Radar Contact 4 The Mutley Review

[Jetblst 0]

Dear Mutley and Friends,

I read your review Mutley on Radar Contact and it seems as if you know something about the software.

I am a RL pilot and in need of ATC practice and I would like to know if this program is up for the challenge.

I currently fly Feelthere's Ejets V2. I am using FSX Gold on a brand new machine I just built. I can give you specs if needed.

Here goes.

1. Does RC4 give you the ability to do multiple approaches at one airport for practice.

2. Does RC4 provide any sort of inflight emergency handling. For instance Loss of Comm. Engine Fire/Failure. Let your imagination run here. Does

RC4 do anything like that. A little?

3. Is it required then to also purchase the flight planning software too? I take it that the program will not handle flight plans created by FSX?

4. Holding. Can you describe a little more in detail what RC4 provides for holding.

5. Should have been b4 4 but here it goes. How does RC4 handle VFR go arounds and IFR missed approaches? How well does it handle them.

I just would like a little more on this info. Thanks so much. Nice website by the way. I put it into my Favorites!

Thanks in advance for your answers.

[stu7708 244]

Hi Mark and :icon_welcomeani: to the Hangar.

While I didn't write the Radar Contact Review I have some answers for you.

1. Not sure exactly what you are after here. But one feature is that you can save the flight with the current state of Radar Contact to be able to return to your flight. This should be a possible way to get what I think you're after. RC also supports Touch and Go's if I remeber correctly.

2. Yes, most of what I can think of are available, with an option to divert to the closest available airport, or any FSX airport of your choice. And RC will also ask you for souls on board and what, if any, assistance you need present on the ground if you make it that far. But it doesn't go as far as actually simulation the fire squad on the ground for you at your destination

3. No need to get a separate flight planning software. FSX flight plans will do just fine. But given the fact that FSX don't handle SID's or STARS unless manually added a flight planner is a good addition to the overall experience. Other users on this forum speaks highly of a freeware software called Plan-G, but I havn't tried it out my self yet. I use the payware software FS Commander instead.

4. Holding is handled in RC. Settings can be made prior to starting your FSX session to have holding disabled, have RC decide if holding is nessecery due to weather or to always be put on hold (for training purposes I guess). It's then up to you if you want ATC to vector you in the holding pattern, or if you want to fly it on your own in accordence with ATC instructions.

5. VFR aren't handled at all in RC4, but Go around on visual apporach or missed approaches are handled. Havn't had to use it myself yet, so I can't really say anything about how well it's executed.

Also check out Radar Contacts website. The full documentation and 8 tutorials can be found here.

I hope I could enlighten you atleast somewhat on RC, and if you ask me I can truly recommend it as a "must have" addon for FSX.

[allardjd 1,853]

Stu's answers are good, but since I'm the one who wrote the review I feel obligated to answer too.

 

Quote

Does RC4 give you the ability to do multiple approaches at one airport for practice.

 

Yes, just declare a missed. You can shoot the same approach over again or choose another. Stu's point about using a saved flight is valid too, though I have not tried doing that.

 

Quote

Does RC4 provide any sort of inflight emergency handling. For instance Loss of Comm. Engine Fire/Failure. Let your imagination run here. Does

RC4 do anything like that. A little?

 

You have the option to declare an emergency in RC and divert, but it's pretty generic - nothing specific with respect to the type of emergency. I haven't used this part, so not sure but expect it would give you priority handling and an option to divert, if desired.

 

Quote

Is it required then to also purchase the flight planning software too? I take it that the program will not handle flight plans created by FSX?

 

No need to buy anything else. It does import the FS flight plan files and if you use another planning package that can export FS flight plan files that's OK too.

 

Quote

Holding. Can you describe a little more in detail what RC4 provides for holding.

 

I haven't used this but you have an option to set holds to Always/Sometimes/Never. If you select sometimes, you may or may not get one. RC gives holds only at your last waypoint and only if that waypoint is within a certain distance of the destination airport. I haven't used that either, so not sure of the details, but RC has practicing RW ATC controllers involved in the software development, so suspect that it's probably pretty good.

 

Quote

Should have been b4 4 but here it goes. How does RC4 handle VFR go arounds and IFR missed approaches? How well does it handle them.

