Captains,By now lots of you have had frustration with various versions of the NavData, and SID/STARS databases.As far as I can tell, we have some serious problems (at least with FS9/FS2004):First, the airports in FS9 are NOT all correct - many of them have runways that do not exist in real life. KSTL is one example.Second, the data used to create Richard's 0309 NavData and the SID/STARs is obviously not the same, causing discrepancies and FMC errors.It seems that in most cases the SID/STAR data matches FS9, and the NavData does not.As I've said elsewhere - I don't know what the "right" solution is, but I have some thoughts:First, regardless of whether they match FS9 or reality, the NavData and the SID/STAR data have to agree, or users will get FMC errors.If we assume that to be a "right" thing, then the question becomes whether to make this common data set match FS9, or match reality?I guess I'd vote to make it match FS9 - as near as I can tell the 0308 data did so.I'd love to hear other's thoughts - in the meantime, I'm going back to 0308.

Hi,Tought questions and sure enough no easy replies. In fact you are just hitting the tip of the iceberg or should I say you are opening a can of worms. Apart from the problems you mentioned there is the inherent incoherences between the DAFIF database used by Richard to compile navdatas and real life Airacs 424 compliant. I must say to be correct that Richard is actually taking some Airac 424 elements into the DAFIF datas to make up for the most important errors.Then you have the interpretation errors when using any kind of navaids to compile/create sids and stars. Here unless we can come up with a highly reliable solution there will always be errors. When I say highly reliable I would dream of getting close to the perfection used within airlines.Now, were do we go from there? You indicate that your preference would be to rely heavily on the FS9 data set. I have a somewhat different opinion in that the FS9 dataset cannot be updated. So pilots will have a hard time planning and flying with obsolete datas (especially for on-line flights). I have been in contact with a number of people here and in other forums and we are currently studying the possiblity to get a database which is more reliable and "interpretors/builders" for sids and stars which are more accurate.You may know that Richard is also doing something of extraordinary value which is to create a generic navaids database and make converters/istallers available for each FMC and programs requiring navaids. This is a first but giant step towards harmonisation and reliability.Finally, and sorry to close this post with a sad note, one thing is sure the FS9 airport database and dataset will always be a handicap to accurate flying. Unless Microsoft will in future make updates possible.I would appreciate your comments on this topic.Michael

Hi Tim and the group, I wonder if Billy and 'his boys' are relying on some old data. I say this because in the 13AUG1998 DOD/FAA U.S.Terminal Procedures (NC-3) Lambert is shown with runway 17/35, a 2878x75 foot monster. I notice that AirNav does not have this runway at Lambert but the Lambert Field Web site seems to imply that this runway does exist. Hmmmmm. If there is confusion between two sources that should be accurate we don't even have to consider Microsoft. Then again Lambert may have converted 17/35 to a taxiway. KPVD, not far from my locale, did handle 5L/23R the same way. Sometimes they use it for private aircraft, then abandon it for a few years, and then reactivate it. All in all, I really don't have any plausible solution to this problem when one considers all the airports, fixes, etc.Regards

I also had to go back to 0308....so I vote for the same!I also want to give you A biiiig hand Timothy,for providing us with the great Guide!! Thanks a lot!!Johnny"I'LL BE BACK"[div align=center]http://www.avsim.com/hangar/fly/josve/zone.jpg ][/div

Hi Timothy,I must agree with Pagotan, you cannot base the navdata on that in FS9, serious simmers never have for the simple fact that it cannot be updated.Those who fly on line with Vatsim or IVAO need current data because the controllers use current data and most, if not all, payware a/c have the facility to use updated navdata.If we all relied on FS9 data then Richard would be out of work, although I'm sure he would like at times :-)My understanding is that the PMDG 737NG uses navdata from the 676PIC which is updateable so I have no problem with that.I think most of the SID/STAR frustrations come from some errors in Richard's data (missing navaids etc). Perhaps a misunderstanding of the 767PIC data, unless Richard has changed it that data is filtered to remove runways which would not suit the 767.Errors in the way the FMC deals with some SID/STAR commands (SU2 fix) and our own understanding of how to program the SID/STARs manually.The easiest way by far is to use Terry's converter, you can then easily modify the procedures to take account of any changes needed.RgdsDave

Where can Terry's convertor be found?George Stoddard

I asked that quite some time back and never got an answer. Does anyone know what AIRAC cycle was used for COF.Ideally, since FS is never going to change until the next version ships, it makes simple sense to work with THIS version as thats what is likely to match up the best with our little simmers world.Richard provides these updates which is great but there is a price tag hidden behind it as we get stuck in these situations where what works this month may be broken next month. This is not Richard's fault, it is a problem with users expectations.With the influx of new users who get a blank look on their face when one mentions terms like Airways and Plates, you have to wonder if we are shooting ourselves in the foot by jumping around too much.This is one of the very reasons I sim in the UK, accurate charts and plates are free. The cost of getting these for the USA is a couple hundred bucks depending on frequency of updates. Great if you can snag a used set off someone else but if not you really need to work with what is available for free or sink some serious money into these.It has always struck me as annoying that FS has all the data inside yet they choose to make it unavailable to the users who buy the product. If the embedded data was available, we could have flight planners working directly hand in hand with the Microsoft database instead of being stuck trying to retrofit external data sources together.Microsoft purchased their data from Jeppessen just like everyone else these days. It is silly (on Jeppessen's part) that a package can not be purchased for Simmer's use ONLY that had the identical dataset.While Jepp sells a sid/star addon, they do not sell the charts that hook the flights together so we are blind navigating from SID to STAR. Go send them some email telling them you are interested in such a product and are willing to pay for it. Perhaps they might produce a special version of "Sim" FliteStar. Last I talked, they were not interested in the market...Ray

