I find that most VATSIM controllers tend to vector those on an instrument approach directly to the final approach fix when vectoring to the approach course. This is unrealistic and poses an inconvenience for those who fly coupled instrument approaches. Autopilot systems will not arm glideslope capture mode until the localizer is captured. When vectoring to the FAF, you end up intercepting both at the same time, which can prevent the autopilot from capturing the glideslope/glidepath.
Why are controllers defaulting to FAF vectors and not vectors to the intermediate fix instead? If you intercept the localizer and cross the IF at the published IF altitude, you will be below the glideslope/glide path and in the correct position to intercept and capture the glideslope/glidepath upon crossing the FAF. This procedure is also in line with real world practice. So why are we not doing this?
Where do you do most of your flying? I’ve found that vectoring to capture the localizer well before the glideslope is the norm. I can’t remember ever being vectored to join the localizer right at the FAF. If I remember correctly from when I was actively controlling (it’s been a few years) vectoring directly to the FAF isn’t even legal, at least in the US, unless requested by the pilot.
Generally speaking, ATC needs to give vectors such that you intercept the lateral track no later than 1NM before you intercept the vertical profile for precision approaches (no later than 2NM before for non-precision approaches). There may be higher values in some places, but to my knowledge less than those two values is never an option.
Now, VATSIM controllers are (at least for the most part) not real world professionals so they will usually make more mistakes than a real world controller would; however, they should be trained to respect these values regardless, so if you notice this happening repeatedly at a certain airport/in a certain vACC, you might want to write some feedback.
Two possible explanations why this can happen:
VATSIM pilots unfortunately often take very long to comply with time-critical instructions such as intercept turns, so some controllers may fall into a habit of issuing instructions earlier in an attempt to accommodate that slow response time which can cause issues with pilots who are executing that instruction quickly
If someone is covering the APP position for a given airport topdown as ACC (or even if they are covering the responsible APP position directly but the airport is not the main airport and they are busy with said main airport) they may have so much other stuff going on that they can’t give efficient vectors and instead just roughly eyeball the intercept turn which can of course result in the intercept heading being too tight (obviously not ideal but unfortunately an inherent problem caused by VATSIM’s topdown philosophy - controllers should simply assign full approaches via an IAF/IF to remove some of their own workload if the airport has such procedures available and traffic permits, but here again, pilot competency is often a major hurdle, so particularly when you’re flying to an airport with little to no other traffic it can always be very helpful to ATC if you just ask them to fly the full approach from a given IAF/IF)
Happens IRL as well every now and then, probably once per tour. It really is not such a big issue (to capture LOC and GS at the same time), you just need to be aware of your situation and act accordingly (speed, configuration etc.).
If you don’t like a vector and think that you will be arriving on the centerline too close to the FAP or FAF, tell ATC. They will either issue a corrected heading or descend you a few hundred feet to create some distance between LOC and GS intercept.