 

If you cancel IFR, RC is pretty much all done with you. If on approach you report "Field in Sight" the approach controller immediately hands you off to the tower. I think you can still declare a missed and sometimes RC ATC will wave you off (normally for traffic) but will immediately hand you back to the approach controller to set you up for the approach. I don't think it's set up for VFR patterns.

 

Unless you request the full approach, RC will, just like the RW, give you vectors to the final approach course. The option is there to fly the full approach and you can choose the approach and the runway of your choice. I think it also supports circle-to-land but can't remember that for sure.

 

If you go missed you will not fly the entire missed approach procedure - you'll be handed off to the approach controller immediately and he'll begin giving you vectors. If you want to practice the entire MAP you could use Stu's method of beginning the approach from a save, flying the full procedure, declaring a missed and then ignore RC and fly the whole missed approach, then restore the saved position for the next one.

 

Quote

Nice website by the way. I put it into my Favorites!

 

Happy you like it - it's our favorite too!

 

I see you're at KMSP. My daughter went to the University of Minnesota for her bachelors, so we know the town. Nice place if you can stand the winter.

 

I also note that you list FS2002 as your sim. Check before buying that RC will support that - not sure if it does. You may need to bump up to FS2004 (FS9) or FSX.

 

John

[GabethePilot 1]

Yup, like Mr Allard said !

It's a great program, and hopefully will be even better when Version 5 comes out... VFR, SID handling etc. We have been waiting a loooooong time for it.

[Jetblst 0]

ALLARDJD: :001_th_smiles76: That is a small world that you know the area. I grew up here. I received my PPilot's license at KFCM. Soloed at 17. Its been a few months since then. :th_smiles73: I also studied at UND http://www.ftc.aero.und.edu/ Grand Forks. Did your daughter stay or move on? This area is quite cold in the winter for sure. My wife is from Georgia however she does like it up here, as the summers are to die for! Actually Spring Summer Fall are all extremely pleasant.

Thanks STU and GABE!!

OOOOOOOOOOPS! I am using FSX GOLD My Rig/Software stats are in my signature block. :blush:

I have a couple of other questions for ya. IF you don't mind then I'll head over to the manual.

6. Does RC respect manditory altitudes. For example 7000 means that is a manditory altitude on an approach SID or STAR as you all well know. I noticed when flying for KSTL to KMSP with the E175, the FMS was showing maditory altitudes and ATC was vectoring me about 30 miles out down at 2700 feet. Obviously FSATC does not respect approaches or at least not the profile aspect of the approach. Does RC?

7. Question #1 is really not that important but I was wanting to know if you can file a flight plan for "local IFR" meaning to take off and land at the airport of origin to practice approaches only, and holding. As an Airline Transport Pilot and Instrument Instructor this would be most helpful for me to stay current as I am not flying at the moment regularly. It would also help with any IFR students I may take on.

8. On missed approaches. In FSATC you have the option to go missed as published OR to go missed with ATC handling. Nice feature. Am I reading you guys correctly, that there is no missed as published in RC? Yikes that is kind of a big one, since in RW you will get cleared for entire approaches and missed approaches when flying in very rural non radar enviroment situations. IE Flying a Regional into Williston ND or something.

The holding is very important as well, as whenever you go to school as a Professional Pilot for a type rating holding is key. So are the Circle to Landing Aspects. I also like what I am reading about calling the airport in sight. So all in all this sounds like the program for me. SO THAT SAID, I am going now to check out the above mentioned flight planning software to see how that may differ with FS Planning.

THANKS GUYS!! :icon_rockon:

[allardjd 1,853]

Quote

That is a small world that you know the area. I grew up here. I received my PPilot's license at KFCM.

 

Small world indeed - a close friend here grew up in the area and was an airport bum at a young age at FCM - knew all the pilots and bummed many rides. He even had a few formal lessons, but life intervened and he never finished and got his ticket. He's an avid sim flyer these days and a darned good one.

 

Quote

Did your daughter stay or move on?

 

She married an Air Force guy and moved on shortly after graduating there.

 

Quote

I am using FSX GOLD My Rig/Software stats are in my signature block.

 

No problems then - I got a little worried when I saw FS 2002.