I've continued to think about this, and I still think the first priority is to have a common set of data defining airports, runways, and navaids and fixes, so that user's don't get errors due to discrepancies between NavData and SID/STAR info.And I still think it should be based on the FS universe, because that is what people are flying in - not the real world. Otherwise, when a runway identifier is changed (like DCA 18/36 to 01/19), or a navaid frequency is changed in the real world, that runway/navaid will be "broken" for FS users.we may be able to accomodate new SID/STAR changes manually by referencing existing fixes or adding new ones in the SID/STAR files. It's also always possible to construct a SID/STAR on the LEGS pages and fly it using heading/speed/altitude if need be.

One problem is that even the Flight Simulator universe isn't stable either...It has become quite obvious that the navdata in general is a struggle to maintain and synchronise. Each month, the wonderful people who are processing the data, like Richard Stefan, are having to cope with many different formats, not only for various aircraft add-ons, but also for flightplanners and traffic management software. A similar situation exists for traffic, parking spots and taxiways.People expect to see current data even though the flight simulator environment doesn't change...But even that isn't true!For example, last february Schiphol airport (EHAM) opened a new runway and renamed several others. By this time, MS had already finalized the new EHAM scenery; you can even see the construction site in the default satelite imagery that was used-but the runway itself wasn't included. A freeware add-on depicting the runway and it's ILS is available already, so here is a new problem: some people will have installed this and others won't-so even the same version of Flight Simulator itself isn't a uniform platform after all!Online flyers and VA's will no doubt have their own requirements.Even so, I think it would be best to have an open format for navdata that's based on a common platform, say FS9 release version. Ideally, a tool for editing the data would be available-like traffic tools and AFCAD for airport layout...but that would be quite a project in itself. But wouldn't it be easier to update a common base whenever it becomes neccesary instead of having a monthly update that may or may not fit in seemlessly?The big problem is that we already have so many add-ons that use the data in different formats. The current sophistication has grown gradually as Flight Simulator evolved from a GA-only sim to what it is today-and the resulting complexity is mind-boggling.Best,Martijn

The big problem is that we already have so many add-ons that use the data in different formats.Thats exactly the problem as Microsoft forces this situation by preventing addons from directly working with the included data so everyone has gone off and invented their own. Until Microsoft accepts the fact that they have won the war and put everyone else out of business and opens up the gates (pun indended), we are stuck living with this mess.The Cure is within their hands ... if they so choose ...Ray

Hi Dave and all,one word about the errors (missing navaids):The "missing" airports aren

Last time I flew out of Lambert, about three years ago, the short cross-runway was still marked as a runway - white lights, runway markings, numbers etc. Don't know if that's changed or not in those three years.

>Last statement:>I made these datas over 3 years now, nearly every month and i>have never thought about to end this. I

Richard, don't ever think your efforts over the years are not 100% loved by all of us out there in the FS world.The problem does not reside in your efforts to improve our hobby.The problem lies in the fact that people who are new to the world of trying to be real do not understand that there are going to be errors from time to time and just because it worked last month doesn't mean your favourite airport will be working this month.People don't understand the value of what they get when it is free. I invite folks to go visit Jeppessen and add the world-wide version of FliteStar to their shopping cart and click BUY! Thats what you have been giving us month after month for years now.The key issue as always is cost. You can be as REAL as your wallet lets you in this world of simming.It just annoys me to no end that Microsoft keeps doing this to us year after year. How much wasted programming talents could be better spent elsewhere if they simply opened the gates and let people use what is already there...Ray

Hi Richard,I do understand your irritation and frustration. I myself spent valuable time trying to explain again and again that the main source of the problem is DAFIF and nothing else. Then you have another field of common confusion or misunderstanding: Navaids and Sids/Stars databases are two different animals one being build with datas from the other. This has not yet been fully realized by some.Finally the concept of "as real as it can get" certainly has its limitations. The main of which is the amount of money a would be pilot is willing to spend for his hobby. The world of flight simulation would be at totally different levels if only 25% of the simmer community was willing to spend say $3,000 plus, per year, on their hobby.Now, Richard, there is a brand new aspect which took most of us by surprise which is a flow of new simmers which arrived to the "sophisticated products" with the release of FS9 and PMDG's products. If you recall, prior to May/June 2003 there were almost not complains about navaids or sids/stars just because each of the pilots using navdatas and sids/stars databases were seasonned enough (and many were used to make manual corrections/improvements silently). My point here is that there is a tremendous educational process going on which eventually will lead to some maturity.I, like so many who have known you for many years would hate to see you retire from that hobby. It would certainly one of the greatest loss we could face. Please do reconsider and close an eye on the complains as they are not worth the stress. In one sentence: we need you Richard! Please...Michael