Gabe_62

Yes I agree. I now remember that UT2 does let you specifiy a spawn radius, which should be set to some 50 miles I guess.Also, FSUIPC allows you to set TCAS to "0" = infinity. That helps too.

Global weaher with smoothing etc. should be switched off. Instead, set weather supression to a specific range - say 80 miles. This reduces Active Sky activity in the vicinity of the airfield as well as stabilising wind direction. Also make sure weather settings in FSUIPC (reg'd) are OFF.Second, ensure Ai traffic is spawned at least 50 miles from you to be on the safe side.This should minimise problems.Third, "Pray" ......Fourth, remember, it's not real, so if you do find a jumbo heading for you, don't panic... :(

..... that's a NO then... ?? !!! :( :( :( Can JD sound a little less terse in v5, when he's telling me off at the end of flight critique? It does upset me sometimes... B)

Don't forget the only options are "Acknowledge" or "Acknowledge and Contact". Without acknowledging, RC will not know you've responded.If you change the frequency, you have contacted but not acknowledged... RC doesn't move on to the next controller until this acknowledgement is received.But, as for the time delays being far too short, I feel your pain.

If you right-click on the required (server) shared folders on your client pc's networked folders, you need to "MAP" them as virtual drives. Also, make sure you check "Mount on Bootup".This makes life a lot easier, particularly when it comes to running makerwys.exe and updating your scenery.It is covered in the manual... as well as in my (brilliant) article in the March (?) 2009 issue of Computer Pilot magazine......."Networking FSX" :(

I'm gonna jump in here again, and agree with the "spirit" of what this chap is saying as I find that this is a problem across the RC spectrum: there are not enough pauses of enough duration, to allow the user to respond.It also happens ALL the time, once passed to Approach - no time to ask for an IAP before vectors are spewed forth - AND I also find a lot of times, that once I'm told to decend, I'm given 1 minute or thereabouts, to lose 4000 ft ! Seriously, at times I'm barely given time to dial in the new altitude before I'm being hastled. The only workaround sometimes is to set the tolerances at like: 10,000 ft - which of course is ridiculous.I think you could do with slowing everything right down... everything. I particularly empathise with the use of voice activated cockpits and stuff like FS2Crew. You really aren't given enough time to respond in a many situations.

Should the destination MSA be entered as the altitude 40 miles out... or what ?Presumably, I am going to be told to descend to this point by Approach ? Is this correct ?

Well i have the same problem with over anxious Approach Cs... :( JD says that I should have 90 seconds to ask for an IAP BEFORE I get vectors. I have never found this however. The WAV kicks in immediately after I acknowledge and contact Approach frequency.Mention is made of turning off Ai chatter, but that has never interfered anyway at this point, and frankly I'd rather have the chatter and put up with the moot vectoring.In relation to the main point of the thread, CARMIN looks similar to 'Gipol' at Zurich. It is a common holding point (where a number of SIDS end and from where all a/c are subsequently vectored. As such, it makes it impossible to ask for an IAP and THEN ask for vectors at that point ! I started a thread about this and realised that we are asking a bit much... you can ask for an IAP AFTER vectors, but not the other way around.Let's hope that RC5's promise to have STAR handling comes to fruition.There may be a workaround though... maybe the 'RC experts' here can comment:What if you checked 'always hold'... I don't know off hand, if you can specifiy the holding point in RC. But, FSC allows you to include a HP in your plan. This way, if RC knew where you were to hold, you could have CARMIN as your last WP, hold there, and then ask for vectors. That would, theoretically, be as close to reality as you could get.I never used holding, so I don't know if this could be effected.

Interesting point here: what do yo mean by "40 miles out".Now, before you laugh out loud, this is not as stoopid as it sounds. Is it 40 miles as the crow flies from the airport, or 40 miles counting back from your final WP according to your flightplan ?Thnx

They suggest switching Global weather off... as this can cause problems when using ASE.Also, UT2 does things differently. I do know that you can make planes ahead of you, disappear in UT2, if you feel you are being kept in hold for too long. But be patient... it's not perfect but you should stick with it as it quite complex, and once you suss out all its nuances, RC isn't at all bad.

