Personally (meaning I only speak for myself :-)), I would not be interested in a feature like you describe Gaston.The whole point of Radar Contact, or one of its most important features, is to provide radar vectors and guide me for a perfect intercept, so that I can fly my final approach and execute my landing.If I know my entire arrival path, point-by-point, and all the altitudes and courses associated with each segment of this arrival, what is the point in using RC to begin with? It even becomes boring.If that is the case, then frankly, I prefer to use FSATC, fly the entire arrival as per the STAR, adhering to all altitude resstrictions and/or "expects", and at the same time listening to the very nice ATC chatter all the way down to my landing and subsequent taxi-ing.What I am saying is that if this method is utilized, one does not enhance, but instead takes away a part of RC which in my opinion is one of its best features.And last but not least, I will say again that flying an entire STAR as published , all the way to its last waypoint is unrealistic, at least where I get to fly.By all this I do not wish to discourage anyone from voicing his request for additional features, on the contrary! I am simply adding my own views.Best RegardsStamatis

Hi Stamatis,>Personally (meaning I only speak for myself :-)), I would >not be interested in a feature like you describe Gaston. Thats your right, and nobody will force you to use it.>The whole point of Radar Contact, or one of its most >important features, is to provide radar vectors and guide me >for a perfect intercept, so that I can fly my final approach >and execute my landing. Well, why whould that be one of the main features as this is what FSATC does ?I believe that RC is, like a lot of enhancement to FS2002, about realism. And SID(DP)/STARs make part of the real world. Note that not all STARs lineup with the runway, especially for large airports so you will still be vectored. Without this feature RC is even not able to give correct ATC for some airports with surrounding terrain (like KLAS).>If I know my entire arrival path, point-by-point, and >all the altitudes and courses associated with >each segment of this arrival, what is the point in using RC >to begin with? It even becomes boring. Well, thats how live goes. But up to your choice not to use it. The basic question is if you want fun or realism here. You seem to want fun, which absolutely is your right. For those who like realism SID/STARs are very important. Also since you have to read the plates and comply to the procedures without ATC advice I do not find it boring.On the other side since you use RC you are using flight plans. So you know all points of your enroute flight also. You do not find this boring however. (Yes, there might be deviation for trafic)>If that is the case, then frankly, I prefer to use FSATC, >fly the entire arrival as per the STAR, adhering to all >altitude resstrictions and/or "expects", and at the same >time listening to the very nice ATC chatter all the way down >to my landing and subsequent taxi-ing. FSATC is not implementing STARs!>What I am saying is that if this method is utilized, one >does not enhance, but instead takes away a part of RC >which in my opinion is one of its best features. Again this depends if you want fun or realism of course. Those who want realism will find this fun :-) But why does it take away something, since you are not required to use the feature ? I am questioning myself, and please don't take this wrong, if you did ever look at SID/STARs plate to know what they are ?>And last but not least, I will say again that flying an >entire STAR as published , all the way to its last waypoint >is unrealistic, at least where I get to fly. If you don't choose to apply a STAR, you won't get it. If you speak flying, are you meaning sim or real life. If you mean real life you ar emost probably speaking of GA. On large airports STARs are very important, and yes you may be vectored out of them, but even that feature was forseen in my proposal. Nobody says that the proposal is not subject to later additions and is perfect from the beginning on. But there must be an overseeable starting point.Regards,Gaston.

Hi Gaston,Don't take it personal but I agree with Stamatis. Stamatis is a Professional Commercial Pilot and I am a USA Controller and a commercial pilot. In the real world where I work, and that is five different facilities, we could care less about dp's and stars. In today atc, it is a radar environment, and radar vectors is the name of the game. In fact most commercial aircraft don't even fly airways anymore, they are on wind routes or direct routes. All the best...Larry

---

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

Don't care about me, there is no reason I could take this personal ;-)First of all the world is not limited the USA. Second, programs like FS Navigator showed in the past that a lot of people want to use SID and STARs. And last but not least, and even the most important, the only logical conclusion which can follow from the two posts is: Don't use RC ! And I want to make clear: these are not my words, but you say that all what RC is doing, is not real, so you don't want to use it. FSATC can do vectoring too. If you find it better RC taking you down hitting the mountains... Or the "NOTAMs", you find them more realistic ?BTW, the reason people want to use SID and STARs has probably less to do with realism then with the fact that they want changes. And thats the point I don't understand how this can be boring. You had the whole enroute travel listened to what ATC told you to do. I know that a lot of simmers wait thinking "Please ATC, tell me something to do". And they are happy to study SID and STAR plates during the quiet phases.You say you are a real life controller in 5(!) facilities. Which kind of facility (center,...) and which area ? I will turn it that way: I can hardly believ that an airpot like KSFO, KDFW,KJFK,KORD can be controlled without using DP/STARs. I don't say they are flown to the end (especially as most of those don't line up. But anyway, simmers like to fly them to the end as they want to study the plates and see if they would be able to comply on there own. And I am sure that most of those will even hate if they get vectored out of it because they want to fly them. Could I know also which aircrafts and airline Stamatis is flying for ?Final words: And anyway, why care ? You wont be forced to use it, so why do you want to prevent others from using it ?Gaston

Hi Gaston,I work at ORD. We don't use stars and we have one dp, a radar vector dp. Best to you sir...Larry

---

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

Hello Folks, A very interesting thread.Cheers

If you look at the Vatsim-USA site www.vatusa.org there are some links there (you have to navigate around the site but you will find it) ......the links are to real world ATC. You hear live ATC from a few airports around the US. Also I think you will find Amsterdam, an airport in australia and CYYZ. Maybe you can listen to this....and determine how often SIDS and STARS are used.I gather two things from this thread....1. In the real world, you hardly get to fly an entire STAR..... As a matter of fact, if you look at EDDF site on Vatsim, and download the charts you will see that the STAR has a downwind and base part that is only assigned by ATC AND another regular STAR which sets you up for an ILS approach. So expect to be vectored off the STAR by ATC.2. A lot of people still wants to fly the entire STAR in FS..... This is also a great way to practice flying a STAR.As RCV3 stands now, you can actually do both.....quite well I might add. The only problem (at least based on what has been raised) is that RC doesn't give you vectors for the STAR or altitude crossings.My opinion (and I speak ONLY for myself) is that RC (in this regard anyway) is 95% perfect. There are plates for STARS. These plates has every waypoint and all altitude crossings. I am no real world pilot or Controller, but I would assume that the pilot would be expected to be completely familiar with the procedure on the STAR plates. Therefore, RC allowing you to follow the STAR without any input is quite OK.Having said this, it would be nice if RC knew the procedure. That way, although it leaves you to do it yourself, as soon as you deviate from the star, RC would know and either cancel it or give you vectors back unto it.....and of course, you receive a visit from Bill when you land...LOL. If that can be done, then I say...go for it. Of course, you can simply not request the STAR and be given vectors or request the STAR and fly it...but make sure you fly it as published. This would make everyone in Group 1 and Group 2 happy. (See my groups at the beginning of this post).One final note.....the expectation that you will have to cross 40NM from your final fix at 10000ft every single flight gets really monotonous after a while. I think this would be a welcome change in the next version. And if STARS were applied with the crossing altitudes, then it will help to end this monotony. Of course, if you didn't plan a STAR, then you could still get a different crossing restriction. Its just that the constant 10000ft, 250kts by 40NM gets really boring after a while. (And I know its only for Jets....) A crossing restriction of say 14000ft at 55NM or 8000ft at 25NM or something like that would go really far in making the whole thing more realistic and less boring.Anyway, although I fully understand that you dont really get to fly the full STAR in real life, I must agree that in FS, sometimes people want to fly it....it would be really nice if you know that if you deviate, you will be blasted by the controllers and by BILL. So I say, if it can be implemented in RCV4....then by all means...go for it.Just my thoughts.PS.....I would pay $120 or more for the next version of RC if the developers together with the FSUIPC developer, can find a way to give RC the ability to control, vector and communicate with AI aircraft. With this one request, I think I speak for the entire FS community...LOL Maybe JD and the other developers themselves would love to have this feature too...... Wouldn't that be nice.Lagaz

PS.....I would pay $120 or more for the next version of RC if the developers together with the FSUIPC developer, can find a way to give RC the ability to control, vector and communicate with AI aircraft.The next version of RC is priced at $199.99. All that you have to do is type "GO" and RC does the rest. Then just sit back and watch! ;-)Seriously though, you're comments are well written and duly noted. Consumers innovation, ideas and interest in RC are the factors why there will be RCv4, 5, 6, and so on.Davidhttp://www.jdtllc.com/images/RCbeta.jpg;)

Nice conclusion of this thread Lagaz,> Having said this, it would be nice if RC knew the procedure. That> way, although it leaves you to do it yourself, as soon as you > deviate from the star, RC would know and either cancel it or give> you vectors back unto it.....and of course, you receive a visit> from Bill when you land...LOL. This is al it is about. I do NOT expect RC to give the instructions to follow the DP/STARs but to know them and eventually be able to make me comply to them and implement a correct critique after the flight (as you say). A feature for vectoring out could of course be foreseen. The reason I did not go into that detail was that I hoped to get this by a patch and thus tried to have minimal impact on RCv3.If this is for V4 (if at all), and the developers don't mind, I would like to workout a full specification of the SID/STAR specifications into a PDF file. But this will take some time...Rgeards,Gaston

