Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest davidvoogd

FSX ATC Question

Recommended Posts

Is it normal to have sooooo many frequency changes on a IFR Flight? It seems that on most of my flights I spend alot of time on the radio.I flew from IFR from KROC to KCLE...a flight that is only about 212nm, and I must have had 20 frequency changes.If I recall from fs9 that I noticed this as well. I purchased Radar Contact for fs9 so I never really payed any more attention to this.Is this normal or is this just a problem that was never addressed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Also watch your flight levels.10,000 ft is often a boundary. Moving above and below 10,000 ft can cause a freq change requirement.The problem is not solvable in a computer world where ATC boundaries have to be hard lines. Almost all cases when we can really track down the flight path, the person is flying right along a boundary, and very small normal movements cause the aircraft to cross the boundary several times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In real life, a controller will usually perform a "point-out" when an aircraft will enter a second controller's airspace for a short period of time. The second controller agrees to watch the aircraft and keeps his traffic separated from it... but he never talks to the aircraft. This prevents multiple (and annoying) frequency changes when an aircraft clips several airspace boundaries. Unfortunately, this is one (of the many) shortcomings of the FSX ATC... it doesn't intelligently recognize how long you'll be in any particular sector, so it constantly gives unnecessary frequency changes. Simulating point-outs is probably an easy fix - I was able to do it in a simple ATC program I wrote for the FLY! series years ago; but, Alas, ATC no longer seems to warrant ACES attention. It's a shame - just a few minor tweaks would make it a whole lot more user-friendly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"just a few minor tweaks would make it a whole lot more user-friendly!"I just wanted to stick my foot in the door and agree this issue with ATC is very annoying and wish there was a simply fix. Trying to respond to ATC's directions is sometimes difficult too, especially when landing/taking off at a major airport. I now sit back and continue my other landing/takeoff duties without even trying to respond until ATC quiets down, usually a minute or 2 after instructions are first issued (and it does noticably quiet down). This issue should be on the top of the "fix" list for FS11 and any future updates to Radar Contact. Best regards,Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responces guys. I thought I was the only one noticing this issue.I tend to like flying the Jets and the workload is already pretty high when responding to ATC controls while Departing or Arriving IFR. When you have a lot of frequency changes on top of it all, it kinda ruins some of the fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think Radar Contact does a much much better job at frequency changes.For instance, I have never gotten handed off to approach when flying close to an airport I have no intention of landing at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on the altitude you are at. Once you get above 6000 ft. or so you are usually dealing with Centers-below you will be dealing with local approach controllers. e.g. you can fly across the State of Michigan from east to west below 6000 and be controlled by every local Class B/C approach controller-Detroit, Lansing,Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids, Muskegon.GeofaMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Depends on the altitude you are at. Once you get above 6000>ft. or so you are usually dealing with Centers-below you will>be dealing with local approach controllers. >>e.g. you can fly across the State of Michigan from east to>west below 6000 and be controlled by every local Class B/C>approach controller-Detroit, Lansing,Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids,>Muskegon.>>Geofa>My blog:>http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/That assumes that there are approach control facilities available. More often than not, that is NOT the case. In such instances where there are no approach controls, center airspace will extend to the surface. Center airspace is usually broken down as follows:Surface-10,000: Ultra-low10,000-FL230: LowFL240-FL330: HighFL340+: Ultra-highThis does not always mean that there will be separate ultra-low or ultra-high sectors for all airspace over the US. Usually the low or high sector will cover from the surface or above FL330, respectively, unless there is enough traffic volume to warrant opening a ultra-low or ultra-high sector. For instance, there is an ultra-low sector just north of Atlanta that allegedly hasn't been operated in 10+ years! However, in FSX, the ATC assumes this sector is open and you'll get a handoff to it as soon as you skirt the outer edge of Atlanta Approach's airspace.I will say this, if you stick to airways, you're less likely to get constantly handed off in FSX. Airways are laid out in such a way that they avoid cutting across the corners of multiple sectors. Direct routing does not take this into consideration, hence why you may be handed off numerous times. IMHO, I'd reserve direct routings for shorter trips, maybe less than 150nm. Otherwise, stick to airways for most of the trip and fly direct from a fix that is within 15-20nm of your destination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comment and your description. In my case, I fly jets almost always, and I use High Altitude Airways always. Almost every fight I've had (almost all flights under 350 miles) like 20 frequency changes.I have had one exception and that was lastnight. I flew from KROC to KJFK at 25000ft and I only