Just thinking the same..... VFR yet ? Any other goodies to entice us with? ETA ? Cost ? Free T and Biscuits ? :(

Why is RC going barmy at you ? Surely, asking for an IAP allows you to go where you want to ? They do for a SID after all.To be honest I haven't tried filing a FP witohut a STAR/SID (via FSC), so maybe they do ?

Does anyone know why Approach is so quick to vector you, befoe you have chance to ask for an IAP ? Every time I get 50 miles from Milan, and I want to stay at 16000 due to mountains, I get handed to approach. Then within seconds, I get into a conversation that always requires an acknowledgement, that lasts about 5 minutes. I know it's all a waste of time as I'm only gonna ask for an IAP anyway,and so I totally ignore all the stuff he's reeling off. It happens every time and really, all that is needed if for the Approach controller to give the user ONE minute to ask for an IAP before blurting on a bou vectors here and vectors there. It is really annoying me to be honest.

Crikey, I'll need to get some sleep before I tackle that little lot ! But, thnx very much for your time with that. I'll have a good study tomorrow.Thnx.

Thnx all for your comments.I get the basic idea here, and this agrees with peter2000.co.uk 's real world flight to Zurich, where he had to hold at Gipol and was then given a 50degree vector.But, I think it will be difficult to intercept the ILS at what is a 90 degree (adjacent) intercept using a typical APPR on the AP.....not nice. Also, this may be easy enough with a GPS, but I doubt you can officially use a GPS for such an approach.One would have thought an additional vector of say 95 degrees for ILS 14 would be given, necessitating another bank to the right in order to give you the 45 degree intercept course.Anyway, I'm more interersted in how to use RC to effect such an approach, and agree with you, that I'd have to "pretend" I've been vectored from Gipol in order to intercept the localiser. Just have to hope its VFR conditions so I can find the damn thing !Yes it's a shame RC can't allow you to do the full ils and then ask for vectors....but heh, nothings perfect in life and rC does a pretty good job....except I find it expects altitude changes to be almost instantaneous at times....very impatient they are !Thnx again for your help guys.

I am aware of how to fly a "full ILS" in RC, but I have come across a problematic situation.Essentially, the STAR only takes one to a "holding point" from where vectors are apparently given to the localiser which begins some 15 miles directly west of the this holding point.Details:Zurich has MSA of around 4500ft, ILS 14 CAT II approach starts where loc is intercepted at 4000ft, from Gipol via HOC.Now, my query is, given I will be vectored from Gipol in real world, how do I effect this in FS ?Clearly, I will be vectored long before HOC (15 miles from airfield) long before the any of the STARS that use Gipol as the FAF.Therefore, I would need to ask for full ILS, in my case to 14 ILS.But, if I ask for this approach along with NOTAMS and a MSA of 4500 ft, I can easily fly to Gipol. BUT..... from a realism perspective, I would normally be vectored from Gipol...ie. a 15 miles ATCFlies to start of localiser.The ideal route for me is this:LIMC FARA7C.ABE8U URNA2Z LSZH See pic below..... last points on red line are STAR, terminating at Gipol with the locs 15m to west !If you look at this in FSC, you can see my problem. Can this be done in RC ? Or, am I hoping a little too much?Clearly, a wider approach from the West would increase the chances of being vectored more or less correctly, but given the mountainous terrain either side of the approach path, it may be too risky to rely on vectors.One idea for a route like this would be:LIMC FARA7C.ABE8U FRI GRE HOC2Z LSZHIdeally, I would ask for full ILS, and then once at Gippol, ask for Vectors.....hehe ! Not sure I can do this though.Is there a workaround in a situation like this, or not? Clearly, a full ILS tends to end up intercepting the localiser with the FAF firmly ensconsed in the center of it ! But, I would imagine a number of approaches similar to Zurich exist.Thnx for any help, advice or other comments, however rude.Bye.