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:

Flight:

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

image

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.

image

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.