DCS Normandy 2.0 - ATC

[TBarina]

Is it me or the ATC in DCS Normandy 2.0 is not properly heading the player to final? I have tested it in a simple mission asking to High Halden for Vectors to final but it doesn't help me to find the airport. It becomes critical in low visibility conditions.
I've tried with "Inbound" also.

What am I doing wrong?

[MAXsenna]

A short track is probably helpful.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[TBarina]

Hi, I've setup a mission where 2 P51-D are coming back. Radio available allows to tune to different airport (High Halden, Headcorn and Chailey: channels B, C and D respectively).

If I declare INBOUND to Chailey I receive proper heading to final (273 for landing to runway 15).

If I decalre INBOUND To HeadCorn it seems that i receive proper heading to final (334 for 15nm) (see picture). But I'd told to expect runway 28.
The problem here is that if I'm lost when I reach final IP I turn to M289° and fly to west insted to east. 

If I declare INBOUD do HighHalden I'm told to expect runway 11 but in low visibility I'm vectored to points that are not properly aligned to final.

It seems like airports with two runways are not managed properly.

I know that ATC is poor but I would expect to be able to be vectored properly in case of poor visibility.

Thanks.null

 

TB P-51D - RTB.miz

[TBarina]

I've added some wind from different directions (lastly 10 kts Meteo 276°) and it seems like ATC properly changes the IAF in accordance with wind directions.
Theoretically we are vectored to proper IAF.
The problem is that when declaring INBOUND to Headcorn ATC reports to expect opposite runway : runway 10 when wind 276° Meteo and 280 when wind from 100°.

IMHO it's bug in the INBOUND response that names the opposite runway as the active one (for which it provides proper IAF).

Seems like this bug only affects Headcorn airfield (that's what I've discovered so far)

BTW: Headcorn is RAF Lashenden as stated here:

 

 

Edited May 5 by TBarina

[TBarina]

Has anyone else encountered the same problem?

IMHO it's bug in the INBOUND response that names the opposite runway as the active one (for which, instead, it provides proper IAF).

 

 

[MAESTR0]

Hi
Try testing again. I see two runways in Headcorn:
1: 18-36
2: 09-27
The main directions for these runways are "18" and "09".
It is unclear why the controller gives such a direction in calm weather.
But everything is correct with the wind:
With a wind of 286, the controller will give runway 09.
On takeoff/landing, the wind should be headwind

Please write the test results.

[TBarina]

On 5/12/2025 at 7:33 PM, MAESTR0 said:

Hi
Try testing again. I see two runways in Headcorn:
1: 18-36
2: 09-27
The main directions for these runways are "18" and "09".
It is unclear why the controller gives such a direction in calm weather.
But everything is correct with the wind:
With a wind of 286, the controller will give runway 09.
On takeoff/landing, the wind should be headwind

Please write the test results.

I've tested again and created a new mission with Spitfire coming from the south and the ability to contact both HighHalden and Headcord.

I've tried to call HH first. I've given direction to IAF for runway 11. Message says RW 04 (it doen't exist ad HighHalden, if I'm not wrong). Where is this RW 04 coming from?| Besides, even if the intention was for runway 11 that would be the wrong one since the is wind from 285 at 20 kts).

Then I aborted and contacted HeadCord. I was vectored west of the airport to IAF for RW 10. Controller said to expect RW 28 (BTW: not 27, there is no 27 at Headcorn). Theoretically this should be the right one since the wind is coming from 285 (Met.105°). But the IAF where I'm vectored to is at the opposite side and it's not the right IAF for RW 28.

I cannot say it is working properly. For me it's messing up things.

Not to talk of problems when there is no wind blowing.

Please, let us know and take action with ED if you have power to.

I'm available for further testing in case of need.

TB Spitfire - RTB.miz

[TBarina]

Anyone has had the chance to test?

[TBarina]

On 4/29/2025 at 10:00 AM, MAXsenna said:

A short track is probably helpful.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

Seems like nobody cares for testing bugs.

 

[MAXsenna]

Seems like nobody cares for testing bugs.
 

Be that as it may. It's just that is so much quicker for everyone to test with a track. Because the devs can run it in the debugger.

Cheers!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[TBarina]

2 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

Be that as it may. It's just that is so much quicker for everyone to test with a track. Because the devs can run it in the debugger.

Cheers!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

I've added a mission with a flight in the proximity of the airports. Aircraft is in the air and radios have been set to contact three different airports in the zone (mainly: HighHalden and HeadCorn.
Wind is set so the a user can quickly test calling different airports and check responses.

IMHO this is better than a track to check ATC messages.

[MAXsenna]

I've added a mission with a flight in the proximity of the airports. Aircraft is in the air and radios have been set to contact three different airports in the zone (mainly: HighHalden and HeadCorn.
Wind is set so the a user can quickly test calling different airports and check responses.

IMHO this is better than a track to check ATC messages.

For testing yes, absolutely! But your first sentence in the OP literally says "Is it me...". With a track one can actually see if you're doing anything wrong, which I don't think you do. And like I wrote, a track can be used for debugging to see exactly what's going on. It's really hard for me to comprehend why some of you guys always refuse to post a track, even after being a explained why a track is really helpful. It's just a matter of clicking "Save track", give it a relevant name and drag and drop it here.
Apologies for not being more helpful, but I haven't used DCS since Christmas.
Cheers!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk