Sign in to follow this  
Guest 102301636

Wishlist

Recommended Posts

Hey JD,I trust vacation in hilton went well?I just thought I'd throw in my 2 pence worth (again) on some things you consider for future releases.1) The ability to request descent (without actually specifying a particular altitude)2) The ability to request further descent (this would be after having previously requested item #1)3) The ability to request a delay in climb (eg a climb at pilots discretion)4) The ability for controllers to include 'left' or 'right' in turning instructions (if you can figure out current heading using FSUIPC this should be easy).5) After a rejected take-off, the ability to request to hold somewhere on the ground (it would always be granted as RC doesn't seperate traffic on the gound at the moment)6) The ability to request repeat of the previous instruction (after having initially acknowledged it) pilots often forget what they have acknowleged, you know, in one ear and out the other :)7)The ability to request self-position, the controller might then ask that the pilot acknowledge when s/he is visual with the field, which is where the the currently modeled request for visual approach would come in...I'm constantly thinking of new stuff but i'll stop here cus i'm sure you guys have your own thinktanks!p.s. I'm free for about 5 months from june onwards and have plenty of development experience with a number of languages, if there is ever anything I can do, feel free to give me a shout, I'm always up for a challenge.alan_o_donovan(at)hotmail.comcheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

i'll let doug put what he thinks on the listjd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one,I would add the ability to request further climb when fast approaching a cleared intermediate level (something as "approaching xxx, requesting further climb").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I respectfully add the suggestion to include a simulator pause when the co-pilot has the comms and ATC issues an order that needs intervention . I am thinking especially of descent instructions etc. (autopilot is fine and all, but I guess most people who are into fs enough to buy RV4 will fly 'proper' planes like those from PMDG :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,1) The ability to request descent (without actually specifying a particular altitude):). Mostly it's "...verify assigned altitude..." but we can probably "...say again last transmission..." or something like that. We'll see.7)The ability to request self-position, the controller might then ask that the pilot acknowledge when s/he is visual with the field, which is where the the currently modeled request for visual approach would come in...8)I would add the ability to request further climb when fast approaching a cleared intermediate level (something as "approaching xxx, requesting further climb").<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug,thanks for your lengthy post and takin the time to consider them!...maybe I can explain to you the rationale behind some of the above suggestions<>- I hear it all the time on my scanner (I am in Europe), basically when the aircraft reaches the TOD as shown on the ND pilots generally ask for descent without actually specifying an altitude. This ensures that they can follow the most economical cruise descent profile as computed by their FMC.<>- Again this follows after the first suggestion. It's just to let controllers know that the pilots are ready to continue descent if ATC will allow. Again this is to continue the afore mentioned economical descent profile...its all about saving as much fuel as possible :)<>- I hear this alot on transatlantic flights. Basically a flight would depart heavy with plenty of fuel onboard to make the crossing. ATC would clear the flight to a paricular flight level but the crew would seek permission to delay the climb as long as possible. There are a couple of reasons for this. The aircraft may not be able to achieve the specified flight level due to the weight of fuel on board and so delay the climb until some fuel is burned off. Another reason would be that the climb thrust to get the aircraft to that altitude in it's heavy state would be higher than if the climb was delayed, this reduces fuel burn and wear and tear on the engines. Another reason might be becuase of a better tailwind (and/or ride) at the current altitude when compared to the newly cleared FL. You are right that it would be an unusual request in any other circumstance. Now the idea of a slow climb that you mentioned, that is also a good suggestion.<<7)The ability to request self-position, the controller might then ask that the pilot acknowledge when s/he is visual with the field, which is where the the currently modeled request for visual approach would come in...>>- This is related to both IFR and VFR. At quieter aerodromes or at off-peak times a pilot may request a self-position. Basically its a fuel and time saving measure again. Instead of getting vectored the pilot is free to position his aircraft onto finals from his present position (wherever that might be). I've heard aircraft as far out as 50 miles doing this (especially low-cost carriers). When the pilot eventually becomes visual with the field he lets ATC know and they would usually clear him for the approach at that point and inform him to contact the tower.Thats the rationale behind these suggestions. I leave them in your capable hands, if you want further clarification on anything just post back and I will reply asap.Many thanks again,Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<>- I hear it all the time on my scanner (I am in Europe), basically when the aircraft reaches the TOD as shown on the ND pilots generally ask for descent without actually specifying an altitude. This ensures that they can follow the most economical cruise descent profile as computed by their FMC.Typically Radar Contact issues descent from cruise way before any of the FMC's calculated TOD point. Don't think this one is really necessary for RC, although you are right in that it happens alot IRL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that this has been already discussed but I would add 1:) possibility to put specific squawk code when there is emergency, hijack, ... such 7770 , ...2:) RC able to take control of the traffic on ground during taxi3:) VFR flight capable !hehe !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine suggestions 2 and 3 would require major re-coding or extra coding....as you know ground control is very complex....and VFR would be radically different as RC works based on a particular flight plan being loadded at the moment...I'm sure that we will see these eventually...but I think the majority of the above suggestions in previous posts are smaller issues which could be tackled in the current codebase with no or minimal change required....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rest assured, all suggestions are documented. I'm seeing nothing lately that I haven't already made note of. All will be "auditioned" when the time comes, not all will make it.John and I are having our annual meeting (which we do anywhere from twice/yr to every other yr :-) ) sometime in the next month or so. Whether we choose to pursue another point release prior to fsx, or make the next point fsx, or shoot for v5 will be decided then along with what's to be included in what.It's actually very complicated. Affects many people, all of whom we appreciate! RC would be nothing if it were just John and I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too wish to see the turn right or left included. Same with a few of the other suggestions.Some other things I'd like to see might be considered VFR, and you guys sound like you're still discussing that area.One would be when approaching a non-controlled field. When we take off we get the option to state out taxi and T/O instructions on Unicom, but on approach to these places, we're left just canceling IFR. I'd like to be able to cancel IFR and then get the option to tune the Unicom to state my landing instructions and hear others in RC. Also, regarding traffic. It'd be neat to sometimes get a deviation for traffic during cruise or approach, but now it seems that only occurs with AI getting the deviation. Unless I'm unfamiliar with how the interaction works, would it also be possible to allow for some latitude when we get a TCAS warning and override ATC. IRL, a pilot could make a deviation for TCAS warnings and not get a lashing. :)The only 2 constraints I would like to see improved and/or changed are the vectors and menu selection. The majority of the time the vectors are fine, but every so often I get a very bad vector and yet RC knows which direction the airport/runway is. One very bad vector is into SLC from the northwest. I'm not cleared low enough to make my altitude and Vref without serious intervention in a heavy, and the vectors always put me way past the LOC outside of LOC signal range. I realize the option to get full ILS or RNAV is there, but that approach doesn't give me enough time to execute the plate properly.As far as the menu selection, could it be possible to allow us to scroll through and make selections while ATC is talking. Often I find myself wanting to choose a full approach but ATC and AI won't shut up and time is crucial. My AI is set rather low too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was also a discussion on flightsim regarding the fact that on non-FAA airports the descent TL varies as assigned by ATC according to the surface pressure altitude. It might be a bit of complex coding but RC can see the surface pressure and should be able to maintain an internal altimeter based on PA as well as know the aircraft altitude based on standard PA during the descent transition to make the call when to switch to surface pressure.Look for my comments in the FS9 forum on Flightsim within this thread:Subject: "Active Runway- Microsoft got it REALLY wrong"Please don't kill the messenger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I too wish to see the turn right or left included. Same with>a few of the other suggestions.>>Some other things I'd like to see might be considered VFR, and>you guys sound like you're still discussing that area.it's been discuessed, and will be discussed some more. it won't be in any 4.x releases - it's a major undertaking.>>One would be when approaching a non-controlled field. When we>take off we get the option to state out taxi and T/O>instructions on Unicom, but on approach to these places, we're>left just canceling IFR. I'd like to be able to cancel IFR>and then get the option to tune the Unicom to state my landing>instructions and hear others in RC. i believe we already have that on the list>>Also, regarding traffic. It'd be neat to sometimes get a>deviation for traffic during cruise or approach, but now it>seems that only occurs with AI getting the deviation. Unless>I'm unfamiliar with how the interaction works, would it also>be possible to allow for some latitude when we get a TCAS>warning and override ATC. IRL, a pilot could make a deviation>for TCAS warnings and not get a lashing. :)telling you to deviate for enroute traffic, done right, is very complicated. i'd have to pick doug's brain for months and months to get what it takes to become a controller. then it would take even longer to test. it's not like we can position conflicting traffic in the same place every time, and get it right. and everytime you fixed one de-confliction sceneratio, you would have to regression test all the other tested scenarios again. >>The only 2 constraints I would like to see improved and/or>changed are the vectors and menu selection. The majority of>the time the vectors are fine, but every so often I get a very>bad vector and yet RC knows which direction the airport/runway>is. One very bad vector is into SLC from the northwest. I'm>not cleared low enough to make my altitude and Vref without>serious intervention in a heavy, and the vectors always put me>way past the LOC outside of LOC signal range. I realize the>option to get full ILS or RNAV is there, but that approach>doesn't give me enough time to execute the plate properly.if the vectors are perfect 99.99% of the time, i admit there is room for improvement. but, it works pretty darn good almost all the time.you can always play with the MSA to help RC understand a mountainous airport. you have notams, and, should i say it, you might just have to fly the plane, and not push buttons, and turn dials :-)>>As far as the menu selection, could it be possible to allow us>to scroll through and make selections while ATC is talking. >Often I find myself wanting to choose a full approach but ATC>and AI won't shut up and time is crucial. My AI is set rather>low too.some might argue that if i made the ai chatter stop when you pressed a button, that would be unrealistic :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are you saying the arrival transition level is not calculated correctly at non-FAA airports? i was not aware of that. we tested that pretty hard, and had consensus amongst the beta team that it was rightjd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another suggestion and/or request. Would it be possible to beable to file 2 flight plans such as Pln1 Pln2. This would help when on flights that have a