OnCourse Software

JohnY wrote: *

Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:47 am

It's all very well to say that ATS only takes into account course directions but that's not strictly true is it? They instruct you as to the altitude for the whole flight and have to take into account the altitude of the airport, otherwise they couldn't give the instructions to get you down to the right height for eventual landing. Personally, I think the vectoring was wrong and they should have got me over the sides of the valley from further out at say, 12000' and then brought me down along the valley.

Furthemore, if I hadn't obeyed ATC, they would have nagged and nagged and then withdrawn their services as has happened to me before!

John (disgruntled :? )

If it is any confort I do not use STAR approaches as I have yet to learn how to. With FS's ATC you would be instructed to climb (rather than vectored around) and, quite often, then given landing instructions from a ridiculously high point with the runway almost under your toes. I do not think any add-on ATC is able to read the terrain files to know where mountains are - for all the pleasures of PF3 there have to be some sacrifices too.

If you have FS Navigator or its FSX equivalent you get a basic representation of the terrain (from screenshots the FSX one may be better). I don't know what scale the figures are (in fact I am quite mystified) but I add 50% to the given figures and keep at that height until clear and I seem to survive.

As to nagging and withdrawing services - there is a mod available for FS's ATC that stops this. But surely you are talking PF3? Nagging can be reduced - you can set the frequency of nags. But you can also request an altitude change, which seems to keep ATC happy. Finally, I have never had ATC services withdrawn by PF3 (not even when I fly off in the opposite direction to lose height) but you can request "cleared to finals at pilots discretion" which means you will hear nothing from ATC until you contact the tower.

Another John

johnhinson wrote: *

Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:54 pm

JohnY wrote: *

Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:47 am

It's all very well to say that ATS only takes into account course directions but that's not strictly true is it? They instruct you as to the altitude for the whole flight and have to take into account the altitude of the airport, otherwise they couldn't give the instructions to get you down to the right height for eventual landing. Personally, I think the vectoring was wrong and they should have got me over the sides of the valley from further out at say, 12000' and then brought me down along the valley.

Furthemore, if I hadn't obeyed ATC, they would have nagged and nagged and then withdrawn their services as has happened to me before!

John (disgruntled )

If it is any confort I do not use STAR approaches as I have yet to learn how to. With FS's ATC you would be instructed to climb (rather than vectored around) and, quite often, then given landing instructions from a ridiculously high point with the runway almost under your toes. I do not think any add-on ATC is able to read the terrain files to know where mountains are - for all the pleasures of PF3 there have to be some sacrifices too.

If you have FS Navigator or its FSX equivalent you get a basic representation of the terrain (from screenshots the FSX one may be better). I don't know what scale the figures are (in fact I am quite mystified) but I add 50% to the given figures and keep at that height until clear and I seem to survive.

As to nagging and withdrawing services - there is a mod available for FS's ATC that stops this. But surely you are talking PF3? Nagging can be reduced - you can set the frequency of nags. But you can also request an altitude change, which seems to keep ATC happy. Finally, I have never had ATC services withdrawn by PF3 (not even when I fly off in the opposite direction to lose height) but you can request "cleared to finals at pilots discretion" which means you will hear nothing from ATC until you contact the tower.

Another John

Whilst PF3 does know the elevation of Jackson's Hole it doesn't know about the surrounding terrain. That's up to you as the flight planning pilot. Put yourself into the shoes of a real pilot having to plan that route. He/she is going to make sure that their approach is absolutely pukka especially if there is low visability. You too can enter any altitude constraints into the wypt adjustments page and even add a couple more wypts closer to the airfield to ensure greater accuracy and that you have ground clearance at critical points. Look at the charts carefully and see where and by how much you can descend safely. Tell that to PF3 and you'll end up with a good flight. PF3 is very good at generating an "off the cuff" fpl but where there are unknowns like terrain etc you need to help it. You should never rely on i.e. be a slave to the flight planning software for the sim world. PFPX for example often makes very big mistakes. So as a matter of course check the fpl against the charts. After all it's all part of the fun of simming isn't it? No real flightplan from anywhere to anywhere goes without first having been checked very very carefully against the relevant charts!! It's an international legal requirement for one.

Try this fpl and pay special attention to the minima on approach to rwy 10. This fpl assumes a cruise level of FL210 and remember everything is QNH
KFLG CORKR FREDD BCE URNUW NEEBO FFU ODUCE IVAYU NIKSE VUGUY(at or above 14,000) LIYET(at or above 11,600) NECPI(at or above 11,100) YONUL(at or above 10,500) JEVIM(at or above 9,900) WIDGA(at or above 8,600) KJAC
In PF3 make the last wypt VUGUY. Make sure that you have annotated the FAF for KJAC in PF3's SID STAR page. Enter all the wypts after VUGUY into your aircraft's navigation. Make sure your descent rate follows the profile given by those extra wypts. And note that this is exactly what you would have to do in real life.

I'll try that route one day thanks but now I've got another problem.

During the flight today (KJAC to KMSO) the simulator itself simply packed up. No warning so it doesn't seem to be an OOM. Furthermore, PF3 immediately asked me to complete an error document.

Was this a PF3 error, or simply the simulator has become sensitive to my language about it do you think?

John

JohnY wrote: *

Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:28 pm

I'll try that route one day thanks but now I've got another problem.

During the flight today (KJAC to KMSO) the simulator itself simply packed up. No warning so it doesn't seem to be an OOM. Furthermore, PF3 immediately asked me to complete an error document.

Was this a PF3 error, or simply the simulator has become sensitive to my language about it do you think?

John

We need to see the logs in zip form. Then Dave can see what triggered PF3 to crash.

JohnY wrote: *

Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:28 pm

I'll try that route one day thanks but now I've got another problem.

During the flight today (KJAC to KMSO) the simulator itself simply packed up. No warning so it doesn't seem to be an OOM. Furthermore, PF3 immediately asked me to complete an error document.

Was this a PF3 error, or simply the simulator has become sensitive to my language about it do you think?

John

If PF3 asked you to send in an error report IT didn't crash. Obviously FS stopped running for whatever reason and when PF3 detects that it has no option other than to stop itself, but in a nice gentle, relaxed fashion!

JohnY wrote: *

Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:47 am

Furthemore, if I hadn't obeyed ATC, they would have nagged and nagged and then withdrawn their services as has happened to me before!

You can easily avoid any nagging by selecting the STAR option before the flight or by requesting a clearance to final at pilot's discretion during the flight.