Hi Lary,>I work at ORD. We don't use stars and we have one dp, a >radar vector dp. Best to you sir... If you work at ORD, this could only be a missunderstanding going down to the detail of vectoring vs. STARs. SID(DP)/STARs have been introduced for separating traffic near airports. If you say they are not use, I believe you mean that they are not used by name, but you still follow them when you vector planes. Right ? And yes maybe not to its end. If you do not use the STARs, you will however follow some other procedures (paths) and all approaches to one runway of one single facility are somewhat similar in L and V-path since you need to sequence the planes. This cannot be simulated easily, so why not simply using the STARs for that ? Thats all it is about.Cheers,Gaston

Lagaz,>The only problem (at least based on what has >been raised) is that RC doesn't give you vectors for the >STAR or altitude crossings.Correct. Just like the real world, when you're given a STAR to fly, you are expected to know how to fly it. The point of assigning a STAR is so ATC doesn't have to tell you where to fly or at what altitude. If you want that, don't fly a STAR, reauest vectors. Otherwise, you need an approach plate in front of you (or on your FMS if it's so equipped).>My opinion (and I speak ONLY for myself) is that RC (in this >regard anyway) is 95% perfect. There are plates for STARS. >These plates has every waypoint and all altitude crossings. >I am no real world pilot or Controller, but I would assume >that the pilot would be expected to be completely familiar >with the procedure on the STAR plates. Therefore, RC >allowing you to follow the STAR without any input is quite >OK.Not only OK, but correct as the rules are applied.>Having said this, it would be nice if RC knew the procedure. >That way, although it leaves you to do it yourself, as soon >as you deviate from the star, RC would know and either >cancel it or give you vectors back unto it.....and of >course, you receive a visit from Bill when you land...LOL.This is still in development. If all it takes is a simple checkbox: "Stick exactly to waypoints and altitudes <40 miles", then that's what will be done. Then you will have to make sure your waypoints in Approach space are accurate and flyable. You will also not be able to change runways unless you request vectors. >If that can be done, then I say...go for it. Of course, you >can simply not request the STAR and be given vectors or >request the STAR and fly it...but make sure you fly it as >published. This would make everyone in Group 1 and Group 2 >happy. (See my groups at the beginning of this post).See above.>One final note.....the expectation that you will have to >cross 40NM from your final fix at 10000ft every single >flight gets really monotonous after a while. I think this >would be a welcome change in the next version.If you don't have pilot autoreply checked, then you can respond "Unable".>And if STARS were applied with the crossing altitudes, then it will help to end this monotony. Of course, if you didn't plan a STAR, >then you could still get a different crossing restriction. >Its just that the constant 10000ft, 250kts by 40NM gets >really boring after a while. (And I know its only for >Jets....) A crossing restriction of say 14000ft at 55NM or >8000ft at 25NM or something like that would go really far in >making the whole thing more realistic and less boring. How it's really done is for Center or APC to say something like: "Descend and maintan 18,000, turn heading 120 for POWDR TWO Arrival, BASEE transition. Cross POWDR at or below one two thousand, 270 knots. Traffic is two zero miles in tail, 10 knots faster. Keep your speed up on descent." Obviously you can see the problem with that in RC. It goes back to the above with RC only making you follow the plan. However, I would be happy to have a crossing restriction AT a waypoint myself, instead of the stock 40 miles from the airport. It does get a tad dull, but then again, since I always know where it's going to be, I always have it in the plan.>Anyway, although I fully understand that you dont really get >to fly the full STAR in real life, I must agree that in FS, >sometimes people want to fly it....it would be really nice >if you know that if you deviate, you will be blasted by the >controllers and by BILL. So I say, if it can be implemented >in RCV4....then by all means...go for it.Certainly a version of it can be implemented, and with the sheer number of requests, you can bet its priority is getting higher.>PS.....I would pay $120 or more for the next version of RC >if the developers together with the FSUIPC developer, can >find a way to give RC the ability to control, vector and >communicate with AI aircraft. With this one request, I think >I speak for the entire FS community...LOL Maybe JD and the >other developers themselves would love to have this feature >too...... Wouldn't that be nice.Unfortunately, we apparently can't pay MS enough to put out an SDK so this CAN be done. It has nothing to do with Peter or JD.

Gaston,Patches will never include new features. JD learned his lesson with the 2.1 update.Such a thing wouldn't be implemented until at least V4, and it will not include every known DP and STAR, as that would include thousands of plans.The best that could reasonably be done is to let you check "STAR: Follow waypoints and Altitudes EXACTLY as in plan in Approach space."

