OnCourse Software

sbsim wrote:

I do not consider SID/STAR names important and do not expect PF3 to read them from (whatever) NAV data source.

Why? In 99.7 %, there really is just one right standard procedure for a given combination of variables (runway, flight plan, time of day, etc.). Reading it by PF3 will not add any information. And it will not even add a lot of realism, as real-world controllers usually do not spell the procedures' names letter by letter. When PF3 instructs you to fly the "Sierra Papa" procedure, it is all you need to know. It may seem contradictory to my previous point about variability, but it is not. The name of the procedure does not matter to me, this is a known and static element. I look for some variability of the procedure's execution. This was actually the reason I abandoned the development of Navigraph/NavData integration to Randomizer.

In a nutshell, I don't think PF3 needs any changes or improvements in its handling of SIDs and STARs. Actually, they can be contra-productive as they could limit its flexibility – one of the reasons PF3 is the best! Personally, with a little help of Randomizer, I have everything I ever wanted and maybe a bit more

hiflight wrote:

The drop down SID/STAR menu would be helpful for the ease of selection, but not essential once the flight has commenced. Unless there was a runway change (wind direction), but can PF3 ATC make this change? and if they could how would they know what to give you in the way of a STAR for the new arrival except for the other runway option which has been entered into the SID/STAR page of PF3. If this was the case would they clear via the start point of the original STAR?

str.jpg (12.16 KiB) Viewed 2493 times

Quote:

UL615 PZ493 UT939 C/45N012WF140F240 ROKIB

Quote:

UZ468 GIKEB EKPEB/N250F200 BRENO/F140 INN/F120 RTT/F95

vololiberista wrote:

Currently PF3 only offers one choicestr.jpg
Here are two different runways 18/36 with two different STARs from the same waypoint VEROB. VEROB is the last wypt for a flightplan from the NW so there are only two choices anyway. A drop down list would still be helpful in as much as one can populate it with all the different SIDs STARs for a particular rwy making it easier to select the appropriate SID/STAR. The only potential problem arises when there may be more than one SID say from the same rwy to the same waypoint. However checking the charts to see why as explained earlier would resolve this.

By the way, in New Zealand we do not enter the SID or STAR into the flight plan, it is given by ATC. However we know what to expect.

This is correct. As usually there will only be say one SID from the departing runway to your first waypoint. Having said that you can insert a SID and STAR as part of your fpl if you want to.

Quote:

UL615 PZ493 UT939 C/45N012WF140F240 ROKIB

This explicitly requests the ROKIB 6J STAR and Not the ROKIB 6S which also ends at ROKIB but via a different route from the same rwy. This "clip" also gives the coordinates of where I want to change from the SID ceiling of FL140 to my cruise of FL240. That's because although the SID ceiling is FL140 I expect to reach that ceiling before ROKIB and thus "asking" ATC to give me climb clearance to cruise before ROKIB. This is what PF3 does. In real life it depends on traffic obviously as I am climbing into an airway. But in reality ATC would still clear me according to the fpl because the cooordinates allow for a 60minute leeway. The clearance might not come at "exactly" the point I am hoping for. But it will be given. This particular SID allows me to gain altitude over the Venice lagoon and join the airway before crossing the Alps. The other SID is for routes that fly West and is used when Treviso airspace is closed. So in real life it is important to be given the correct SID in this case.
If you have a flightplanning programme that automatically inserts SIDs and STARS try this route and see what you are given:-
LIPZ ROKIB GIKEB EKPEB BRENO LOWI
As again I can ask for a specific STAR too.

Quote:

UZ468 GIKEB EKPEB/N250F200 BRENO/F140 INN/F120 RTT/F95

Thius explicitly requests the BRENO 2A STAR. BRENO is the only entry point to Innsbruck from Italy but there are two STARs depending one which rwy is in use. In this case I am requesting the STAR for rwy 26 even though rwy 08 is the active. ATC in real life allow this as if there is a rwy change and I am going for the BRENO 1A STAR for rwy 08 I end up with a 70nm diversion!!!!

Quote:

UZ468 GIKEB EKPEB/N250F200 BRENO/F140 INN/F120 RTT/F95

sbsim wrote:

And it will not even add a lot of realism, as real-world controllers usually do not spell the procedures' names letter by letter.

vololiberista wrote:

sbsim wrote:

And it will not even add a lot of realism, as real-world controllers usually do not spell the procedures' names letter by letter.

Actually that's not quite correct. Whilst it is true that both ATC and aircrew will "attempt" to pronounce the name of a fix etc.. If there is any misunderstanding or "Say again" then ATC are required to repeat the fix name with the phonetic pronounciation instead. So PF3 is at least 50% correct. Dave would have to release 119 voice sets every month with additions, changes and deletions for all the fixes that are changed, added and deleted on a monthly basis for every airac cycle. That ain't going to happen! So to say that it doesn't add realism is quite wrong.

sbsim wrote:

Are you serious? I have to defend when somebody plays poker with my thoughts. Did I say "it doesn't add realism"? No. I said "it doesn't add A LOT OF realism". Did I say that controllers never phonetically spell the procedures? No. I said "real-world controllers USUALLY do not spell the procedures", which is exactly what you confirm. Did I request any new features? No. Actually, i did the opposite.

Frankly, I don't know what kind of frustration are you healing here, but let me say something. Your permanent bashing of users harms the product and its support. It often looks like your intention is not to help, but to demonstrate your knowledge (btw your LIPZ - LOWI example, if a bit repetitious, is brilliant).

I apologize if I'm wrong...

Roman

vololiberista wrote:

I think your reaction is well over the top don't you? At least what I say are facts! And if an example is over used it's because it's a good example. People say things as facts when they are "half" facts. What you said and the way you said it can easily be taken by others who are not in aviation that in that respect PF3 is unrealistic. Whereas it's not. Many users know little or nothing about the real aviation scene and it does no harm at all to explain what really happens. If you don't like being corrected or informed then......

Many simmers have qestions regarding SIDs STARs and so it's right to show what can actually be done in the real world. That you can in the real world add SIDs,STARS, Altitudes, speeds etc to your real fpl. On the subject of the phonetic alphabet let us say at least PF3 uses it whereas another ATC product does not which exceeds the realms of unreal and yet its users swear by it!