 

Quote

Does RC respect manditory altitudes. For example 7000 means that is a manditory altitude on an approach SID or STAR as you all well know. I noticed when flying for KSTL to KMSP with the E175, the FMS was showing maditory altitudes and ATC was vectoring me about 30 miles out down at 2700 feet. Obviously FSATC does not respect approaches or at least not the profile aspect of the approach. Does RC?

 

In a word, no. As noted in the earlier response, by using the NOTAM option in RC for departures, you can do whatever you want without ATC interference on departure, to allow for terrain avoidance, noise abatement procedures, published DP or SID, etc. There are restrictions on the distance to the first waypoint but I think you can do what is published (or what you'd like to) within 30 NM if you invoke the NOTAMs option in RC for that departure.

 

Descents in RC are in stages and they sometimes give you "crossing restrictions" that can force some uncomfortably steep descents. If you bust one, he'll fuss at you, give you one vectored turn, then bring you back with no more said. It's my experience that RC is not aware of the STARs and even when you put in the waypoints, there's no way for you to enter your descent profile - you get what they give you.

 

In general terms within RC, your last enroute controller will bring you down into the medium altitudes (appropriate for your AC type) and will then hand you off to the approach controller. At that point you may as well throw away your flight plan and STAR - they'll have their way with you. You do get to ask for a specific runway if you don't like the one they tell you to expect (but don't leave it too late - the option goes away once you get in close) and you can request vectors or the full procedure, using any of the ones listed for that airport. Sometimes if you request a parallel runway to the one they're tryng to give you they will make you stick with the first one but approve a side-step after you go visual, which I found pretty interesting.

 

Closer in, with respect to altitudes for approaches, they honor what is programmed into the FS airport scenery files. Airport bgl files contain details of the approaches available for a given airport and to the extent that the height requirements for the various approaches are contained within the scenery files (stock or add-on), MS and RC ATC should both honor them. Of course the approaches in FS are dated, at best current at the time that FS was published and may be somewhat simplified from the real-world procedure. We all know that the RW has changed and continues to change every month while FS is static.

 

It was as a result of trying to fly STARs relatively accurately that I was forced to learn how to add named waypoints to FS, for inclusion in my flight plans. I found that many of the waypoints in the STARs are not in FS so had to learn how to put them in. I wrote a tutorial on that and it's published here at Mutley's Hangar at...

 

http://mutleyshangar.com/features/jda/wp.htm

 

Those are relatively easy.

 

It is also possible to add or edit approach procedures in FS, modifying or adding new airport scenery bgl files with the updated approaches. I haven't done it but have studied the XML code required and it's quite a bit more complex than what I learned to do for simply adding waypoints. The bottom line here is, you're pretty much stuck with the approaches that are in FS for use with RC, but of course you can use your own plates and fly them as published without ATC. As I understand the RW, if you opt for the full approach procedure, there's not much interaction with ATC anyway after he clears you for the approach, except at the FAF inbound, so that could still be a good learning tool without RC or MS ATC.

 

Quote

Question #1 is really not that important but I was wanting to know if you can file a flight plan for "local IFR" meaning to take off and land at the airport of origin to practice approaches only, and holding. As an Airline Transport Pilot and Instrument Instructor this would be most helpful for me to stay current as I am not flying at the moment regularly. It would also help with any IFR students I may take on.

 

I'm not aware of any capability to file a plan for local IFR but using Stu's suggestion of a saved FS/RC postion out on the approach somewhere as a starting point (far enough out that you still have the option of choosing the approach you want) would work fine. Once you fly one, just restart at the saved position and shoot it again or choose another.

 

Quote

On missed approaches. In FSATC you have the option to go missed as published OR to go missed with ATC handling. Nice feature.

 

I didn't know that.

 

Quote

Am I reading you guys correctly, that there is no missed as published in RC? Yikes that is kind of a big one, since in RW you will get cleared for entire approaches and missed approaches when flying in very rural non radar enviroment situations. IE Flying a Regional into Williston ND or something.

 

There's that small world again. We're about ten miles from Williston FL.

 

OK, I have limited experience flying missed approaches in RC and just don't remember. I'm sure you can probably pull it out of the manual, which is a big pdf file available on-line (about 180 pages, if I recall correctly).

