I made around half a dozen flights with RC4 and thought I write down some stuff I noticed. I have mostly bought it based on the advertisements of European procedures and phraseology, so my critics are not general, but just go straight in that direction. 1. The praise first : It was a pleasure to hear European phraseology for the first time in FS, I like the transition altitude handling, also the interaction with AI was flawless, no disturbances at all. No problems with the voices here, I find them quite OK.Now to the details :2. The instruction "line up and wait" should be readback with "lining up and wait". Not with "roger" !3. During the step climb, I get almost all instructions for the next altitude right in the capture phase of the previous. This is very unlucky, because it makes Airliner flights more unsteady than necessary. Reminds a bit of default ATC.Is it possible to change the timing a bit, either let me fly at an altitude for some minutes or come up earlier with the next altitude ?4. On a flight from Munich to Stockholm I got frequency change mania with 11 handovers. I was hoping that was changed. Do you have previous access to the stations and could list them in the Controller window ? So we could just untick some before flight ?5. Occasionally RC4 seems to screw up distances to the next waypoint, so it does not notice overflown waypoints correctly. As a result RC4 tries to send me back to waypoints I have crossed already. To "repair" that I have asked for directs to a following waypoint, then the distance was correct again. As I remember, it happened 4-5 times on my flights.6. Descent instructions are occasionally incorrectly readback. E.g. "descend FL120" got readback with "maintain FL120" instead of 'descending FL120"7. "I need you level at 30 NM or less" is maybe american style, but no one would say that here. Would it be possible to say something like "cross (XX miles inbound/outbound) Waypoint at FL... : ?8. Some QNH confusion. I was below transition altitude already and got just one single "QNH 992" info. When I set that, I got nagged for watching my altitude. Just minutes later approach cleared me for ILS and gave QNH 1006. And again a minute later I got that single "QNH 992" info again. Happened (with other QNH values of course) at all flights. I use ASV with weather update suppression close to arrival enabled, so there was no weather change in that period. I looked at a weather log and QNH 992 was correct, QNH 1006 nowhere to see. 9. Now again that dreaded phone call instruction "will give him a call". Well, Ok, on the taxiway it's annoying already. But guys, on final during the handover to tower, just "will give him a call' and nothing else ?During one of the flights, I had a friend of mine (Lufthansa pilot) sitting right next to me yesterday and he was almost spitting coffee on my keyboard when he heard that. To keep the professional impression of RC4, I strongly recommend to get that out of the way soon.BTW, I searched for it in the wav files, but couldn't find it. What's the filename of that "call" ?To sum it up, for me it's a sometimes weird mixture of European and probably (??) American style. Occasionally I feel 'at home', but overall not yet.Mike

