Wow, what a MASSIVE difference in ATC guidance.  FSHud gave me absolutely clear instructions on ascent and descent from KSLC>KDEN just now.  Here's just how clear:

Starting descent was cleared sequentially from cruise at 33K to 25K, 23K, 13K, 12K, 11K, 10.5K, 10K, 9K, 8K then cleared to land.  And that is exactly what I assumed was supposed to happen with ATC flying over the Rockies into KDEN.  I'm going to repeat this sometime soon in BATC which I did a while back and was struck then with the abject lack of descent guidance and see if it's still the case.

46 minutes ago, Noel said:

Here's just how clear:

Starting descent was cleared sequentially from cruise at 33K to 25K, 23K, 13K, 12K, 11K, 10.5K, 10K, 9K, 8K then cleared to land. 

Hm, well, that seems a bit TOO detailed to me... If ATC has to do that for every plane they won't have time to guide everyone. 13 to 12 to 11 to 10.5 to 10 to 9 to 8... That's over the top imho. Did FSHud guide ALL aircraft like that? But hey, what do I know. If FSHud does it like that I think I prefer the more sparse guidance that BATC is giving.

One thing is for sure: the perfect ATC addon doesn't exist and probably never will.

1 hour ago, flyingscampi said:

Ray is referring to options in Radar Contact you could configure before each flight to tell it how you wished to fly the departure and approach. There is no equivalent in BATC.

RC needed those options because it knew nothing about SIDs, STARs and Approaches. By selecting the options it was effectively saying that the pilot could do whatever he/she wanted without being admonished for not adhering to ATC instructions. We expect ATC programs to be more aware of procedures these days so that the pilot doesn't need to give them clues like this.

1 hour ago, kevinfirth said:

Critical error you mean?

Well yes, quite important. Does this mean VoxATC handles this better? 😄

2 hours ago, Mike T said:

3 hours ago, martinboehme said:

This may be true - but a real controller, certainly, when issuing a descent, needs to assume that the crew may descend in an idle descent (open descent in Airbus nomenclature) and needs to make sure that the aircraft will still remain at or above the MRVA in this case. BATC should ideally do the same.

That's not how ATC works. A controller gives you instructions based on the realities of the airspace, speed, separation, sequencing, etc. A controller is not concerned how you get to where you were commanded to be so he is not making any assumptions on your idle decent, whether you need to use spoilers, need to add throttle, or anything else that may upset your well laid plans on the flight deck. There is no ATC controller in the world that is concerned that the instruction given will cause you not to decent at idle decent. 

Sure. I never claimed that.

What I'm saying is: If a controller tells you "descend 3000 feet", then it's OK for you to perform an idle descent, and the controller needs to make sure that, if you do so, you don't end up below the MRVA.

8 minutes ago, ConstVoid said:

We expect ATC programs to be more aware of procedures these days so that the pilot doesn't need to give them clues like this.

It seems very good ATC programs are rarer than hen’s teeth. Having a 3D map of every airport and the terrain in a 30 mile radius around it is a monumental exercise.

John Dekker did start work on SIDs and STARs in v5 but it wasn’t easy and soon after he left flight sim for personal reasons.

47 minutes ago, mistolip said:

If ATC has to do that for every plane they won't have time to guide everyone. 13 to 12 to 11 to 10.5 to 10 to 9 to 8... That's over the top imho. Did FSHud guide ALL aircraft like that?

I don't know I'm too new at FSHud.  I can tell you there was def more interaction with AI traffic versus BATC at about the same density only I had FSHud with maybe 20% more aircraft. You have to also appreciate those last few calls were indeed as we fly over the Front Range to the plateau below.  And there was weather so to me it really seemed ideal.  I'll take this any day over this insanity while I'm at 34K feet cruise:  "Descend to 4000'....visual runway 24..."   The airport was at 4021' in mountainous surroundings!  If FSH is detailed too much, BATC is detailed too little! 

I got nothing on the way to cruise other than to follow the SID just now as we redo this route using BATC instead.  Don't need ATC for that.  We will be at TOD to KDEN pretty soon so will update this to compare in a few...

1 hour ago, mistolip said:

Hm, well, that seems a bit TOO detailed to me... If ATC has to do that for every plane they won't have time to guide everyone. 13 to 12 to 11 to 10.5 to 10 to 9 to 8... That's over the top imho. Did FSHud guide ALL aircraft like that? But hey, what do I know. If FSHud does it like that I think I prefer the more sparse guidance that BATC is giving.

One thing is for sure: the perfect ATC addon doesn't exist and probably never will.

Yeah, I agree, that is absurd, giving 1,000 foot instructions. 

5 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Yeah, I agree, that is absurd, giving 1,000 foot instructions. 

11, 10.5, 10, 500ft, lol. 

In Radar Contact the descent instructions from FL390 would be 350, 280, 240, 160.

70nm from the arrival airport you’d be instructed to descend to 110 for a nearside landing or 120 for a farside which must be achieved by 40nm out.

Different controllers are assigned to vertical sections of the skies. No way would real ATC give such small clearances.

42 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

In Radar Contact the descent instructions from FL390 would be 350, 280, 240, 160.

70nm from the arrival airport you’d be instructed to descend to 110 for a nearside landing or 120 for a farside which must be achieved by 40nm out.

Different controllers are assigned to vertical sections of the skies. No way would real ATC give such small clearances.

I believe FSHUD does it off of the approach charts and altitude constraints supplied by Navigraph and Simbrief so it is far more dynamic.  

 

15 minutes ago, psolk said:

I believe FSHUD does it off of the approach charts and altitude constraints supplied by Navigraph and Simbrief so it is far more dynamic.  

Different to BATC then.

-delete-

Edited February 24, 20251 yr by Tuskin38

15 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Different to BATC then.

Yes, and different to what you described in RC as well as how I always did it in PF3... 

If ATC was easy the sim producers would have mastered it by now 😉

2 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Yeah, I agree, that is absurd, giving 1,000 foot instructions. 

It did that only in the last 20 miles in weather with ample traffic.  When you clear the Front Range you only have about 30mi to the airport and that close sequence stretched over that 30mi distance.  Why is that an issue when there is ample traffic to deal with in the area?  I guess what you are saying is that if a plane is entering near airfield space ATC should only intervene as a controller if it seesa pending collision risk, otherwise you tell them from whatever altitude over mountains to descend according to the STAR?  Seems weird in this context.  And apparently it seemed weird to the devs at FSHud.

I love all the defense for BATC here which two days ago routes me with no escape over the mountains just a few miles north of Rwy15L at KSBA in a bizjet.  And worse still:  there wasn't even any traffic there!   That runway is used for touch and goes and departures over ocean.  And then it tells me from 34K cruise and 130mi out to "descend to 4000'" when the airport is over that elevation, in mountains?  You folks must be memorized over the nice voices in BATC to put up with this nonsense.

Edited February 24, 20251 yr by Noel

4 hours ago, ConstVoid said:

Does this mean VoxATC handles this better? 😄

Well, um, yes, and not just recently...

31 July 2017 Version 7.4 released

Terrain aware (no more vectors into mountains)