 

Quote

The holding is very important as well, as whenever you go to school as a Professional Pilot for a type rating holding is key. So are the Circle to Landing Aspects. I also like what I am reading about calling the airport in sight. So all in all this sounds like the program for me. SO THAT SAID, I am going now to check out the above mentioned flight planning software to see how that may differ with FS Planning.

 

I think the holding in RC is pretty limited but it's non-existant in MS ATC, so it's better than that. Circle to land can be simulated pretty easily by just picking a judicious time to begin ignoring ATC on the approach. If you pick the ILS and fly it until you're below the ceiling, aside from the tower fussing at you (you can always change frequencies to shut him up) there's nothing to prevent you doing a CTL from there. I know it's not realistic, but the flying and navigating part is and that's worth something.

 

At uncontrolled airports, the approach controller will give you vectors to pretty much put the airport under your nose. If you don't call "Airport in Sight" within a few miles, he'll ask you to fish or cut bait, i.e. pick a procedure or an alternate. If you tell him you want one of the published procedures for the airport, he'll clear you for the approach and terminate radar services. I think if you go missed from that and pop back up he's still available on the frequency, however. If you choose a divert, he'll give you vectors.

 

Good luck with this. This is a good discussion and we'd be interested in what you do and how you choose to use it as you wade in deeper.

 

John

[stu7708 244]

Hi

Just a small correction of what John said regarding NOTAM departures. If I remeber correctly the restriction on the distance to the first waypoint has nothing to do with NOTAMS. This setting can be active regardless of where the first waypoint is. ATC will instead instruct you to let them know when you are clear of terrain or other obstacles and can continue on course under ATC control.

How ever, if your first waypoint is within 30 miles of the airport RC will see this as an indication of you flying a PD or SID, and as a result will use it's functions for departure procedures, but this setting also comes with a more strict rule for giving you credit for passing the waypoints. I don't remeber the limits right now, but I think it's 5 Nm for a normal waypoint and 2 nm for a PD waypoint.

[Jetblst 0]

3. No need to get a separate flight planning software. FSX flight plans will do just fine. But given the fact that FSX don't handle SID's or STARS unless manually added a flight planner is a good addition to the overall experience. Other users on this forum speaks highly of a freeware software called Plan-G, but I havn't tried it out my self yet. I use the payware software FS Commander instead.

All I would add to this is that this program was designed well, however I have been having some troubles with it. But not to worry as it is a VFR only planning tool. FOR THAT it is awesome. I need an IFR planner.

I did spend some time with it but it is not to my liking. Thank you though so much for that I will look at FS Planner.

[Jetblst 0]

Good luck with this. This is a good discussion and we'd be interested in what you do and how you choose to use it as you wade in deeper.

John

Thanks again you guys for all your help and feedback on this!!! This is great. I really like asking those who really use the program for their reviews thoughts and opinions. Yours have been very good and informative.

Again thanks so much!!

John,

If you don't mind, I have some RW experience "notes" if you will.

Insofar as Flight Plans go and SIDS STARS too. It is all a function of time of day and location. Mornings out of Tetorborough NJ, you will find yourself with no choice but to fly a full DP no questions asked. As for the flight plan say to KMSP? LOL Can we say RE-ROUTE! Is the order of the day. That would be a kind of very neat feature for RC for the realsim part.

If you depart of course out of Omaha NE for KMSP you may get an intermediate fix which will be the start of one of the arrivals. Even there though you will (as you say) fly one or two waypoints before they simply have their way with you! :icon_thumbup:

So my relief so far in FSATC as that is all I have right now :001_th_smiles48: is to do my flight planning with my first and last way points NO CLOSER than 30 miles from DEP or ARR airports. This sets up FSATC nicely to simulate RW vectoring. So far not half bad. As you all laugh at me and call me cave man and such! :th_smiles73:

A very good Circle to Land Feature would do nicely VERY nicely with RC4 or (5) hopefully soon as you have said. One of the busiests airports in the World, I defer you to KTEB again, you will find yourself with an over the top circle to the South. Quite the "heady" approach after a 0300 AM wakeup and 2.75 hour flight from Minneapolis. Fun though. So there are indeed RW situations for CTL. Even at KFCM or ANY airport where you find only one ILS you will have to CTL.

I was busy flying with my son. OR simming with my son, this evening and had not researched the MAP portion of RC4. Looking into that next.

