G'Day TimI couldn't agree more with the freezing of the database for Sids/Stars.Nothing is worse than doing Jepp ammendments so i have no idea how the navdata guys find any motivation whatsoever from that project.It makes much more sense toA) Freeze the DB to enable us to use either the FS9 planner or outside route info and both would be using correctly named waypoints.:( End up with a much larger database of Sid's Starts etc for a larger number of airports. That way we are not continually going over new charts for the same old airports with the collection never expanding.Rather than update every 28 days maybe every 6 months would be better as it reduces the Navdata guys job to twice a year.I hate ammendments!

Hello Ray and the group; I am in complete agreement with you on your main points. After being around this planet for 69 years I too have learned that most people have no idea of the value and work involved in a project that is made freely available to the masses. I have wondered now for quite some time why Richard continued with his hard work the results of which were sort of taken for granted by the majority of us. Maybe some of the folks will take you up and purchase the Jeppesen FliteStar but once they see the price they will simply forget it. Nevertheless it may open their eyes to the contribution Richard has made for quite some time now. I am interested in what the folks who also own FS Navigator, FS Build, Radar Contact, PIC767 and even PMDG's 737NG will do now? Of course we could ask those who complained about the small innaccuracies in the AIRAC and SIDSTAR data to sort of step in for Richard. Are there any takers? It was so easy to modify not only the NAVDATA but also the SIDSTAR databases to correct or revise those few entries that seemed to disagree with the assumed Real World conditions. Even modifying the FS2002/2004 databases is not that difficult a chore but, oh yes, we want it all done for nothing. I do not place any blame on either Microsoft or Jeppesen as to the accuracy of their combined work involved with FS2002/2004. We bought the package knowing full well Microsoft's record. Billy and his boys did not coherce us into purchasing his product. All in all, I wish to again express my sincere Thank You to Richard Steffan for the hard work he has done and willingly offered to the flight sim community for all these years.Regards

Well said, Michael. I can only add my voice to what you say.

Hi All, I am as fustrated as all of you with the discrepancies between the data sets used in various add-ons etc. However, I began thinking if it wasn't possible to make a tool that would correct the BGL files that FS. I remember in that in summers gone yonder (or some time ago :-)) I played around with a tool that could read BGL files for a project that I have since put on hold. The main problem was that the BGL files were compressed. However, a utility provided by MS solved that issue for me. I just did a quick search and found that there is a stand-alone version of the utility that can also compress the raw data. If this is indeed possible, I dare suggest a solution: From a source that we deem reliable and accurate enough, we create a new set of BGL files that are updated to reflect any changes that the source indicates. I realize this is a huge task, but with some clever programming it is doable and, indeed, it only has to run every so often (if worst comes to worst, a SETI-like solution could be implemented). Now, these are just ideas. It may be that I know too little to actually exress my self in a meaningful manner. Just my two centsBoaz

@ Richard @MichaelI can pretty much understand your point Michael but I can understand Richards frustration even more! As Richard says: "The main problem is the SID/STAR database and i can

Hi,You just made my point. No one has ever complained about the PIC navaids or sids and stars. This is why I said that a great effort in educating users of PMDG and surely of the forthcoming PSS A340 and PSS 747 is necessary. We all understand the shortcomings and have lived happy with them for years. I only hope Richard will continue with the same extraordinary commitment he showed to all of us and for which we are so thankful.Michael

>@ Richard @Michael>>I can pretty much understand your point Michael but I can>understand Richards frustration even more! As Richard says: >>"The main problem is the SID/STAR database and i can

Hi Timothy,You just add the following line to your wpNavAPT.TXT:Baltimore Washington IntKBWI33R05000334 39.176236-076.653231111.9533400146You see Timothy, this is exactly what I wrote in a previous message in this thread. PIC users have almost never raised issues about missing or erroneous datas in the NavAids files or Sids and Stars databases they have always made corrections silently to adjust the databases and eventually have posted updated sids and stars on Richard's site.Maybe I am wrong but I believe that the datas Richard makes available to us are of incredibly high standard and the few corrections which need to be made can be done by any serious user. May be it is too much to expect but I would hate to see the high quality of datas available disappear because of some lack of understanding of the basics by some users (this last comment is in no way directed at you well knowing your valuable contribution).Michael

