Hi, was reading on the Dreamfleet forum and found a quote from Lou Betti"Yes, I feel that data base updates should be paid for, however the problem remains getting a complete and reliable data source (Jepp has an exclusive with MS, so you cannot go to them). Only with such a source, and the money from subscriptions to pay for maintaining it and updating it would you be able to have something close to what is available in the real world."I was just thinking, why don't MS and Jepp form a system were by you can pay a subscription and download monthly updates to an internal nav database, which can be accessed by all 3rd party developers so they can use it for their products? It would mean realism is maintained and there would be a central place for the developers to pull the data from, rather than, as in the past, each using the fs airac updates, but each having their specific needs.The downsides I can think of though would by the obviously high prices of data (but if enough subscribed prices could be kept low), and whether it is a wise idea to have up-to-date data available to all, as what MS use from Jepp is old, out dated data.Any other thoughts? What do you think MS? you and Jepp would make some big $ out of it :-lol

I would have thought your post would get some more reaction, since in my opinion this is one of the fundamental problems of flying the heavy iron in MS. For each add-on you have to have a separate database, which often differ in content and timing, and they certainly differ from the original MS database, and in some cases they rely on their users to program the SIDs and STARs. And when you finally come up with a good database for your favourite aircraft you then have the problem of how to link your FMC routing to the ATC routing. I would like to see a solution to this and would be willing to pay a little extra for that. It seems that your idea would be a big step forward in that direction.Leo Bakker

To build on the ideas presented so far, I would suggest defining a standard for navigational data, perhaps an XML definition. Ideally all nav databases for all apps could claim they're conformant to this definition. And, yes, I would like to see a way to update, not only the apps databases, like were doing with the NAVDATA (Richard Stefan) site, but also the MS default data. I really believe the NAVDATA site could be continued with either the sponsorhip of a virtual airline or one of the major simulation web sites. Dave Vega

Cheers for the thoughts guys :-) I thought this may attract a bit more attention, any more from anyone else?Yeah a system like this would mean ATC would use the same navdata that your FMC would be using, therefore no ATC route conflicts or IFR cancellations.Also i like the idea of defining the database in XML format since it would be available to programmers (well after a 6 month await for an SDK :-lol )