As people start to get RC3 up and running I would love to hear some more first impressions. I

I am an instrument rated pilot and a air traffic controller. I am also a RC beta tester. I love RC. It's great for IFR flying, it follows all the rules of the controller ATC handbook, FAA 7110.65Larry

---

http://www.jdtllc.com/images/RCbeta.jpg

I would have to ditto the other response. I am a commercial pilot and find that this is pretty much as real as it can get! The only thing holding this wonderful program back is the add-on, M$ 200x!!

I hold an FAA Aircraft Dispatchers license and had the exceptional privilege of helping test RCv3. Rest assured you won't find a better ATC experience anywhere else for flight simulation! Michael Collierhttp://jdtllc.com/images/RCbeta.jpg

Hello Group, As I have been at odds with JD on how Approach Control handles incoming traffic I will indeed read the FAA 7110.65, and any other related official publications, so that I can relate what I hear on my ATC receiver here at home, which I have been doing for many years, of both KPVD Approach Control (Providence RI) and KBOS Approach Control (Boston MA) to what you folks are saying. If I can find anything in the above mentioned publications that are at odds with my understanding of the ATC Approach Control phase I will both apologize to JD and eat more crow. I am not saying that I am correct. I am just trying to express what I have been hearing from the ATC Approach Controls at the two facilities mentioned above.Regards

Hi Blais,Ask anything you want and I can quote you the paragraph out of the 7110.65. We have attempted to follow the manual as closely as possible in developing RCV3.LarryCommercial/Instrument PilotAir Traffic Controller at Chicago TRACON

---

http://www.jdtllc.com/images/RCbeta.jpg

Hi aca_dia,As an instrument rated pilot and avid FS simmer, I can tell you with confidence that RC3 is the most realistic ATC simulation for IFR on FS. Is it perfect? No. (That's why we will have V4, V5, V6, etc.) With that said, it is still the best available IFR ATC today for FS, IMHO. Like what has been mentioned before, RC's real world handling of procedures, as defined by 7110.65, is it's bread and butter. While nothing is as realistic as real-world IFR pilotage, RC3 handles the procedures in a real-world IFR manner.Take care,Davidhttp://www.jdtllc.com/images/RCbeta.jpg

Larry,Those are modest credentials you have listed there. Being in the Tower, then on TRACON then ZAU Center then supervisor and now ATC instructor puts you at almost the very top of the ATC food chain. ;-)And you even figured out how to get two systems to work together using WideFS!We're very proud of you. ;-)

isn't bill stevens at the top of the atc food chain? :-lol

Ah yes, 'ol Bill :-eek As I walked in his home (my neighbor), he was just finishing up his lunch, a private pilot. I told him the RC family would love a picture.I caught the flick immediately after his :-mad "THEY WANT WWHHAATT?!":-mad response. I flashed, and ran!

Doug,"I flashed and ran."Don't you mean you flashed, then took the picture, and ran? ;-)(Hey, it's the only way to get "Bill" to stand still for a moment!)Bill must be off his diet. I thought a private pilot was an aperitif, and a nice heavy pilot was lunch? :-lol

Hi Larry, I AM NOT an ATC controller so I speak with no practical experience and DO listen to what the PROs say. I base my statements solely on what I hear from the KPVD and KBOS Approach Controllers plus what I've heard on the several dozen flights across the US, normally via KORD, and almost always use UAL because I can listen to their Channel 9 which was the communications channel between the aircraft and the different phases of ATC. I also try to read as many useful texts on the world and practices of ATC There are two locations that were of greatest interest to me in the real world. The first was going into KSLC via the OCS transition and second was the Madwin Three, FMG transition, into KOAK R29. I haven't tried the KSLC route with RC yet but I have tried the KOAK one. My bone of contention is that the RC folks should have an option allowing modification of the default RC vectoring, within limits, so that you would not be vectored into a mountain. That is the essence of my being at odds with the RC folks. I have no other beef. Yes, we could file a NOTAM for the ARRVAL airport but if we are going to fly the STAR and then fly from that last waypoint, or FIX to the proper runway without Approach Control's guidance then WHY do we even bother to use ATC? This isn't meant as a derogatory statement. You could answer by saying that there is no way any MS related add-on program could program their ATC for all possible STARS and airports. I realize that and that is why I make my statement in terms of a user option to assist Approsch Control in their vectoring. The vectoring could be generic but drawn from a generic table or list. I have no quarrels with the program at all except for what I see as a severe limit on RC itself. It is a good add-on but imagine how much more the improvement could be if an option such as this could be woven in. Thanks for responding to me Larry. I do look forward to V3.Cheers

> You could answer by saying that there is no way any MS >related add-on program could program their ATC for all >possible STARS and airports.Can you point us to some other MS add-on ATC program that has incorporated all possible STAR's and airports into their ATC?>I realize that and that is why >I make my statement in terms of a user option to assist >Approsch Control in their vectoring. The vectoring could be >generic but drawn from a generic table or list. Sorry, but I'm having trouble visualizing what you mean, but it sounds interesting. Presumably you're suggesting something that would be easier to implement than incorporating the data for all the STAR's into RC. What kind of data would your table contain, and how would the data be applied in specific situations? > I have no quarrels with the program at all except for >what I see as a severe limit on RC itself.It's my understanding that MS has not provided a way for programs like RC to read FS terrain elevations...at least not a way that they've told us about. I wish they would, then RC could be even better. Perhaps your time would be better spent asking MS why they release so little information to third party developers, and why it takes them so long to release what little they do. In the meantime, RC provides us with some reasonable work-arounds for FS's various shortcomings and limitations. Sidney Schwartz [KPDX]Horizon Pilot--flight plans and scenery for FS2002http://sidneyschwartz.homestead.com/index.htmlhttp://jdtllc.com/images/RCsupporter.jpg

Oakland approach and Salt Lake City approach work no differently then any one else. We all have this thing called a Minimum Vector Altitude Chart. It means I can vector you to the final approach course, along any path I choose, as long as I don't descend you below the MVA until you are established on a segment of the instrument approach.Simulation hasn't come far enough yet to incorporate MVA charts for specific areas. So, RC vectors to the final, blind to MVA's, and thus the responsibility for avoiding terrain in still on the pilot and not on RC. Maybe in Version 4?Larry

---

http://www.jdtllc.com/images/RCbeta.jpg

'but if we are going to fly the STAR and then fly from that last waypoint, or FIX to the proper runway without Approach Control's guidance then WHY do we even bother to use ATC?"Please allow me to throw your question back at you, somewhat rephrased:"if you insist on flying the STAR all the way to its last fix w/o ATC guidance then WHY do you even bother to use ATC?"Best RegardsStamatis