FSX ATC Question

[Guest Doug Moldenhauer]

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?

[Geofa 108]

It depends on if you are flying in and out of atc boundries on your route-if you are criss crossing them with your route you can have lots of back in forths in rw also.GeofaMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[RFields5421 1]

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.

[MadDog 353]

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!

[Guest Mower]

I use Radar Contact 4.3 and AKAIK it has the same problems.

[Guest firehawk44]

"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

[Guest Doug Moldenhauer]

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.

[bkeske 0]

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.

[Geofa 108]

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/

[Guest byoungblood]

>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.

[Guest Doug Moldenhauer]

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.

[Geofa 108]

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/

[ryanbatc 12,820]

>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!!!

[Mace 1,902]

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

[Paul_Yorks 97]

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.