As Richard's reply was addressed to me and 'all' I feel I must respond in case there was a misunderstanding.Richard, I was in no way critising your valuable work on the navdata, I look forward to each release and accept that some cycles may have errors or may not actually be released.The point I was trying to make, as Michael has done above, is that it is usually easy to correct these errors or work round them and not constantly complain that 'Richard Stefan's data is corrupt or incomplete'.I trust that your comment about cycle 0309 being your last was a 'heat of the moment' comment and those of us who wish to use 'real' data can look forward future releases by yourself.For those who want to freeze the data at the point FS9 was completed, fine, do that, but please don't enforce that constraint on the rest of the flight sim community. There are many virtual pilots who prefer to use current data and those who fly with Vatsim are almost madated to use current data.RgdsDave

>Hi Timothy,>>You just add the following line to your wpNavAPT.TXT:>>Baltimore Washington IntKBWI33R05000334>39.176236-076.653231111.9533400146>>You see Timothy, this is exactly what I wrote in a previous>message in this thread. PIC users have almost never raised>issues about missing or erroneous datas in the NavAids files>or Sids and Stars databases they have always made corrections>silently to adjust the databases and eventually have posted>updated sids and stars on Richard's site.>and how am I supposed to know the appropriate information for this runway to add it, assuming I can figure out the format? Where did you get it?I managed this issue by going back to the 0308 data and am happy. But the mark of the SUCCESS of products like PMDG is that they attract new people to the hobby (or subhobby in this case), and it's probably not realistic to expect these people to know how to "patch" things.

one other comment - I believe most of the hubbub recently was due to people who had things "working" with 0308 and they "stopped working" with 0309.Richard indicated that he'd used a different tool for the 0309 release, and I _THINK_ that this caused the differences. I also _THINK_ that Richard will be using the tool he used for 0308 for future releases (please correct me if I'm wrong, Richard).For the average person new to FMC's, who had something working very well, and then finding all sorts of FMC errors when they updated their data - you can understand the confusion.I'm hopeful for 0310.

Hi,A detailed guide about the format used in WpNavAPT.Txt would be somewhat outside the scoop of this thread. However, any Jeppesen plate or if not available the DAFIFT files contain all necessary information to build an "airport runway" in wpNavAPT.TXT. I recognize that not many users can afford the Jeppesen products but a number of sites offer free plates for download and DAFIF's files are also available for free.Fair enough when you say "the mark of success of products like PMDG is that they attract new people to the hobby" and I would add that products like PMDG, PSS, PIC, PS1.3 are all highly sophicticated products. One would think it would be a waste for the publishers of these products if users had to downgrade their expectations for sophistication only because some other/new users are not willing or able to put some efforts on their own. Or is the flight simulation society becoming such an assisted community that no one is willing to go the extra step and do some research and work on their own? is the trend now to expect 100% working programs, files, add-ons for free or at very low cost?Don't you think that to make some research and try to understand how things work, then to make modifications, inprovements and finally to share your results with others is a more gratifying and satisfying way of life than just asking others without even trying to understand the basics and moaning when the result is not perfect? Is this attitude the right one in your opinion?Michael

Michael,I totally agree with you, please Richard, dont give up on us as Michael said "we need you". The work that you undertake is appreciated more than can be expressed on here.Regards,Steve.

