Hi Brad,That sounds exactly the same as my approaches into LIPZ. Hopefully Thomas will fly this route again and get the same vectors.I used the excellent freeware Venice airport available here http://www.isdproject.com/ . They have also produced a Rome airport that's better than my Aerosoft version.Cheers,

Hi Mike,Thanks for pointing out that scenery/traffic pack. I've got it installed and it looks excellent. I think most of the military planes use the call sign Air Force so we should be okay!You'll make a Russian of me yet :-lolWhen we start auditioning for extra controllers it would be good to get some Eastern European/Russian accents.Also we are, I suspect, missing a lot of Russian callsigns. No promises but it might be worth making a list of 5 or 10 of the more important ones (Pulkovo springs to mind for St Petersburg) and suggesting them for inclusion if we get around to recording some new files.All the best,John

Hi John,FS is really a great hobby, giving us the chance to learn flying the Russian way, down to details. A fascinating experience and almost all of that is Freeware. RC4 covering Russia would be really the cream on the cake.>Also we are, I suspect, missing a lot of Russian callsigns. No>promises but it might be worth making a list of 5 or 10 of the>more important ones (Pulkovo springs to mind for St>Petersburg) and suggesting them for inclusion if we get around>to recording some new files.You won't have to ask me twice for such a list :-), so here goes :Airline Name given if different from Callsign. PULKOVO - Pulkovo Aviation EnterpriseSIBERIA AIRLINES DONAVIA - Aeroflot DonKRASNOJARSKY AIR - Kras AirSVERDLOVSK AIR - Ural AirlinesEASTLINE EXPRESS - Russian SkyAIR MINVODY - KMVTRANSAERODOMODEDOVO AIRLINESVLADAVIA - Vladivostok AirKHABAROVSK AIR - DalaviaTJUMAVI - UT AirThere are many more, but these I would consider the most important.PULKOVO can also be used as Airport name. For more AIRPORT names, you might use those covered with excellent sceneries (listed with a "thumbs up" symbol in our scenery list).>> You'll make a Russian of me yet :-lol:-lol . If you like UNNT, you will also like that one, made by the same team :http://www.protu-154.com/temp/usss.jpgThat's Ekaterinburg, home of Ural Airlines. Will be released today at avsim.ru.To return to the original post, I also tried that Italian flight and correctly got a heading of 310, so all went fine. Strange.Mike

Yes I will do the flight again, but I did not have the time this week.I did it two times before and both times I was sent on heading One - Three - Zero.I think the problem (as the one I had with EDDN) is related to altitude, perhaps in conjunction with usage of RVSM. Radar Contact for some reason was waiting for me to get down to another FL, (although not telling me so).On my flight to EDDN stated above, after DKB VOR I did a 1,000 feet descent from FL120 to FL110 on my own discretion from FL120 to FL110 and then I was passed over to approach immediatly. Therefore I assume that RC4 wanted to see me at FL110, although not telling me so.I did the flight to EDDN again and this time I approached DKB VOR from another direction (South West) and everything went fine. Center directed me down to FL120 and passed me then immediatly over to approach.I observed one other strange things related to altitude: On at least two of my flights before I was flying at FL320 (with standard pressure) and I had AI traffic visible on the TCAS. Nevertheless the Controller was always stating me as flying on FL330 and was refering to the AI traffic also with an altitude offset of 1,000 feet (again 1,000 feet !!! = RVSM separation)compared to what I was seeing on the TCAS and in the outside view.By the way: Yes, there are interesting places to fly outside of the US. As an European Citizen I can confirm this ;-)

Thomas,<>Then I think you have to accept that you are not at the altitude you believe you are. Four of us have flown this route (I many time previously) and have not encountered the problem you describe.Can you tell me how you are setting standard pressure? Once we know that it may solve the riddle.<>RC continually monitors your flight including heading and altitude. If you're not doing what you've been told you will know about it - believe me :-)<>Was the controller telling you off for not maintaining your correct Flight Level? All this points to incorrect pressure settings. Can you provide us with the FL320 flight plan please? I'm curious about that one too. I want to get to the bottom of this problem. It's most interesting.Cheers,

>Can you tell me how you are setting standard pressure? Once we>know that it may solve the riddle.-> I have been using the PMDG 736: EFIS Control Panel -> Barometric Standard Switch>RC continually monitors your flight including heading and>altitude. If you're not doing what you've been told you will>know about it - believe me :-)-> I did exactly what RC told me to do, RC4 did not complain about anything - believe me :-)>Was the controller telling you off for not maintaining your correct Flight Level? All this points to incorrect pressure settings. Can you provide us with the FL320 flight plan please? I'm curious>about that one too. I want to get to the bottom of this problem. It's most >nteresting.-> The controller told me nothing about being on a wrong flight level or not following his instructions; just within his traffic notifications he stated me as flying on FL330 (and not on FL320). In the same way the AI traffic was referred to as being 1,000ft higher than I saw them myself in TCAS and outside view.