Again, FSATC does do a rather nice job of sending you missed. You have the choice to do so via vectors or as published! Now this is part of FSX GOLD. I do not know if they amped up FSATC within acceleration or not.

Having said that though, If you shoot an approach with a missed as published to a hold, you can go and hold there. The Feelthere Ejets and PIC 737's FMS will DO THE HOLD FOR YOU! It is very cool and it does the entries for you.

I am a CFII and this is great to teach holding concepts with. Teardrop, direct, and parallel, entries. You can of course hand fly it and see if your mental math computations still work for timing.

Then when the holding torture er uh fun is done you can simply get vectored back around for another try.

My biggest gripe with FSATC is that the altitudes are so unrealistic whilst flying turbine aircraft.

You mentioned you may be able to alter an airports approach info? Oh do tell!!! I would LOVE to do that.

At KMSP or any other Class B airspace you simply are not going to be trolling around at 1500' AGL 35,25, or even 10 miles out. Hence that is the very definition of Class B and why it has Floors! To keep the little guys and big guys from meeting and producing metal rain!.

Anyhow enough of my :icon_blahblah:

Thanks again guys for all your input. I appreciate it!

[allardjd 1,853]

To get a feel for adding or modifying approaches in FS you have to look in the FS SDK (Software Development Kit) documentation. There are versions for FS9 and for FSX at a couple of different Service Pack levels, I think. They are available free from the MS site. If you have the FSX Deluxe edition, the SDK for that is on the disk, but installation is optional, so it may or may not be on your PC, depending on how you installed.

 

Within the SDK are over a dozen sub-topics. One deals with the BGL compiler, which is the program that makes bgl scenery files for FS from human-editable XML code (OK, technically it's a mark-up language, not code, but it's a fine point.)

 

Anyway, there are about six pages within the documentation file for the BGL Compiler that detail how approaches are defined in XML for inclusion in the airport bgl files.

 

Each airport can have any number of approaches, each of which must be defined in detail in the XML code. To give an idea how it is structured, an approach definition contains approach components that may include...

 

• - Approach Legs
• - Missed Approach Legs
• - Transition Legs

 

Each of those elements may contain other elements, such as DME Legs.

 

It's all pretty complex. For instance, the Approach itself uses the following parameters...

 

• - Type
• - Runway
• - Designator
• - Suffix
• - GPSOverlay
• - Fixtype
• - fixRegion
• - fixIdent
• - Altitude
• - Heading
• - Missed altitude

 

Each leg may contain (some are optional) these...

 

• - Type
• - FixType
• - FixRegion
• - FixIdent
• - FlyOver
• - TurnDirection
• - RecommendedType
• - RecommendedRegion
• - RecommendedIdent
• - Theta
• - Rho
• - TrueCourse
• - MagneticCourse
• - Distance
• - Time
• - AltitudeDescriptor
• - Altitude1
• - Altitude2

 

It's all very detailed and the acceptable values and limits are tabled out for each parameter. To give an example, this is the definition of one approach that I pulled out of a decompiled airport bgl file. It's doable and is fairly well documented but it appears that building and testing approaches or making changes to them might be a bit tedious. Everything below defines one ILS approach to one runway at one airport, along with its missed approach procedure. This is fairly deep water.

 

<Approach type="ILS"

gpsOverlay="FALSE"

runway="5"

designator="NONE"

fixType="TERMINAL_WAYPOINT"

fixIdent="BOGGA"

fixRegion="K7"

heading="48.42"

altitude="2200.00F"

missedAltitude="4000.00F">

<ApproachLegs>

<Leg type="IF"

fixType="TERMINAL_WAYPOINT"

fixRegion="K7"

fixIdent="CLARC"

theta="229.5"

rho="22970.68"

altitudeDescriptor="+"

altitude1="3000.00F"

altitude2="2200.00F"

/>

<Leg type="CF"

fixType="TERMINAL_WAYPOINT"

fixRegion="K7"

fixIdent="BOGGA"

flyOver="FALSE"

theta="229.5"

rho="10373.85"

magneticCourse="49.0"

distance="12596.82"

altitudeDescriptor="+"

altitude1="2200.00F"

altitude2="2018.00F"

