Hi all,It's always struck me that radial lines drawn on the ND (as a result of having selected a freq/crs on the NAV RAD page) don't actually match up with the VOR bearing/radial selected.In the above image, course selected for the GQE VOR is 135, and the aircraft is tracking that radial. You can see that I'm a fair way off the dashed line. If you were to switch the ND to VOR mode at that point, you'd see a centered CDI. The aircraft is correcting a little to the left to maintain it, but it was bang on the radial at the time of taking that screenshot.Might it be that the line is drawn for a different magnetic variation than the VOR itself is calibrated for? I think I remember reading that VOR's are only updated for magvar once every 5 years - that'd be a heck of a change for only 5 years! That said, might the FSX VOR database be old enough that such a change could have occurred? The 135 radial is meant to intersect the waypoint BUDEE. It's a bit of a mystery to me, so if anyone could shed some light on the discrepancy I'd appreciate it!Thanks

BUDEE is GQWr136.73 according to the database, and I know of some VORs that are as much as 15 deg different from the variation at the nearest airport. I'm curious now too, since most fixes are defined in the database by radial/distance or radial/radial depending on if defined by one or two stations. Exactly what kind of chart is BUDEE shown on?

BUDEE is GQWr136.73 according to the database, and I know of some VORs that are as much as 15 deg different from the variation at the nearest airport. I'm curious now too, since most fixes are defined in the database by radial/distance or radial/radial depending on if defined by one or two stations. Exactly what kind of chart is BUDEE shown on?

Hi Dan,It's on the ILS RWY 09 chart for Memphis (KMEM). The navigraph chart (dated 2005!) shows the 135 radial intersecting it. The most recent NACO chart:http://dtpp.myairplane.com/pdfs/00253IL9.PDF...shows it on the 137 radial.

Then that makes sense, but a little surprised that it isn't defined as an intersection of IMEM and GQWr137. Go figure.

That's interesting about the database, I've never really delved into that stuff to be honest!Do you have any idea what the problem might be then with the course line drawn on the ND?

That's interesting about the database, I've never really delved into that stuff to be honest!Do you have any idea what the problem might be then with the course line drawn on the ND?

Could this be an IRS problem? Also possibly magnetic issues which I'm not to educated about.

<<Do you have any idea what the problem might be then with the course line drawn on the ND? >> I'm not sure there is an error if you were tracking 135 instead of 137... and even then I'd be surprised if the radial dropped right on top of the fix (VORs are accurate to +/- 3 deg or more in real world). The best way to fly to the fix is to use LNAV to get you there. Note that neither the fix or the VOR are listed as IAFs (intial approach fix) and the fix is a RADAR fix so real world you are going to be on vectors to intercept the final course, or if the RADAR is out you are going to be flying a different approach with named IAFs. The FAA has an excellent handbook on instrument flying available for download here: http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/instrument_flying_handbook/You'll find a lot of interesting information.

Judging by the (2010 NACO) chart, it looks as though the VOR orientation is correct (as in, matches its real world counterpart). Had I tracked the 137, I'd have ended up right over BUDEE. If the FSX VOR position isn't the problem, then it appears as though the issue is either with whatever governs how that line is drawn on the ND, OR that the VOR deviation is way off.

Take another picture of the ND with VOR course set to 137 and see how close it is... I suspect it will be close enough.

This is a magvar issue with the FSX database vs. real life current data/positions. Nothing we can do about it unfortunately.

This is a magvar issue with the FSX database vs. real life current data/positions. Nothing we can do about it unfortunately.

Hi Ryan, Nick, Dan,Invested quite some time to 'replay' the (Nick) scenario in FSX.Very sorry Ryan, to hear nothing can be done about it, you have the inside information.It's even more bitter to see that the FS9 database vs. real life current data/positions, gives a far better presentation on the ND, simulating the real aircraft indications by within 1 degree.Just figure that one.Regards,Harry

Take another picture of the ND with VOR course set to 137 and see how close it is... I suspect it will be close enough.

Dan,In FS9 R137 is indeed close enough, and is the current radial (2010 charts)In FSX a radial entry of 141 is needed for realistic ND presentation. ie way too far off according current charts.There's something strange here. If it can't be solved in the FSX version, too bad as returning to FS9 is no option for most of us.Hope the NGX will indicate correctly.Regards,Harry

This is a magvar issue with the FSX database vs. real life current data/positions. Nothing we can do about it unfortunately.

Regarding the magvar. There is a tool available which updates the magdec.bgl to the current IGRF Declination model. It also allows to update the station declination of the navaid. http://hsors.pagesperso-orange.fr/navaids.htmlJan-Paul

Regarding the magvar. There is a tool available which updates the magdec.bgl to the current IGRF Declination model. It also allows to update the station declination of the navaid. http://hsors.pagesperso-orange.fr/navaids.htmlJan-Paul

Many thanks for the link!

Regarding the magvar. There is a tool available which updates the magdec.bgl to the current IGRF Declination model. It also allows to update the station declination of the navaid. http://hsors.pagesperso-orange.fr/navaids.htmlJan-Paul

Thanks for the link Jan-Paul.Harry