>I made around half a dozen flights with RC4 and thought I>write down some stuff I noticed. I have mostly bought it based>on the advertisements of European procedures and phraseology,>so my critics are not general, but just go straight in that>direction. >>1. The praise first : It was a pleasure to hear European>phraseology for the first time in FS, I like the transition>altitude handling, also the interaction with AI was flawless,>no disturbances at all. No problems with the voices here, I>find them quite OK.>Now to the details :>>2. The instruction "line up and wait" should be readback with>"lining up and wait". Not with "roger" !we'll make a note of that. i'm sure the reason was we didn't have a wav for it, and it came to late in the recording schedule>>3. During the step climb, I get almost all instructions for>the next altitude right in the capture phase of the previous.>This is very unlucky, because it makes Airliner flights more>unsteady than necessary. Reminds a bit of default ATC.>Is it possible to change the timing a bit, either let me fly>at an altitude for some minutes or come up earlier with the>next altitude ?as doug would say, he's trying to keep you from leveling you off. i think that is what you are referring to, and what i'm trying to achieve>>4. On a flight from Munich to Stockholm I got frequency change>mania with 11 handovers. I was hoping that was changed. Do you>have previous access to the stations and could list them in>the Controller window ? So we could just untick some before>flight ?that's a tough one. i read the center information right out of the .bgl files. they must have a bunch of little sectors with different frequencies. if you can make that flight again, i can make all those sectors the same frequency, update the controllers data file, and you can "check for updates" and that will fix that.>>5. Occasionally RC4 seems to screw up distances to the next>waypoint, so it does not notice overflown waypoints correctly.>As a result RC4 tries to send me back to waypoints I have>crossed already. To "repair" that I have asked for directs to>a following waypoint, then the distance was correct again. As>I remember, it happened 4-5 times on my flights.i don't think i screw up. on departure procedures you have to pass within < 2nm of the dp checkpoint. on enroute checkpoints, you have to pass within 5 miles of the checkpoint.>>6. Descent instructions are occasionally incorrectly readback.>E.g. "descend FL120" got readback with "maintain FL120">instead of 'descending FL120"again a recording thing. we'll note that>>7. "I need you level at 30 NM or less" is maybe american>style, but no one would say that here. Would it be possible to>say something like "cross (XX miles inbound/outbound) Waypoint>at FL... : ?recording, recording, recording. send me an email with this info, and i'll put it in my 4.1 folder>>8. Some QNH confusion. I was below transition altitude already>and got just one single "QNH 992" info. When I set that, I got>nagged for watching my altitude. Just minutes later approach>cleared me for ILS and gave QNH 1006. And again a minute later>I got that single "QNH 992" info again. Happened (with other>QNH values of course) at all flights. >I use ASV with weather update suppression close to arrival>enabled, so there was no weather change in that period. I>looked at a weather log and QNH 992 was correct, QNH 1006>nowhere to see. odd, i'd like to see the log.>>9. Now again that dreaded phone call instruction "will give>him a call". Well, Ok, on the taxiway it's annoying already.>But guys, on final during the handover to tower, just "will>give him a call' and nothing else ?>During one of the flights, I had a friend of mine (Lufthansa>pilot) sitting right next to me yesterday and he was almost>spitting coffee on my keyboard when he heard that. To keep the>professional impression of RC4, I strongly recommend to get>that out of the way soon.rdypush1 and rdypush3>>BTW, I searched for it in the wav files, but couldn't find it.>What's the filename of that "call" ?>>To sum it up, for me it's a sometimes weird mixture of>European and probably (??) American style. Occasionally I feel>'at home', but overall not yet.>it's still a work in progress. that's why there will be a 4.1 and a 5>Mike

Hi Mike,Thanks for taking time to give us feedback. It's much appreciated.I see jd has already replied but, just a question about 5. Was there a lot of chatter playing at the time or did you have time accelerated. Those are the only (rare) times I've seen it happen (apart from when I missed a wp!)All the best,John

jd,>as doug would say, he's trying to keep you from leveling you>off. i think that is what you are referring to, and what i'm>trying to achieveI see, but then it seems Doug underestimates the climb rate of my Airliners a bit. Of course that can be compensated by reducing the climb rate, but maybe the timing could also be changed a bit ?>that's a tough one. i read the center information right out of>the .bgl files. they must have a bunch of little sectors with>different frequencies. if you can make that flight again, i>can make all those sectors the same frequency, update the>controllers data file, and you can "check for updates" and>that will fix that.That sounds great. Exactly what info do you need, the frequencies ? There were e.g. four Munich controls, four Stockholm controls, etc. Could be that's similar around every big airport ?>i don't think i screw up. on departure procedures you have to>pass within < 2nm of the dp checkpoint. on enroute>checkpoints, you have to pass within 5 miles of the>checkpoint.Argghh, that was a problem on my side. Slight time discrepancy between ARINC and DAFIF Navdata. Flight planner used ARINC (FOC 2003), plane used DAFIF (navdata.at). Just in that area some waypoints got changed in position.Sorry !>rdypush1 and rdypush3Excellent ! I also renamed airport.wav. Better now for European style. >it's still a work in progress. that's why there will be a 4.1>and a 5I hear ya :). It's nice to notice the positive attitude regarding suggestions. I make some more flights and will send a more detailed mail with log files.ThanksMike

Mike,In re: to number 3, we have been trying to refine the timing of this since something like v2 to favour everyone. As you noted, the climb rates vary with different aircraft, and altitude. When we allowed the instruction to come too early, the compaint was this is not realistic as controllers don't always issue climb instructions that well in advance (=keep pilot happy). We also tried giving this instruction late, but that meant you were usually level for 3 or 4 seconds before climbing again. We have now tried something in between (v4), that hopfully combines both sides of the coin and is favourable to both sides of the argument.But as jd said, we will no doubt be refining this in the future. We strive to make each RC version better than the previous, which is also why I too want to thank you for your feedback.Subs