had a few changes in Rochester and then of course several as I transited the JFK airspace for a landing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm. I don't know if I'd agree with the more often than not statement.I've now flown now in every US state-and there are a heck of a lot of approach controls-especially when flying below 6000 ft. which I tend to do.GeofaMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>In real life, a controller will usually perform a "point-out">when an aircraft will enter a second controller's airspace for>a short period of time. The second controller agrees to watch>the aircraft and keeps his traffic separated from it... but he>never talks to the aircraft. This prevents multiple (and>annoying) frequency changes when an aircraft clips several>airspace boundaries. Unfortunately, this is one (of the many)>shortcomings of the FSX ATC... it doesn't intelligently>recognize how long you'll be in any particular sector, so it>constantly gives unnecessary frequency changes. Simulating>point-outs is probably an easy fix - I was able to do it in a>simple ATC program I wrote for the FLY! series years ago; but,>Alas, ATC no longer seems to warrant ACES attention. It's a>shame - just a few minor tweaks would make it a whole lot more>user-friendly!This is right on!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that you got your question answered, can I ask you, are you related to Manfred Moldenhauer? (He once wrote an FS scenery compiler called SCASM).RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.80 ghz), AC Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3 Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600 Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate 64ASX Client: AMD 3700+ (@ 2.6 ghz), 7800GT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed re: RC.I am continually harassed by the FSX ATC - to the point that ordinarily I refuse to contact the next controller, just for a quiet life.RC produces an entirely different and, I suggest, more realistic approach to ATC. Even on ATC boundaries I'm not thrown from moment to moment to another controller.Radar Contact is excellent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Now that you got your question answered, can I ask you, are>you related to Manfred Moldenhauer? (He once wrote an FS>scenery compiler called SCASM).>>>Rhett>>FS box: E8500 (@ 3.80 ghz), AC Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3>Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600>Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm>Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate>64>ASX Client: AMD 3700+ (@ 2.6 ghz), 7800GTI don't know....Its possible as that name isn't really prevolent :)I think he lives in Germany as I remember reading about his work several years back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a short "laundry list" of some of the other things that could easily be fixed in the FS ATC logic:1. When applicable, Use "Position and Hold" instructions after arrivals... not just departures. This would significantly shorten the departure queues at busier airports.2. Eliminate the drastic turns in the arrival pattern. The Flight Sim ATC establishes an invisible flight path that it wants you to fly to get set up for an approach (and issues vectors to keep you on that path). Unfortunately, if you stray from the centerline of that path (usually because of winds aloft), ATC issues turns of 30 degrees or more to get you back "on course" - followed shortly thereafter by another large turn back to the original heading. This is just plain dumb! Either use small correcting turns of 5-10 degrees or ignore the minor course deviations completely.3. Never, EVER! cancel an IFR flight plan because a pilot fails to reply to a control instruction. ATC does NOT have the authority to cancel flight plans (especially when there's a bug in FSX that occasionally prevents you from replying). As an FYI, if this bug ever hits you... just tune the radio to a different frequency and use the ATC dialogue to retune the original frequency - the necessary responses should then magically reappear.4. Quit calling traffic for aircraft that are vertically separated by more than 1000 feet. FS ATC does not "understand" merging target procedures and often makes unnecessary traffic calls.5. Speed Control for arriving aircraft! Go-Arounds will continue to be a major problem until the ATC learns to slow everybody down.There are more issues, but these problems can be fixed with very little effort... just a few lines of code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, maybe a little balance.I have never flow a high altitude route so readily admit no knowledge there.But a route I have flown quite a bit:kptk to ktys-412 nm.At least 2 different Detroit approach controllers, followed by Toledo approach, then about 3 Indy center freqs-possibly 2 Fort Wayne approach, then Dayton approach-2 different freqs, then Indy again, then Cinci approach, then Indy again, then Lexington approach, then Atlanta center, then Knoxville approach.At least 17 freq. changes-probably forgot a few(toledo-cinci that add another 4 total) . Go a little east and you also get Huntington approach and Tri cities (Va I think) in addition-go a little west and you get Louisville on a couple different freqs for them.The fs atc for sure isn't perfect but it isn't as far off as many think.What we really need is the controllers getting the call sign wrong-or the aircraft type wrong, or a change of clearance mid flight.That happens all the time-at least to me.GeofaMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you get the constant change frequencies it's usually from sitting on the boundary altitude, just ask for a change in cruise alt +/- 2000 feet. Or better yet - get Radar Contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites