Are there really no radar vectors?

Is there something I am missing, or did radar vectors get removed in this sim? I know I can ask for a vector to the next waypoint, but that is something else entirely.

Takeoff, climbing runway heading, “proceed to XYZ as planned”. Well, I am on a Radar SID, so “as planned” means you give me vectors to intercept my planned route (or some other route if you prefer, but sim ATC is not capable of that - no complaints on that one).

Approach, flying the STAR, to be followed by an ILS approach, and I get “cleared for the ILS rwy 19 approach via FUBAR transition, cleared direct FUBAR”. OK… The STAR has “from SUKKR fly heading 010 for radar vectors to final approach”, and FUBAR is the FAF on a Radar Required procedure. “Cleared direct FUBAR” is not a thing on that STAR or on that approach. I need an intercept vector.

It is one thing to give tedious, too long vectors - quite something else to not even try.

So am I missing something and there is a way to make ATC vectors work, or is this another regression from something that used to worked satisfactorily from FS2002 onwards?

It’s another thing that isn’t there. The built in ATC is 98% useless, and particularly so for approaches. If I want to fly on a live server, I ignore ATC because if I follow their cues, I’d never be able to land for one or more of the following reasons:

they typically want you at FL200 or some ridiculous altitude 20 miles from the field
they don’t bother to tell you the runway to expect until 20 miles from the field
they don’t tell you what STAR to use
they don’t bother to use the approach you tried to program, or that makes actual sense

Agree with all those issues.

This seems to add to the list: Don’t provide vectors, assume the user uses GPS for everything. Problem with that:

  1. Much of the time, in much of the world, that is not how it is done. If there are no RNAV STARS published you cannot fly an RNAV STAR. Adding unrealistic USR waypoints to a non-RNAV STAR is not how you fix that.
  2. The GPS has massive issues as well, and the obvious workaround to that is to avoid RNAV procedures (SID, STAR, approaches) and fly radar vector procedures to radio navaid approaches instead. Except that does not work either?