>Don't you think that to make some research and try to>understand how things work, then to make modifications,>inprovements and finally to share your results with others is>a more gratifying and satisfying way of life than just asking>others without even trying to understand the basics and>moaning when the result is not perfect? Is this attitude the>right one in your opinion?First, I never claimed that this was my attitude, just that it was an understandable attitude in others. And for a user that paid money for a product, I think it's a completely reasonable one. It gets complicated of course because nobody "bought" the NavData, but the value of the PMDG product is significantly reduced if the FMC doesn't work. When somebody pays for something, the expectation level goes way up.Second, looking over my (very real) Jeppesen charts, I can't find specific lat/lon information for a runway, only for the airport reference point (which is not at all the same thing). So without the information, and without the format (which you claim is outside the scope of this thread) or the DAFIF (what the hell is that?) info, again, the user is stuck, isn't he?The attitude I infer from your post (note that I did NOT say this is the attitude you intend to convey) is "Hey, we have been dealing with these issues for years, you new guys should suck it up and deal with it too". It comes off as superior and condescending, and I can't stress how wrong that is if you're looking for new people to join your community or buy your product. If I had that attitude, I'd have never written the ops tutorial (thus sharing my results with others) - I'd have expected everyone to figure it out on their own. It reminds me of the atitude certain car enthusiasts display - that if one doesn't fully understand the internal workings of everything in it, one shouldn't be driving. While I think competence is a laudable goal - we all know that if it was required, the auto industry would still be trying to sell it's millionth car. In aviation it's the same thing - as a professional pilot, I'm required to have a lot more in-depth knowledge of my aircraft's systems than I am of my car, but nobody expects me to know the proper torque setting for fastening the vacuum pump to the engine.I'm going to say this one last time and then I'll bow out of the thread - the issue is not that there were problems with 0309 - Richard's done more than anyone could expect to correct problems as they were encountered, and he has my deep respect.The issue was that for many many people, they either couldn't get going because of the missing data in 0309 - or worse, they took a step backward if they updated from 0308 - so they came to the support forum for their product, and complained, which is what they should do. And people have responded - Richard updated data, info came out about the need for consistency between the NavData and SID/STARS file, and this thread has been (in my opinion) a healthy and civil debate about the risks and rewards of keeping this data "current".In closing, I've seen this "conflicting attitude" phenomenon happen often when something is "commercialized" - people who pour their love into the activity are appalled by the attitude of the latecomers who expect to buy their way into the fun, and the new people can't understand this - after all, they were SOLD this activity, weren't they? So why doesn't it work easily? Think back (if you can) to when personal computers were a hobby - all of us put up with bad hardware, bad software, and STILL threw time and love and money at it. And as the products improved, it remained a hobby, until eventually things were mature enough for the mass market (which I will stipulate is full of people who don't know how things work, don't care how things work (as long as they work), and are completely incompetent and helpless when things don't work) - but they've got the money that product developers want, and their entrance into the market usually results in higher product quality and lower prices (like maybe a CH throttle console for $100.00, instead of a Go-Flight one for $299).Now, if I were "The King" at PMDG, I'd ship the product with known good NavData/SID-STARS info (so that it worked "out of the box"), and then disclaimed any liability if they messed with it. Guys, that's a strong suggestion for your boxed release - the people who buy it at stores are NOT going to want to have to download data to go fly with the FMC; if they had broadband they probably would have downloaded your product already.Thanks to everyone who's participated in this thread - I for one learned a lot from it - I hope you have as well.

Very interesting thread...The way I see it is this: FS caters for various categories of users, ranging from the occasional GA flyer to the dedicated, hardcore simmer. Essentialy FS is a platform for people's aviation simulation needs. Products such as PMDG's are bought either out of sheer curiosity or out of dedication. This dedication warrants that the purchaser is willing to invest some of his/her time to solve issues arising out of the fact that the product is essentialy an enhancement of the original FS world and adds functionalities beyond the scope of FS's authors. It is not dificult to see that conflicts of interest can arise due to the varying levels of dedication that users are willing to demonstrate. E.g. a real-life professional jet pilot reads all the topics about Sids,Stars,FMCs,procedures,ATC and online flying etc and believes that we have everything sorted out and he can delve into the worlds of FS and enjoy a full experience bar the motion from day one. As most of you know, however, this is very far from the truth...This lack of standardisation is pretty apparent in various aspects of flight simming and has been dealt with by all those who participate by demonstrating not only dedication but also good will (lots of...) and patience(big lots of...). I can see how someone such as such a real life jock can become very frustrated by the whole thing since in his line of work standardisation (and up-to-dateness) is the name of the game.Therefore, I can only advise those of you who feel cheated in a way by the fact that an FMC made by someone, does not work in total harmony with a navigational database put together by another and with a set of DPs/Stars implemented by someone else, to exercise some(more?) patience and try to work out your problems with the help of the community and for the benefit of the community. Finally I have to raise my voice in favour of the constant updating of the databases to the detriment, perhaps, of functionality. I will illustrate the rationale of my point with the following example: FS2K2 did not include the new main International Airport of Greece because it was inaugurated some months after 2K2 was out. This was bad for me since it was my home airport and I imagine for many others, since Greece is a relatively popular virtual flying destination. The easy thing to do would be to ignore the omission and keep flying out of the old Athens airport. However, it was very refreshing to realise that the community was in favour of updated databases (aka the hard way). Therefore, I followed the hard way, I updated my databases, I seeked and found an excellent scenery for LGAV (thank you Mr.Dorkofikis), I installed missing local VORs and finally i managed to enjoy LGAV in all its glory both on and off line. Isn't that nice?Apologies for the long post.