/>

<Leg type="CF"

fixType="RUNWAY"

fixRegion="K7"

fixIdent="RW05"

flyOver="FALSE"

theta="229.5"

rho="2408.22"

magneticCourse="49.0"

distance="7965.64"

altitudeDescriptor="A"

altitude1="635.00F"

/>

</ApproachLegs>

<MissedApproachLegs>

<Leg type="CA"

magneticCourse="49.0"

altitudeDescriptor="+"

altitude1="1400.00F"

/>

<Leg type="VA"

magneticCourse="90.0"

altitudeDescriptor="+"

altitude1="3000.00F"

/>

<Leg type="DF"

fixType="TERMINAL_WAYPOINT"

fixRegion="K7"

fixIdent="BOGGA"

flyOver="FALSE"

theta="0.0"

rho="0.00"

altitudeDescriptor="+"

altitude1="4000.00F"

/>

<Leg type="HM"

fixType="TERMINAL_WAYPOINT"

fixRegion="K7"

fixIdent="BOGGA"

turnDirection="L"

theta="0.0"

rho="0.00"

magneticCourse="49.0"

time="1.00"

/>

</MissedApproachLegs>

<Transition transitionType="DME"

fixType="TERMINAL_WAYPOINT"

fixRegion="K7"

fixIdent="D276G"

altitude="3000.00F">

<DmeArc

radial="276"

distance="12967.3"

dmeRegion="K7"

dmeIdent="TDG"/>

<TransitionLegs>

<Leg type="IF"

fixType="TERMINAL_WAYPOINT"

fixRegion="K7"

fixIdent="D276G"

recommendedType="VOR"

recommendedRegion="K7"

recommendedIdent="TDG"

theta="276.0"

rho="12967.32"

/>

<Leg type="AF"

fixType="TERMINAL_WAYPOINT"

fixRegion="K7"

fixIdent="D195G"

turnDirection="L"

recommendedType="VOR"

recommendedRegion="K7"

recommendedIdent="TDG"

theta="195.0"

rho="12967.32"

magneticCourse="276.0"

altitudeDescriptor="+"

altitude1="3000.00F"

/>

<Leg type="VI"

magneticCourse="79.0"

/>

</TransitionLegs>

</Transition>

<Transition transitionType="FULL"

fixType="WAYPOINT"

fixRegion="K7"

fixIdent="GOSSE"

altitude="3000.00F">

<TransitionLegs>

<Leg type="FC"

fixType="WAYPOINT"

fixRegion="K7"

fixIdent="GOSSE"

flyOver="FALSE"

recommendedType="VOR"

recommendedRegion="K7"

recommendedIdent="TDG"

theta="173.8"

rho="24823.15"

magneticCourse="354.0"

distance="4445.94"

altitudeDescriptor="+"

altitude1="3000.00F"

/>

<Leg type="VI"

magneticCourse="19.0"

/>

</TransitionLegs>

</Transition>

<Transition transitionType="FULL"

fixType="WAYPOINT"

fixRegion="K7"

fixIdent="LINTZ"

altitude="3000.00F">

<TransitionLegs>

<Leg type="IF"

fixType="WAYPOINT"

fixRegion="K7"

fixIdent="LINTZ"

theta="0.0"

rho="0.00"

/>

<Leg type="CF"

fixType="TERMINAL_WAYPOINT"

fixRegion="K7"

fixIdent="CLARC"

flyOver="FALSE"

theta="229.5"

rho="22970.68"

magneticCourse="49.0"

distance="11485.34"

altitudeDescriptor="+"

altitude1="3000.00F"

/>

</TransitionLegs>

</Transition>

<Transition transitionType="FULL"

fixType="VOR"

fixRegion="K7"

fixIdent="TDG"

altitude="3000.00F">

<TransitionLegs>

<Leg type="IF"

fixType="VOR"

fixRegion="K7"

fixIdent="TDG"

theta="0.0"

rho="0.00"

/>

<Leg type="TF"

fixType="TERMINAL_WAYPOINT"

fixRegion="K7"

fixIdent="BOGGA"

theta="0.0"

rho="0.00"

magneticCourse="0.0"

time="0.00"

altitudeDescriptor="+"

altitude1="3000.00F"

