears me down, doesn't mean I blindly do it. Like I mentioned before, you have to do that pilot "stuff". ATC is only partly responsible for terrain clearance in the US. Maybe you didn't get my point, but that's ok.

Have you ever landed at MHTG/Toncontin?   Or MHLM (San Pedro de Sula)?

As for ATC in MSFS, you oughta try Pilot2ATC.  It's far, far from perfect (nothing is so far) but it's better than anything else I've tried.  And you can talk to it, and it understands you ...most of the time.

7 minutes ago, Mace said:

Have you ever landed at MHTG/Toncontin?   Or MHLM (San Pedro de Sula)?

As for ATC in MSFS, you oughta try Pilot2ATC.  It's far, far from perfect (nothing is so far) but it's better than anything else I've tried.  And you can talk to it, and it understands you ...most of the time.

For me that is a big turn off. Having to wear a headset, talk into a mic, and hope the program doesn't  misinterpret what I am saying . With PF3 I have to learn three hotkeys, and it does everything perfectly. every time. . 

Edited January 19, 20233 yr by Bobsk8

Just now, Bobsk8 said:

For me that is a big turn off. Having to wear a headset, talk into a mic, and hope the program doesn't  misinterpret what I am saying . With PF3 I have to learn three hotkeys, and it does everything. 

You don't have to talk to it.  Notice I said "you *can* talk to it"

6 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Unfortunately hills and mountains seem to be all over the world, which to me, makes it totally useless. 

Try flights in the Netherlands or Florida. Flat as a pancake. 😁
Radar Contact v4 was very popular and still works really well. Just one catch of course. 🙂

1 hour ago, Mace said:

Have you ever landed at MHTG/Toncontin?   Or MHLM (San Pedro de Sula)?

As for ATC in MSFS, you oughta try Pilot2ATC.  It's far, far from perfect (nothing is so far) but it's better than anything else I've tried.  And you can talk to it, and it understands you ...most of the tim

Yes, I would fly into  MHTG a lot. I love that approach even though they have dug out the runway a bit. I have pilot2ATC too. Sometimes I just want to fire up MSFS and go without having to deal with other programs. With pilot2ATC, I have to keep clicking in and out of windows at time. There's pro atc too, it also runs natively inside of the so no click in and out of windows.

30 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Try flights in the Netherlands or Florida. Flat as a pancake. 😁
Radar Contact v4 was very popular and still works really well. Just one catch of course. 🙂

that's where I flew my Milviz 310 all day today, from Belgium, to The Netherlands to Germany. never got over 4500 feet. BTW, this C 310 is the best GA aircraft I have ever flown in a flight sim.

 

Edited January 19, 20233 yr by Bobsk8

I use the default ATC on VFR every flight (but never IFR), and I find it ok... but not as something that's simulating reality, moreso, just for the ambience.  For VFR, I just use it for t/o and landing clearances and then just handovers for flight following.   It does that absolute basic function ok, and as I said, it's more just for some ATC 'style' ambience.

IFR is a different story - really not great at all.  THe most common frustration I have is where I take off VFR, then use the feature to open the IFR flight plan in the air.   I'm flying the CJ4, I'm already at 11,000 and ATC insists I descend to 6,000.    Sorry, not going to happen! 😄

31 minutes ago, G550flyer said:

Yes, I would fly into  MHTG a lot. I love that approach even though they have dug out the runway a bit. I have pilot2ATC too. Sometimes I just want to fire up MSFS and go without having to deal with other programs. With pilot2ATC, I have to keep clicking in and out of windows at time. There's pro atc too, it also runs natively inside of the so no click in and out of windows.

I never click in and out of windows with Pilot2ATC.  ??   It just runs in the background the whole time, super-immersive.  I think if I didn't want to talk to ATC (where's the fun in that though?)  I would say PF3 is more suited though.  Pilot2ATC's non-talking WOULD require you to click out of the window and that's not ideal.

I landed (in sim) at MHTG many times before they dug out the hill, and then later I acquired scenery with the hill dug out a little more.  And if you're saying after they dug it out it was easier, I would agree.  I used a couple of reference points on the ground for a VFR approach, a cemetery was one, and the last of them in my sequence was a cloverleaf interchange as I circled in.  Haven't flown that approach in MSFS yet!  I know I'll be rusty.

I'm the OP.  Thanks for all your responses.  I concur that the current ATC is very much like the one we had in FSX / P3D.  For that reason it is more or less what I expect ATC to be for right or wrong.  When ASOBO attacks a rewrite I am more than willing to see the improvements but as stated the current state of ATC is OK by me.

sp