List of most prominent ATC bugs

I would very much like to fly using MFS’s ATC. It has a lot of (training) potential. However, at the moment, there are several major bugs that make flying with ATC annoying, and at times even, very frustrating.

Please fix soon:

Ground services:

  • We should be able to call-up the Fuel Truck and the GPU unit without aircraft electrical power (the radio);
  • In some cases, the Fuel Truck approaches the aircraft extremely slow. For example, see: https://youtu.be/zmmi4yG-YlE
  • In the case of the TBM, no GPU services are available in the menu, despite of the fact that the aircraft does offer GPU connectivity. Please add.
  • When requesting pushback for the TBM, the ground personnel have trouble finding the connection point; walking up to the side windows and back. For example, see https://youtu.be/tay8T95rHFE
  • Pushback for smaller GA is often not needed. However, the pushback cart and workers stand very close to the nose of the aircraft in any case; so close in fact, that a normal/non-pushback taxi away from the parking position cannot be executed without hitting the workers. The distance between the workers and the plane should thus be more than doubled.
  • Controls during pushback are a handful, as instructions given by the pilot to the driver only process AFTER the instruction is spoken, which forces us to anticipate our parking position to not overshoot it. Moreover, in real-life, such conversations between pilots and the driver do not happen. Instead, perhaps, create a ‘straight out’, ‘left’ or ‘right’ pushback-command onto the nearest taxiway behind the aircraft.
  • Also, once the pushback car connects, the driver should instruct the pilot to release the parking brake if still applied. Currently, the driver just continues to push back regardless, going quite slow.
  • At big airports, requested Fuel Trucks spawn far away from the aircraft, thus taking too much time to arrive.

Flight:

  • Aircraft type of the TBM should not be pronounced ‘Daher’ but ‘T-B-M’.
  • The vocalization of many ATC instructions is far too fast to understand without relying on the textual transcripts (for realism/training purposes). A big improvement would be to implement ‘brief pausing’ after sentences, and after comma’s. In addition, in the case of taxi instructions, brief pausing should also be implemented in between the mentioned taxiway identifiers (the ‘spaces’ in the textual transcript).
  • At conflicting taxi routes of us simmers and AI ground traffic, ATC instructs us to stop, but does not solve the situation; thus making the (inexperienced) simmer wait indefinately for new instructions by ATC. Instead (for now), ATC could perhaps stop the AI, and instruct us simmers to ‘continue taxi where possible’ in order to get the taxi flow going again and for us to complete the flight. Or despawn the conflicting AI plane altogether.
  • Traffic pattern flying in MFS provides great flying practice. However, the associated ATC takeoff and pattern instructions are off. Should be: at hold short line, pilots receive instructions to fly left or right handed patterns, and to report midfield each lap. At midfield, once reported by the pilot, the Tower simply responds by clearing the pilot ‘for the option’ so as to allow touch-and-go’s for additional laps (as opposed to cleared to land, if traffic allows). Example: ‘PH-TIM, Palm Springs Tower, make right traffic, report midfield each pass, cleared for takeoff runway 31R’
  • Flight Following ATC phraseology is incorrect. See details at other forum post ATC Incorrect Phraseology
  • For short flights, ATC assigns far too high cruise altitudes. This results in extreme climb and descend rates, which make short flights a pain. For example see https://youtu.be/tay8T95rHFE. Best would be if we could ‘file’ our own VFR/IFR cruising altitudes in the Flight Planner.
  • The instruction ‘Fly present heading and altitude’ by Departure does not mean what ATC intends it to be, thereby resulting in unfair violations. Given this instruction, I disregard my planned course and fly present heading and present altitude at the moment of receiving the instruction (which turns out to be incorrect). Instead ATC should say something along the lines of ‘Resume own navigation’ or ‘Proceed on course’ (this phraseology can also replace ‘Continue as planned’).
  • Once initially contacted Socal Departure at KPSP, Departure often instructs me to contact the same Departure on the same frequency again soon after (because of overlapping TRSAs?). Should be merged. For example see: https://youtu.be/tIhpQW3zrj4
  • ATC TRACON/ARTCC should mention the current altimeter setting at initial contact every time we switch stations, also under Flight Following
  • ATC should always explicitly instruct pilots to switch over to another station. Except for takeoff clearance, pilots are not allowed to switch stations on their own accord. This mechanic does not seem to apply yet when approaching uncontrolled airports; where pilots need to ‘notice’ themselves to switch to CTAF (instead of approach instructing to switch over). For example see: https://youtu.be/tIhpQW3zrj4

Feature request (for consolidation purposes): Please add a sound volume slider for the Pilot voice in Settings. This allows us to mute the pilot AI voice so we can vocally practice ATC phraseology on our ends as pilots while still hearing ATC. It also enhances immersion, as it feels as if we were actually talking to ATC ourselves.