/>

<Leg type="PI"

fixType="TERMINAL_WAYPOINT"

fixRegion="K7"

fixIdent="BOGGA"

turnDirection="L"

recommendedType="VOR"

recommendedRegion="K7"

recommendedIdent="TDG"

theta="111.7"

rho="11300.09"

magneticCourse="274.0"

distance="18524.74"

altitudeDescriptor="+"

altitude1="3000.00F"

/>

</TransitionLegs>

</Transition>

<Transition transitionType="FULL"

fixType="TERMINAL_WAYPOINT"

fixRegion="K7"

fixIdent="BOGGA"

altitude="3000.00F">

<TransitionLegs>

<Leg type="PI"

fixType="TERMINAL_WAYPOINT"

fixRegion="K7"

fixIdent="BOGGA"

turnDirection="L"

recommendedType="VOR"

recommendedRegion="K7"

recommendedIdent="TDG"

theta="111.7"

rho="11300.09"

magneticCourse="274.0"

distance="18524.74"

altitudeDescriptor="+"

altitude1="3000.00F"

/>

</TransitionLegs>

</Transition>

</Approach>

[Jetblst 0]

To get a feel for adding or modifying approaches in FS you have to look in the FS SDK (Software Development Kit) documentation. There are versions for FS9 and for FSX at a couple of different Service Pack levels, I think. They are available free from the MS site. If you have the FSX Deluxe edition, the SDK for that is on the disk, but installation is optional, so it may or may not be on your PC, depending on how you installed.....

</Transition>

<Transition transitionType="FULL"

fixType="TERMINAL_WAYPOINT"

fixRegion="K7"

fixIdent="BOGGA"

altitude="3000.00F">

<TransitionLegs>

<Leg type="PI"

fixType="TERMINAL_WAYPOINT"

fixRegion="K7"

fixIdent="BOGGA"

turnDirection="L"

recommendedType="VOR"

recommendedRegion="K7"

recommendedIdent="TDG"

theta="111.7"

rho="11300.09"

magneticCourse="274.0"

distance="18524.74"

altitudeDescriptor="+"

altitude1="3000.00F"

/>

</TransitionLegs>

</Transition>

</Approach>

:icon_bowdown:

Wow very facinating. I studied programming in college and it has been a while. Besides I was learning a much dummer language (PASCAL)

My thoughts for wanting to do this would be to adjust approaches at KMSP to hopefully give (whichever ATC in use) altitudes to "respect" so to speak to get rid of that low level vectoring. It appears to me that manipulating the various [altitude1=XXXX.XX] might be the way to go?

If I read your posts correctly though you said RC4 would take care of that though by doing a fairly good job of respecting altidudes?

After perculating the idea of RC4(5) I am still not too sold though. Now I'm sitting on the fence.

Reasons:

1. I can get quite RW type realistic vectors on to my course just by watching how I plan the flight in MSFS Planner.

2. As you so elegantly put it, either ATC program ignores the STAR or SID anyhow. So 1 or 2 elements of either is totally enough to give RW Simulation, and as much as I get the (work around) by just ignoring ATC to shoot a CTL or or FULL SID/STAR

is not a good habit for me to form AT ANY level of flight as the possibility of that habit having any sort of negative transference to my RW flying is not something I want to toy with. I do get the idea though LOL!!

3. Now comes another question and maybe some of you had some experience? Would I do well to at this stage just look into a good Vairline and go online there for some (semi) realistic controllers? That can handle some of these things?

I have winced at this idea all along as I am afraid to even look into it for fear of it being (less than professional) let me put it that way.

Either way, I sure do appreciate all the info you guys have! Impressive!

THANKS again!

[allardjd 1,853]

Mark,

 

I think by tweaking the approch code you could make the altitudes for the approaches better but I don't believe FS (nor RC) even recognizes STARs as an entity so there's nothing to adjust there and the far out vectoring outside the actual approach geography might still be too low or at least not per the STAR, though should be no lower than the intitial altitude for the chosen approach. I've never seen them climb me to an approach.

 

It's interesting talking to a RW practitioner of IFR. Most of us only get to pretend.

 

John

 

EDIT: I've shyed away from VATSIM and the others that provide RW controllers - it was several years ago and I was scared off by all the rules and regs and regimentation, not to mention all the software they wanted installed. I believe it's simpler now and probably better. I understand some of the controllers are very good and will work with you to give you what you want. I suspect the Local IFR you mentioned above might be possible there, at least with some of the controllers. I can't really give any guidance on that since I've never really used it. I think others here have and will probably jump in here.