Subs,thanks for the explanation. I understand it is difficult to cope for all jets, but let's just assume a climb rate of 2000 fpm (which is especially below FL200 much less than many Airliners are able to).Let me describe it. I was cleared to FL 120. At 11300 ft I got the next altitude FL 150, just in the altitude capture phase for FL 120. Most airliners start that capture phase 700-1000 ft before level-off altitude. With a rough calculation that leaves slightly more than a minute for the next instruction.Now before I get the next altitude above FL 150, it takes a while, then there's a control change, which gets readback and then I get the next altitude. The slightly more than a minute is inevitably already exceeded, I am at FL 140 already, once again in the altitude capture phase for FL 150.That's bit unlucky, because it happens quite often. Mike

Hi Mike,As our resident Memphis controller, Doug, would say, ATC isn't there to make it all nice and cherpy for the pilot and/or pax. ATC's main concern is for the safe and expeditious flow of traffic.I know in this instance it can get a little annoying having this happen to you all the time, but like I said earlier, we try to refine this with every new version. It's better than v3, and v3 was better than v2. You won't always get small incremental changes from FL130 to FL150 too - sometimes it maybe from FL120 to FL230.Doug can give you a tonne of other instances where this sort of thing doesn't bother a controller - from how much fuel you use being in a hold, to when you start your ToD, to how long the queue line is for takeoff, to how long you're held a lower altitude waiting for higher climb.It's a little annoyance, but that's the dynamic world of ATC. Nothing ever stays still.Subs

SubsI know ATC is not a concert request and every controller can have a bad day :)Seriusly, I just got this too often (three out of four times) when climbing normally, that was the only reason for the inquiry.Maybe another timing one when handed over to approach. I was at FL110 and got FL70 from approach, then just a second later I got 3000ft. Not even a chance to readback the FL70. This happens regularly.I get safely home, so all this is not a big deal. But if there is a chance for more optimization, don't hold back ;-) Mike

Mike, does this happen on decent "regularly"? What's your V/S at the time, and are you always on a straight-in approach when this happens?Subs>Maybe another timing one when handed over to approach. I was>at FL110 and got FL70 from approach, then just a second later>I got 3000ft. Not even a chance to readback the FL70. This>happens regularly.

Just to add my 2 bobs worth here.When climbing if cleared to say FL230 I will dial in FL240. This prevents the levelling off you mention but still does not break the ATC instruction. I realise that this is not fully correct but if you are monitoring the situation and the call doesn't come say 500-700 from altitude acquisition a quick change will prevent overshooting while you wait for the next call. I have very rarely had to change the altitude setting.Andy b

---

http://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannerbeta.jpg

Andy, this practice, while being handy to avoid the annoyance of starting a level-off and getting immediately after a clib instruction, could be seriously dangerous: what if you simply forget to check which was your original cleared altitude ? In RW SOPs dictate that both pilot acknowledge between them the new cleared altitude before selecting it in the MCP alt window and then both have to recheck that the one dialled in was the cleared one...

Subs,>>> at FL110 and got FL70 from approach, then just a second laterI got 3000ft.>> Mike, does this happen on decent "regularly"? What's your V/S at the time, and are you always on a straight-in approach when this happens?I have made around 10 flights now, I would say it happened at 7-8 of them. VS is not very high at this stage, as I'm just at initiating descend after the first FL 70 instruction, when the next one (e.g. 3000ft) comes right away. I was never on a straight-in approach.Mike

Andy,sounds like a workaround, but I wouldn't use it. You NEVER would do that in the real plane, because that easily could become hazardous.I think the best procedure is still to reduce initial climb rate. Mike

Oh Andy - fer shame! fer shame! :-lol This works, until it doesn't x(

Fun in FS can have many nuances. One of them is flying as close as possible to RW procedures, with many Airliners now almost qualifying as procedure trainers. I hope I'm not considered nasty for not liking that workaround, although it might work.OTOH, let this an inexperienced user do, maybe he gets an unexpected traffic alert turning him away from what he dialed, and you would for sure moan at him for busting altitude. However, two more questions :1. Your manual mentions two types of crossing restrictions and several factors deciding between those two:- cross xx miles from XXX at altitude ..- descend xxx, start down now, I need you down at 30 miles or less What are those factors ? I ask, because I only get the second, but the first would be more common here. Can I influence that ?2. How do you decide the top of descent ? I remember, I got two times asked down from cruise level at around 115 NM from the Airport. My FMC TOD calculated around 85 NM. Cruise Alt was FL310, MSA 3000. Then later RC let me fly at FL110 for almost 35 miles. Not at all meant as complaint. But can you inform about any factors involved in that, or it is just a random variation ?Mike