Hi JD,First off...I'm really enjoying RC3. Thank you for all the hard work.On a recent flight from Centennial Airport in Colorado (KAPA) to Aspen (KASE). I was receiving vectors to the approach to RW15. The controller descended me to 10700 then cleared me for the approach, which upon my suprise put me vis-a-vis with a cumulus granite. I did get to practice my terrain avoidance manuever, however I'm still picking pine tree needles out of my wheel wells :). My question is obviously, does RC3 take terrain into account? (does it know where the terrian lies?) I followed every vector to a tea...even received the congrats message after the flight. Just wondering. Best Regards,Randyhttp://jdtllc.com/images/RCsupporter.jpg

Randy,RC doesn't know squat about terrain. MS provides absolutely no information to know anything about it other than what's directly under the plane.This is why NOTAM's are available in RC. You must check this for departure or arrival if you know you are, or are going to be, in mountainous areas. Then you must know the terrain. If you're flying in mountains (like around the Denver area, or especially in the mountains around Eagle/Aspen), you need plates and knowledge of the area.With NOTAM's checked, ATC give you the ability to ignore the vectors and altitudes given, and decide when it's best to turn or to descend.Just as an aside, I always have NOTAM's checked for Aspen so Center doesn't descend me into the mountains, then I request the IAP to 15, and fly the Roaring Fork visual according to the plate.

two wordsarrival notams:-)

Probably not possible, but it would be great if one had the chance to change the arrival to arrival notams. In some areas you know there are mountains, but in some place you get a big surprise finding a stupid mountain (or hill) which you had no idea about. Since it's not an adventure anymore - i wonder...?? :-)

Guys,Thanks for the response. Next time, I'll use the NOTAM feature. I apologize, this item is probably in the manual. This works out well in a way because while controllers have minimum vectoring altitudes (MVA), they DO make mistakes like everyone else. So this will teach one to pay attention closely, especially while in the soup since this is what we do in real life anyway.Just curious...although MSFS does not give terrain information. What if each area had a MVA assigned to it? Just as we as pilots have MEA's, MOCA's, MRA's, MSA's and such, since RC3 knows where the aircraft is, could it not associate that information with a minimum altitude associated with it? I guess I'm actually answering my own question. This sounds like a logisitical nightmare. hehAnyway, the NOTAM feature is a nice flexible way of solving this. Thanks again for a fine add-on.Best Regards,Randyhttp://jdtllc.com/images/RCsupporter.jpg

John, a brief question:I compiled a trip KLAS to KLAX on Nav 3.0 and I noticed that as I approach the mt range east of LA, my route turns south then west to bring me into the basin through a low spot in the mts.(I'm usually at 10000/250 before the mts, using the DF737-400, and definitely on my way to a CFIT). RC then hands me over to approach, who quickly clears me out of FL100 to set up the approach.Have I been ignorant and lucky or does the route compiler take terrain into account?

i have no idea what the elevation of any terrain is, unless is right below the plane

>What if each area had a MVA assigned to it? This is a great idea. There could be a place on the RC controller screen where we could enter an mva for arrival airports, just as we now are able to enter transition altitudes, notams and other information. Or, there could be a way for us to create a text file with this information that RC would be able to read.Sidney Schwartz [KPDX]MyTraffic/Radar Contact/FSMeteo/FSSE/FSassist/FDCHorizon Flights--flight plans and scenery for FS2002http://sidneyschwartz.homestead.com/index.html

Joe,That path you describe is exactly the path flown in real life. I always get a little nervous when I look out of the plane and there are 13,000' mountains on either side.If you planned using the airways to HECTOR, then that's why that airway is there. I think it's just lucky coincidence, but an obvious route.Also, as an aside, RC doesn't compile. ;-)

thanks, and yes, I knew I made a mistake after I typed 'compile' but you know what I mean.Anyway, Nav3.0 did follow the J-routes to HECTOR; when I fly that route it's pretty to look at but pretty scary at night or in IMC!

Hi Randy,You raise a good point, but on the other hand, how does a real pilot not interface with a big rock????? (grin). When any pilot flies they use approach plates, this is very crucial to flying in mountain terrain like those of us that live and fly around Denver. When one reads the plates, obstuction is noted on the plate, makes for a much better approach. (he he)I don't know if you remember the American Airlines 757 flight that made an instant stop in Columbia when the apporach plates were not correct for the final fix on approach.The way to avoid a BIG ROCK, is to read the approach plates. There are many of them available on the net and from JEPP, which I use ALL the time. When I approach a high altitude airport I always check NOTAMS in RC and on the plates.Watch for the procedure and you will NEVER have a headon with a ROCKCheersBob Johnson

JD I think what people are saying is that 1 - Default FSX ATC knows where the mountains are2- RC4 does not have a clue about mountainsI have not used FSX ATC in long while, since i progressed to RC4, but i cant seem to recall having the close calls with mountains on approach. Which might suggest FSX ATC, for all its limitations, atleast knows where the moutains are.I fly from random start airport to random stop airport (based on options set in destinationfinder tool).So my flightplans have a very short shelf life, i get bored flying the same place all the time.Which means i dont really want to go through the trouble of charts for every new flightplan.A good suggestion for version 5 maybe options to allow us to set the level of realism of the approach.So on level 3 - which is the hardest, i will consult charts to avoid mountains on approach.and on level 1 - which is easiest, RC5 ATC will have information to vector my approach through all obstacles, and more.

JD I think what people are saying is that 1 - Default FSX ATC knows where the mountains are2- RC4 does not have a clue about mountainsI have not used FSX ATC in long while, since i progressed to RC4, but i cant seem to recall having the close calls with mountains on approach. Which might suggest FSX ATC, for all its limitations, atleast knows where the moutains are.I fly from random start airport to random stop airport (based on options set in destinationfinder tool).So my flightplans have a very short shelf life, i get bored flying the same place all the time.Which means i dont really want to go through the trouble of charts for every new flightplan.A good suggestion for version 5 maybe options to allow us to set the level of realism of the approach.So on level 3 - which is the hardest, i will consult charts to avoid mountains on approach.and on level 1 - which is easiest, RC5 ATC will have information to vector my approach through all obstacles, and more.

i still don't know where the mountains are, so a realism slider won't do much good.i will have msa's based on 4 quadrants, and hopefully i can keep from descending you lower than the msa when you are in one of those quadrants. but those quadrants are only be as good as the numbers that are in them. if you don't want to look at the charts, and the msa numbers are wrong, you're still going to have a problem.maybe you should just fly with arrival notams on, whenever you fly into an unfamiliar airport, and won't look at the charts.jd

That's over 6 years on resurrecting this topic - must be some kind of record!-stefan

That's over 6 years on resurrecting this topic - must be some kind of record!-stefan

my thoughts exactly.jd