 

JDA

[Jetblst 0]

Mark,

I think by tweaking the approch code you could make the altitudes for the approaches better but I don't believe FS (nor RC) even recognizes STARs as an entity so there's nothing to adjust there and the far out vectoring outside the actual approach geography might still be too low or at least not per the STAR, though should be no lower than the intitial altitude for the chosen approach. I've never seen them climb me to an approach.

It's interesting talking to a RW practitioner of IFR. Most of us only get to pretend.

John

EDIT: I've shyed away from VATSIM and the others that provide RW controllers - it was several years ago and I was scared off by all the rules and regs and regimentation, not to mention all the software they wanted installed. I believe it's simpler now and probably better. I understand some of the controllers are very good and will work with you to give you what you want. I suspect the Local IFR you mentioned above might be possible there, at least with some of the controllers. I can't really give any guidance on that since I've never really used it. I think others here have and will probably jump in here.

JDA

Well I tried the VATSIM route and was disapointed. I tried to sign up and because someone else has my last name, a manual install had to be attempted. Or manual registration to be precise. Then when I installed the software for it, the software crashed FSX. I said no thank you in a hurry, deleted the software, and no longer pursue the registration. Not a good first experience. I speant way too many hours tuning my system and FSX to NickN's tuning guide to mess up my install.

[allardjd 1,853]

By the way, I was favorably impressed with your comments about not wanting to risk developing any bad habits in sim flying that might creep into your RW flying. That marks you as a professional who takes the responsibility that goes with what you do seriously.

 

My experience with VATSIM was less than pleasant too and there was just no air of friendliness there at all. They laid out the hoops you had to jump through and expected you to do that. It was a lot like dealing with a couple of regulatory agencies I had to deal with in my career, which shall remain un-named. After testing the waters a little I just backed off the VATSIM thing. I'm not bad-mouthing them, just decided it wasn't for me.

 

John

[Jetblst 0]

By the way, I was favorably impressed with your comments about not wanting to risk developing any bad habits in sim flying that might creep into your RW flying. That marks you as a professional who takes the responsibility that goes with what you do seriously.

My experience with VATSIM was less than pleasant too and there was just no air of friendliness there at all. They laid out the hoops you had to jump through and expected you to do that. It was a lot like dealing with a couple of regulatory agencies I had to deal with in my career, which shall remain un-named. After testing the waters a little I just backed off the VATSIM thing. I'm not bad-mouthing them, just decided it wasn't for me.

John

John,

Thank you so much for the kind remarks! I appreciate that a lot!

Yup, VATSIM has not really impressed me either. So to each his own of course but I too will continue to seek ATC needs elsewhere.

I think it would be rather enjoyable to establish "Flight School" so to speak (there probably is one somewhere) where RW pilots/instructors could team up with FS enthusiasts (much in the spirit of a golfing coach say) to help folks work out issues and questions they may have in real time. Heck it keep salty dogs like myself fresh and it would improve peoples enjoyment of aviation at many levels. It would be great to have friendly controllers (with some does and don't's of course), so that a person could get a really good flavor of what it's like in the RW as close as they can. I see VATSIM as wanting to achieve just that, but well who knows.

Anyway, My wife says I have to wait for RC4, that my gaming $$ for the month is running low and to wait until next month :001_th_smiles48: LOL!

I really wish they had a trial version. I again was decended way too far out down to the Initial Approach Altitude while still in the Enroute Phase of the approach :001_th_smiles48: :001_th_smiles48: :biggrin:

I can't wait to spend some quality time with the code for the approaches. I am sure that is all it needs. With that fixed, IMHO FS ATC really isn't half bad.

I noticed a comment I think you made not long ago about being bounced like a tennis ball from controller to controller.

In turbine/jet aircraft, especially near Class B you go through controllers faster than you can switch freqs. That has been my experience anyway. So from time to time I like that. It really is realistic. Especially where you go from say one freq at 126.6 for example then to 119.4, then back to 126.6 all within a couple of minutes. Usually a sign of controllers changing shifts or on break and the supervisor taking over.

Anyhow, keep the greasy side down!