Wrightt

But if you were interested in knowing how MSFS assignments compared with real world without access to something like ATIS, you could find out by going to flightaware.com, where I just checked the comings and goings at EDDF.

All I have said is that I would like to have the option to designate the active arrival and departure runways at my departure and destination airports. That’s all. I would use RL ATIS to make that determination, but it would be an OPTION. If you are satisfied with the MSFS default, that’s fine. If you are flying somewhere where there is no ATIS, that’s fine - just leave it as is. It would only be one option. Why does it matter? If I am using RL traffic and RL weather in my sim experience, why is it unreasonable to also use RL runway assignments - if that’s how I would like to use the sim? Again - an OPTION. BTW - in my years as a RL traffic controller, I never experienced a scenario where the ATIS didn’t reasonably keep up with drastic weather changes, but even if that were the case, since I am monitoring METARs (as is the tower), I would again have the OPTION of changing the active runways to meet that situation.

I understand that, and it’s been true for the 40-some years I’ve been simming. What we have now is so far beyond where we were at the start, it boggles the mind. At the same time, to be this close…. (and I still can’t abide KBOS rwy 33R)

I know that I can designate the runway I will use, or even be directed to, and I realize that I can find out what runway MSFS is using. What I am trying to accomplish is making the MSFS active runway(s) conform to the current RL ATIS for ALL departing and arriving aircraft. It is frustrating to go through all the immersive steps - metars, TAFs, ATIS - to set up a flight and find that MSFS is doing something completely different, sometimes even completely unrealistic, as in my earlier example of using the 2557 ft rwy 33R for 737 and A320 departures, or arrivals and departures on KMSP closed rwy 4/22. As long as we (and Asobo and MS) are striving to make FS ‘as real as it gets’, this seems to me a reasonable step. Perhaps some third-party developer will come up with something.

If they can’t pick up ATIS- and I acknowledge that it would be a PITA to program - we can. I always check ATIS before a flight and before arrival anyway. It shouldn’t be a big deal to give us a screen where we can enter that info - including closed runways, which I have also seen being used in MSFS. For me, it would go a long way toward realism.

This drives me to distraction. MSFS totally hoses the active runway - with active weather enabled, I checked the current ATIS at KBOS. Arrivals are assigned rwy 4R and 4L, with 33R approved for turnoffs. Departures use rwy 9. MSFS, using whatever algorithm it uses, has departures using 33R, a 2500 foot runway! It kind of destroys whatever immersion we are trying to achieve when we see that level of simulation. I know I can use whatever runway I want for my flight, but I have experienced, when using RL ATIS for either takeoff or landing, AI traffic using the opposite end. It would be nice to be able to designate, when setting up the flight - or during a flight - what the active arrival and departure runways are for both departure and destination airports according to the latest ATIS. If MSFS won’t do it, I am willing to do set those parameters.

Don’t know if this has been covered - I didn’t see it. When cruising at altitudes above FL180, when I am passed off to a new controller they give me the altimeter setting. As I recall, in the US that information is only transmitted to aircraft below FL180 or cleared to descend below it. Above FL180 the altimeter is set to Standard so the info is of no use. Of course, outside the US transition altitude may be different, so I guess the call is country-specific.

OK...didn’t realize that was an option. Guess I should read the manual more closely. 😁

Don’t have it anymore, but will refly.

I understand that’s what should happen, but the “to intercept course” phraseology is missing, and the only clearance I get is “fly heading XXX” As to the course filed and the course in P2A ... I filed this course: KORD DUFEE ELX HAAKK DOXXY SOSIC JHW Q82 MEMMS WILET STELA1 KBDL for a flight from O’Hare to Bradley KBDL. Departing runway 27C I made a right turn of about 180 degrees to head east which took me north of the airport, then entered LNAV mode which took me direct DUFEE. P2A advised me that I was off course and gave me a heading to fly. When I expanded the P2A map, its course line went from the center of O’Hare airport to DUFEE, and I was naturally to the north of that line, although headed directly for that waypoint. According to my aircraft’s instruments, I was precisely on course. Took me somewhat aback.

When I depart an airport without flying a SID, assuming I am not following an airway, P2A calculates a course for me to follow that appears to run from the airport to the first waypoint without considering that after departure and following ATC heading instructions, by the time I am expected to assume my own navigation, I am no longer on that calculated course, but could be a fairly considerable distance off it. My internal navigation then heads me direct to that first waypoint, not to P2A’s courseline, but ATC tells me that I am off course. That is the first issue. Then P2A says ,”You are off course. Fly heading XXX”. And here is the second issue. I am obligated to follow the last clearance I received - fly a particular heading is as unambiguous as it gets, but P2A seems to assume, although it did not state it, that I will fly that heading until intercepting its own precalculated course, then change my heading accordingly - otherwise it tells me I am off course again. That clearance, IMHO, should be explicitly stated, not assumed. If I am assigned a heading, I follow it until otherwise instructed, and ATC should expect that I will do so and issue clearances accordingly. I know I could obviate the issue be requesting a clearance direct to the next waypoint when they tell me I am off course, but I shouldn’t have to. Not a biggie, but I thought I would bring it up. Sorry if this has been explained elsewhere, but I couldn’t find it. Thanks.

Checked the log. The crossing restriction is as I stated. Emailing log to you.

Thanks. I will refly the route. It is possible that it is as you say and I misunderstood what ATC told me. Otherwise, will send you the log.

Flight from KMSP to KORD, FL 330, FYTTE5 ZZIPR transition for arrival to RWY 28R. After passing ZZIPR (don’t recall the distance) received clearance to cross FFYTE at 5700, then descend via the FYTTE5 arrival. It seemed, first of all, that an altitude of 5700 was kind of strange, especially given that the FYTTE5 arrival calls for a hard altitude of 11000 for that intersection, and also specifies 300 kts for landings to the west. My 737-700 had to just about fall out of the sky, and even at that could not make 5700 feet at 250 kts. I received a Descent Path Unachievable and Unable 250 kts message on the FMS CDU. Flew this route twice, and received this clearance both times. Is there a logical explanation for it?

I think that is exactly the case. If so, PMDG needs to update the documentation.

DaveCT2003 - They are not there, only the intro and tutorials. Now I have read that there are copyright issues. Found the training manual on the web, so I’m ok, but was confused that the op center was giving links to docs that weren’t there.

Just downloaded and installed 737 NGX. Went to the operations center to look at some manuals. Although they are all listed, the only ones that come up are the Intro and tutorials 1 & 2. None of the training or ops manuals. When I look in the Flight Manuals folder in the sim, those three are the only ones there. What to do?? Wright Truesdell

I had unchecked 04/22 in maint, and it picked 30L for my next flight. That would be the rwy I would expect. 😀 Thanks, Dave. Wonderul product.

Thanks, Jeb, that is helpful. As I have been running the test version, I have used KMSP (my home airport) quite a bit, and it uses 04/22 almost exclusively. The funny thing is, that runway is very rarely used in real life - basically only when there are strong southwest winds. 12/30R & L and the relatively recent 17/35 get almost all the traffic. I willl look more closely at taxi maint. Thanks again.

About to pull the trigger on this great application after the test period, but I am confused about something. Listening to ATIS at KMSP, the wind was (accurately) reported as 31017G28, but the runway in use for arriving and departing aircraft was 22. With that wind, is there a reason why the active runway wasn’t 30L and/or 30R?