If I work at ORD? I assure you Sir I do! :-kewlSTARS: STARS provide a common entry point into busy terminal aispace. Most major facilities work off the four cornerpost concept or a modified version. The STAR is there so that pilots file to a specific cornerpost. It is merely a Flight Plan filing requirement. Do most pilots fly the route they filed? No, most do not...For example at KORD, The Janesville STAR brings aircraft to our NW cornerpost, the Pullman STAR to our NE cornerpost, the Bradford STAR to our SW cornerpost. At our SE cornerpost there are actually two STARS, the Knox STAR and the Kokomo STAR. The KNOX allows Cleveland Center (ZOB) to deliver aircraft and the Kokomo (OKK) allows Indianapolis Center (ZID) to deliver aircraft to the SE cornerpost.Here is an example of a common route filed into ORD from KSFO. KSFO..FMG..J32.CZI.J82.FSD.J16.MCW.JVL-STARNow in a perfect world, if I only had a few aircraft in the sky, the pilot may be allowed to follow this STAR to KRENA, where the JVL-STAR ends. KRENA is about 40 miles NW of ORD. All our STARS end about 40 miles from ORD.However, with the number of aircraft arriving, often well over 100 arrivals per hour, sequencing is done by RADAR, and often starts as far away as 500 miles or more. Well before the aircraft ever gets to fly the STAR.Every day, Chicago Center (ZAU) starts lining up aircraft landing in the New York area, KJFK, KEWR, KLGA, usually somewhere over Des Moines, Iowa (DSM).I have nothing against STARS. If they can be included in RC in a future version, and increase the fun of simulation, then I am all for it... ;)Larry

---

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

Hi Larry,>If I work at ORD? I assure you Sir I do! :-kewl I must admit that the beginning "Uf" of my post, might not have been the best choice for begining that sentence :-) I did doubt about your envolvement in ATC after first post, I must admit. This was because I understood your post that you worked in 5 different ATC facilities. Of course I did the mistake that you deserve 5 airport facilities which is of course OK.>STARS: STARS provide a common entry point into busy >terminal aispace. Most major facilities work off the four >cornerpost concept or a modified version. The STAR is there >so that pilots file to a specific cornerpost. It is merely >a Flight Plan filing requirement. Do most pilots fly the >route they filed? No, most do not... Yes the famous 4 cornerpost "algoritm". Since this will all be for V4 I will go into a more precise description of the overall idea including the involved algoritms. And this will include a way for RC to follow the STAR even if you don't file it, or to select a different one if the wind changes (option based, so that it can be disabled).>For example at KORD, The Janesville STAR brings aircraft to >our NW cornerpost, the Pullman STAR to our NE cornerpost, >the Bradford STAR to our SW cornerpost. At our SE >cornerpost there are actually two STARS, the Knox STAR and >the Kokomo STAR. The KNOX allows Cleveland Center (ZOB) to >deliver aircraft and the Kokomo (OKK) allows Indianapolis >Center (ZID) to deliver aircraft to the SE cornerpost. >>Here is an example of a common route filed into ORD from >KSFO. KSFO..FMG..J32.CZI.J82.FSD.J16.MCW.JVL-STAR >>Now in a perfect world, if I only had a few aircraft in the >sky, the pilot may be allowed to follow this STAR to KRENA, >where the JVL-STAR ends. KRENA is about 40 miles NW of ORD. > All our STARS end about 40 miles from ORD. I know that this is only in a perfect world, but FS2002 skys are not so crowded :-). At least you would fly the STAR until JVL where "official" final vectoring is to be expected. Follow to KRENA will most probably only be for runways 14R/L (and 18 if used).>I have nothing against STARS. If they can be included in RC >in a future version, and increase the fun of simulation, >then I am all for it... ;) In any case it is an "easy" way to avoid fatal ATC errors by RC which are done by using a common vectoring and delta-altitude algoritm for the approach.Cheers,Gaston

Hi Scott,>Patches will never include new features. JD learned his >lesson with the 2.1 update. Sorry to hear that, but OK, we have to accept it. But in that case I will workout my full idea which will keep a balance between realism (ability to implement most plates "features") and the complexity to implement it.>Such a thing wouldn't be implemented until at least V4, and >it will not include every known DP and STAR, as that would >include thousands of plans. I did never say that they should implement any DP or STAR !!! The first "fast-implementable" idea was to use part of the planned flight for them. But if it will be for V4, my idea would be some common store for SID/STARs allowing all features to be at least stored. And then most used by RC. Such a store could of course be fed by the community and used by other products like flight planners.>The best that could reasonably be done is to let you check >"STAR: Follow waypoints and Altitudes EXACTLY as in plan in >Approach space." Thats simply wrong, many things could be done reasonably with the features already available today with RC4. All the features from my initial post could be reasonably done today.Regards,Gaston