Hi Thomas,<< I have been using the PMDG 736: EFIS Control Panel -> Barometric Standard Switch >>Okay, so providing your altimeter shows 29.92 or 1013.2 then you're definitely on standard pressure.<< I did exactly what RC told me to do, RC4 did not complain about anything - believe me :-) >>I believe you :-) Maybe it was the phraseology you used in an earlier message that led me to believe RC was expecting you to be at a different altitude than you actually were.<>So you filed for FS320 and were flying at FL320 but the controller stated you were at FL330? Was he advising another aircraft that another aircraft (you) was at a different flight level to the one you were? If so, that might be something we'd need to look at.Have you managed to fly LIRF-LIPZ with the vectors of 305 followed by 005?Cheers,

Thanks for the scenery tip.BradKELP/KBIF http://home.elp.rr.com/bmbanister/BannerSig_BMBanister.jpgAMD Athlon XP 2600, Asus A7V600, 1GB PC3200 DDR, NVidia 128MB GeForce 6800, SB Live

Ok, I think a nailed the problem down: It is related to the flight level handling.I did the flight LIRF->LIPZ today again, but this time at flight level 280 and not 270 and everything worked fine: Center got me down to FL110@250knots and handed me over to arrival, which gave me vectors to 04R.___________Remark: I am aware that for headings from 000 to 179 degree you would normally use odd levels and for headings from 180 to 359 even levels. The flight from LIRF to LIPZ is northwest-bound during cruize, therefore you would normally expect to use an even flight level (e.g. FL280) and not an odd one (e.g. FL270).___________I assume, that the fact that I sometimes use an odd flight level, where according to the rules, normally an even one should be used, must be the cause the problems I observed with RC4.Now one could argue, that I should simply follow the rules and use the standard flight levels, but I would say, that RC4 should be able to cope with the usage of a non-standard flight level.___________Remark: Due to my knowledge within Europe there are a lot of exceptions to the standard flight level handling, also with RVSM, e.g. in Spain.___________

Hi Thomas,I'm glad you've maanged to overcome the problem. However, RC doesn't bother about what FL you file as long as you fly what you file. I've flown LIRF-LIPZ many times up to FL350 and have always been cleared down to FL110 or FL120 as required.Try it again with a higher flight level and I think you'll find things work just as well.Cheers,

Ray,sorry to keep on bothering you, but I did not say, that I overcame the problem :).To sum it up:- I did exactly the same flight from LIRF to LIPZ two times on FL270 and the approach did not work.- I did the same flight one time on FL280 and the approach worked fine.Similar weather conditions, RWY 04R in use for landing&departing (Weather from FS Meteo).I will try the flight one more time within the next days @FL270 and I will report what happens.I also had the other issue where Radar Contact reported me and the other traffic 1,000 feet higher than we actually were.I think Radar Contact is the best ATC-program currently available, but nothing is perfect :)P.S: Just to give you some background on myself: I have quite some experience in flight simming going back to FS2: Overall about 9.000 to 10.000 flying hours, out of these about 4,700 hours logged with IVAO.

Hi Thomas,<>You're quite right, you said you'd nailed it down which is different, sorry.I'm so intrigued by this FL issue into LIPZ that I will fly it myself and see if I can get what you're getting. I think the landing runway will always be 04R. I've forgotten the last time I landed on 22L.I'll refer the team to your 1,000ft traffic problem - that's not my speciality.:) >>Agreed but we will try and nail down the problems you're reporting. Thanks for the nice words - much appreciated.From your flying hours it's clear you're an experienced pilot so I hope RC meets all your expectations once we've resolved these two issues.Cheers,

>I hope RC meets all your expectations once we've resolved>these two issues.Please do not get me wrong. Most of the flights I did so far ended successfully. I am very happy with the program as it is, and what I am reporting here are really only very minor issues.Of course there is room for enhancements to the program's functionality in future releases - but this is normal.And please be assured, that I always keep in mind that it may also be my mistake or error which cause these minor issues - I do not want so sound over-selfconfident.I will report again about my experiences within the next days.Happy new Year to you and the whole RC team!

Thomas,Thanks for that. I look forward to comparing results with you on the LIPZ flight.Happy New Year to you too :-)

> also had the other issue where Radar Contact reported me and the other traffic 1,000 feet higher than we actually wereThis sounds very much like what we discovered during testing, where the AI always 'forget' to set their altimeter correctly passing TA/TL on climb/decent. They just don't know they need to do it. So when they are in level cruise, they are always a few hundred ft above/below what they should be. If you have a TCAS installed in your plane, check out the AI around you - they'll be <>+03, or <>-06 and hardly ever at <>00 like they should be, if they had set their altimeter correctly.For interests sake, you can also see this happening with the default MSATC - the controller will be constantly telling an AI to "expedite your climb to FL280" over and over. I think that is because with incorrect altimeter settings, the AI thinks it's flying at the correct level, but the controller is expecting a climb a few hundered feet to where the AI really should be.Subs