stop included. I'm going the fly one that has a 30 minute layover and then off again. If for some reason your a little late arriving and have to rush to make the next departure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>you can always play with the MSA to help RC understand a>mountainous airport. you have notams, and, should i say it,>you might just have to fly the plane, and not push buttons,>and turn dials :-)>Yes, however, on this approach, even with the MSA set to 9000 and NOTAMs checked I still wasn't allowed below 15,000, when I really need to be at 10,000 or 11,000 at the most. It makes those Boeings tough to get in properly.I wonder on that topic, if there's a way you could include a menu selection that would allow us to sort of make our own STAR. For example, I make my plan in FS9 and include the STAR waypoints I plan to fly. RC recognizes those waypoints and the other data where it displays in the middle of the Controller Info block. Could it be done that we could have the option to select certain waypoints and enter an altitude restriction in them? Even better, the option to be At or Below? This would really be a neat feature when flying a STAR or approach, especially when mountains or other issues complicate the descent process. This would've allowed me to get cleared to 10,000 before reaching the IAF on my KSLC ILS approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"... on non-FAA airports the descent TL varies as assigned by ATC according to the surface pressure altitude."That's absolutely correct, Ron, and this is already fully implemented in Radar Contact 4's non-FAA procedures. I'm puzzled by your next comment, though: "It might be a bit of complex coding but RC can see the surface pressure and should be able to maintain an internal altimeter based on PA as well as know the aircraft altitude based on standard PA during the descent transition to make the call when to switch to surface pressure."Are you suggesting that RC doesn't already do this? As the designer of RC's altimetry system for non-FAA areas, I can assure you it does. There's nothing complex about it (at least for a man of jd's programming ability!) and it has been coded so that RC calculates not only the correct flight level value for the Transition Level (based on 1013.2 hPa) but it also calculates the actual altitude of this flight level based on the local pressure setting (QNH). It is this latter value that is used to calculate the "altimeter check" call on descent.Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,You're looking for something akin to Profile Descent. It's been on the list; can't say if/when we'll do it at this time. I heard a rumor the States are going to try it again (it failed once already as a usable procedure). If that happens, RCvX will see it for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that it did. I saw your response in the flightsim thread this a.m. (and correction to one of mine which I comprehend) and all appears well as I thought. I just wanted someone from here to respond to this other poster's criticsm.I've done a lot of European (Germany, Switzerland, France, Italy) using a freeware Zurich, Cologne, Rome-Fuciano, and the Aerosoft collections for Germany and France and looking at all these plates everything for TA and TL is working great for me.Thanks for your response and great job on designing this area of RC 4.01 -- especially to all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can get a pilot's perspective (Captain Mike Ray) on CDAP by downloading his supplements to his 700 guides from the download section at www.utem.com. I found it interesting. (I have two of his manuals).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi JD,I'm putting here (as an addition to the "wishlist") a reply that I gave to another thread regarding ATIS that seems to have gone un-noticed:"JD,maybe it could be possibile to read the weather from real reports stored in the WX files of programs such as ActiveSky (which has a new file for every hour).This could be very interesting and useful, you may even make a small additional "WX window" in the startup screens and put there some ICAO station for which you may wish to have updated wx reports (say: the destination and the alternates/route alternates airports; so you could get an update on the wx at your destination and make your planning better): if you could read the WX file, the "get the wx" could give you:-actual "near" airport wx-actual destination wx-actual alternates wxThis would sound more as a "VOLMET" than an ATIS (no runway infos) and could be personalized (you put the 3-4 ICAO that you need).You may even have 2 "get the wx" options: the VOLMET and the local (which gives the nearest airport ATIS).It may just read the METARs giving: wind, vis, wx, cloud, temp/dp and altimeter/QNH, disregarding any other attached info (such as Windshear, CB position and a lot of stuff that can be appended at the end of the METAR and that many times is in a not standardized format).I don't know if this is possibile, but if so, would be a very nice improvement.Thanks a lot."Thanks again and thumbs up for RC: I can't do one single flight without it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see some great ideas in this thread and if I may just add a couple myself.1, regarding the TCAS RA, would it not be possible to do what we do in real life and have an option menu with eg. 1, Filght#xx TCAS Climb 2, Filght#xx TCAS DescentAnd another call " Clear of conflict, Descending (Climbing) Flight LevelXXX" after the RA.Thus if we get an RA we select the appropriate call and then we don't get a *ollocking from the Feds when we arrive.2, I'd like the deviation for weather looked at as, as I stated before on some sectors it will be difficult to get 25 miles between waypoints and as such we will always get chewed out for deviating of our route.3, Maybe delayed climb option could be reworked so that you will always be cleared to a level 2000' below your flight planned level and when you reach that level the controller could ask "XXXX, are you able Flight Level X"And an answer option of 1,Yes 2,Not at this timeOr maybe a little more informally "Were happy where we are now thanks"Anyway glad to see that you planning on even more improvements to an already great program Good luckSteve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think those TCAS ideas are cool, and well worth a look, definately a very good idea!I assume RC would just not log the deviation in altitude until the clear of conflict call was made, thus ensuring no penalty from JD at the end of the flight...I like it...simple and effective

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this