The way FS9 ATC seems to work for IFR flight plans is that at around 80-100 nm from the destination airport you will typically be assigned an approach/runway and given a vector and altitude by Center. You are then vectored around, sometimes being handed back and forth between Ppproach and Center, until you are on an approximate 30-degree intercept to the final approach course, at which point you are handed off to Tower. Occasionally, the FS9 ATC just goes totally stoopid on me, though. The other day I was being vectored to approach, but the last assigned heading was taking me _away_ from the airport, until a point where ATC informed that IFR was cancelled, squawk VFR, frequency change approved. I'm positive I didn't miss an instruction to turn because FS9 ATC usually starts nagging you to "please expedite your turn to ..." if you're not getting close to the assigned heading within a reasonable amount of time. Anyway, I had to refile an IFR flight plan, which got ATC to turn me back in the correct direction. On several occasions the final vector to intercept the final approach course and handoff to Tower has been given about 40nm out, and of course if you stay on that heading by the time you do pick up the localizer you have crossed well past it and have to turn back to reintercept or declare missed. So how well does RC improve on this situation?Mark Kuebeler

you can download the manual from our web page. read how we do approaches.my opinion, which may be biased, is the difference is similar to the difference between a yugo and a lexus.jd

This reply is worth printing and framing!!!How true.

Actually i tried MS ATC the other day, as i never had before in FS9, but thought it could be "fun" to see if it had changed. So i made a flight to Milano and i experienced exactly this problem, as you describe. I had started to wonder where they wanted me to wind up, when the flightplan was suddenly canceled. I chose to find my way to Milano, using VFR. Listening to the conversation on the flight, i noticed one thing. Flying over Switzerland, i was handed over to Z

Lars,FS ATC has a lot of bogus centers. But there are some missing ones in RC. We base our centers on the FS Nav data, and so is more simplified. However, most of the centers we use are accurate. All that being said, I can't tell you specifically about Switzerland center.

Thank's Scott. It was just out of curiosity. The others here in Europe seems to be the same in both.What was this i saw somewhere here, that there should be a new version on it's way of RC? As you don't write anything here, i visited the RC website, but there's nothing about a new version - unless it's 3.1 you talk about. I got the impression though, that it was a version 4..??CheersLars

Hi, Lars. Nice to see you slide over from FSVC.The RC people have version 4.0 in development and that info has been posted here. Some RC 3.1 users have made suggestions for it.One of the biggest improvements promoted is the control of AI (and you) by version 4 ATC to aid in traffic control collision avoidance both in the air and on the ground (in the sense of reducing the incidence of AI taxie onto the active runway while you are on close final) and helping with the "string of pearls" issue in dense traffic areas either for merging you with approach traffic and avoiding the rear end collision bit or controlling approach traffic spacing it out so you can get off the ground.Another feature promoted is the observation of AI trends as you get within range of your destination so if there are traffic landing the active runway will be determined by that and you will be assigned to the runway observed in use. If there is no traffic trend established then the usual RC determined priorities apply.Not to put words in JD's, Scott's, and Doug's collective voices and I don't think I've spoken any fantasy ideas, but I must admit I'm anxious to see these improvements -- but not impatient.There are others, but these are major points that stick in my mind.

>you can download the manual from our web page. read how we do>approaches.>>my opinion, which may be biased, is the difference is similar>to the difference between a yugo and a lexus.Flew my first RC-controlled flight, KPHL to KDFW using the Bonham Five arrival. I was pleased when RC allowed me to continue in on the arrival route long past when FS9 ATC would've started vectoring me around. DFW was landing south, and the BYP5 feeds into DFW from the northeast, so I was set up perfectly to be vectored to the localizer for a straight in approach. I was, however, rather disappointed that instead this I was vectored to almost right on top of the airport, then south, then north to a downwind leg, back past the airport to the north, then NE to about 20 miles out, and back around to the SW to intercept the localizer, pretty much at the point I had been at earlier. Is there some way to use RC that I don't know about yet that would've avoided this, or can I expect this on every arrival?Also, is there some glitch with FL350? I had FL350 in my flight plane (FS Build), since this was a west-bound flight. RC Clearance cleared me for FL330. After a near mid-air with an east-bound plane, also at FL330, I requested and got FL310 since I was actually too heavy at that point for FL350 anyway. When I had finally used enough fuel to make FL350 attainable, I requested it, and got assigned to FL330 again! I re-reqeusted FL310 and stayed where I was.Mark Kuebeler

Re: your FL350 problem. See the section in the RC manual called 'ATC Airspace Structure'. When you're flying between FL240 and FL330 you're under the control of the 'High Controller'. When you request FL350, the high controller will clear you to his maximum altitude (FL330), and will then ask you to contact the 'Super Controller', who controls all airspace at FL350 and above.Hope that helps.Ian

ian answered the second questionthe first question, you can ask for an iap approach, and fly the pattern like you want tojd