Thank you for this amazing sim!

Well, can help with one item - the small pushback truck, never used by light aircraft. Just a matter of modifying the aircraft config file ;

e.g.using notepad, inside “asobo-aircraft-c172sp-as1000\SimObjects\Airplanes\Asobo_C172sp_AS1000” towards the bottom change the line “SMALL-PUSHBACK=1” into “=0” Make sure you save the file after editing.

Do this for each aircraft you don’t want a pushback truck. It’s easy and quicker to do this yourself than wait for Asobo to incorporate something to change it.

The downside is that any future update or reinstall will change it back again!

1 Like

Great thread, and timely, as ASOBO mentioned that ATC would get a major upgrade in the next sim-update in February. For me, my pet-peeves are:

  • ATIS: Pretty much dysfunctional. When using live weather, it always gives 3 layers of clouds at 1K, 4K and 11K feet, visibility given seems random. (has a thread in this forum already with 100+ votes)
  • Often assigns runways that are downwind
  • Impossible to call a tower unless you use the “nearby” feature in the ATC menu - ie you can’t tune in a frequency yourself a create contact.
  • IFR altitude changes disregards your type of airplane, wanting to send a 172 to FL180

I’m not a licensed pilot, and I’m sure there’s tons of stuff it doesn’t do at study-level, but just trying to sim, especially IFR, seems quite challenging with the current state of ATC.

1 Like

If the plane has an aircraft.cfg (any of the 20 stock planes), then you can edit the [SERVICES] section to enable that. I’ve never tried it, so it may or may not actually work.

In addition, to further consolidate relevant improvements of ATC, a highly practical feature request for simmers flying on online ATC networks (eg. PilotEdge): allowing 3rd parties to ‘read’ our transponder modes (off/stby/on/alt) and transponder IDENT commands. See Transponder Modes and IDENT command readable by 3rd parties

The OP should add:

-IFR approach clearances given by wrong controller. Currently the approach clearance is given by the tower controller. This is incorrect. Either an approach controller (where available) or a center controller gives approach clearances. Tower only controls the airspace local to the airport. (Takeoff/landing/transitioning overhead in their published airspace)

-Improper handling of climb/descents for SID/STAR. The improper need to step descents, causes issues for aircraft to comply with any published altitude constraints on STARs. ATC should just clear the aircraft to “descend via” and allow the pilot to comply with the constraints to the last one, then ATC should again control them vertically again if needed. The same applies for any SIDs that have altitude constraints. ATC clearances need to be concise and correspond with the charted altitudes. Many times if got an IFR clearance with an altitude that was way below a restriction. Any SID filed would be best if the clearance stated “climb and maintain (correct top charted altitude), climb via SID”. When aircraft reaches top altitude on SID, then ATC should start controlling vertically again. The whole idea behind SID/STAR is for simplicity and easing radio transmissions. Clearly it’s not doing that now.

-Visual approaches not complete. When necessary, a controller knows if radar vectors are needed to setup an aircraft for visually acquiring a runway for a visual approach. It seems now, ATC just has you blindly head for the airport and hope for the best that you will see it through the cockpit floor and enter a pattern. This isn’t always the case. That may make sense if the aircraft is approaching from the departing side, but for an aircraft coming from the sides or approach end, a controller usually does something different. Busier airports, the approach controller will guide the aircraft to a suitable location to acquire the airport and either be on or near the final approach corridor or runway centerline.

-No lateral separation for IFR. This is completely missing in flight. Clearly when ATC tells you, “follow the aircraft on final”, without any distance or any details to their speed. This is completely missing in all aspects both with phraseology and technique. Just very trashy. During cruise phase, ATC should tell aircraft “fly heading xxx” or “turn right/left xx degrees”. Then when clear of traffic tells them to fly direct to their next fix on FP. Currently, all ATC does is tells you to look at it and hope we don’t collide like a VFR flight.

2 Likes

Please submit all bugs for triage to Zendesk . Only post one bug per thread.

Use the ‘Search’ functionality (the magnifying glass on upper right corner) to see if your bug has already be posted

Check out the ‘Top Voted Bugs’ by clicking on ‘Votes’ in the toolbar. You may find your bug there, and can just upvote it instead of making a duplicate post.

Please post one bug per thread/topic. This will make voting on the issue easier. If you post a thread with your overall ‘thoughts’ or 10 different bugs, we will move it to the General Discussion category.

Here is a link to common questions regarding bug reporting on Zendesk:
https://flightsimulator.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360014232420-Zendesk-Bug-Reporting-FAQ

This thread has been moved to the GD section.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.