When flying the ELDEE5 STAR into KDCA, the FMC miscalculates the descent profile. It correctly shows the crossing restrictions on the LEGS page, but intermediate fixes are unrealistically and illogically way outside any possible flight profile. The top of descent is calculated incorrectly, and all crossing restrictions are missed.This particular STAR has a lot of altitude restrictions (six), and looking at the T/D it currently calculates, I wonder if the FMC is silently ignoring all the altitude restrictions if the total is over a certain maximum number (four?).Steps to reproduce:1. Place aircraft at KCMH2. Load up the route KCMH ZZV AIR J34 SHAAR ELDEE5 KDCA3. Fill out the rest of the FMC stuff as usual (doesn't matter)4. Look at LEGS page. Note all the restrictions on the published STAR correctly appear (DRUZZ at 15000, REVUE at 1500, PUGEE 12000A etc). However the fix after PUGEE (TAPPS) shows FL279 ?!.5. Likewise the next fixes POOCH 12000A and WZRDD 10000A are accurate per the STAR, but the next fix DARIC is back up to FL241?! Likewise next fix ELDEE as published is 8000, then DMALL after that is FL188?!6. Fly the route, cruise level FL370. Dial in 8000 prior to SHAAR (i.e. "descend via ELDEE5 arrival). Note how the FMC misses all the crossing restrictions.The correct behavior should be the FMC calculates a proper descent profile such that all STAR crossing restrictions are met.Just to add, this bug exists both with SP1 and the previous version.

is your navdata current?

Yes, it's current. Follow those steps and you'll see it for yourself.

I had a similar situation today. I was flying to KSAN using the LYNDI2 STAR. All the fixes and restrictions were accurate, however, the TOD was off and I had to nose dive to get to my proper altitudes.

I had a similar situation today. I was flying to KSAN using the LYNDI2 STAR. All the fixes and restrictions were accurate, however, the TOD was off and I had to nose dive to get to my proper altitudes.

Did you fly from the IPL transition? That has five altitude restrictions, which might support my idea the current max is 4 and if there are more than that it just ignores them all.

Actually, I see the other transitions all have 5 altitude restrictions too, so yea maybe there is a maximum of 4 limitation.

I too have noticed that you really need to watch the restrictions, some are WAY WAY off. I check all of them with the charts and fix them as needed.

Maybe a quick fix for this is to show an FMC error message "cant calculate descent profile" or something similar. At least warn the pilot, instead of silently flying onward and missing all the restrictions (and causing the pilot to probably lose his license and career).

PMDG don't do quick fixes !!If they did, this incredible sim would not be what it is now.The license and career bit is funny though !!!

They did a quick fix in September, and there's nothing wrong with that.I agree though, this is an incredible sim!!!

I have not tried your route nor 6 restrictions in the STAR, but I must say that till now I have been amazed with how well the FMC works in VNAV descent. Further, the FMC warns you when it can't follow a descent profile, through the message DES PATH UNACHIEVABLE. You should also check the CLB/CRZ/DES pages and the related speeds and altitudes in detail and compare them with what reported in the LEGS page.

When flying the ELDEE5 STAR into KDCA, the FMC miscalculates the descent profile. It correctly shows the crossing restrictions on the LEGS page, but intermediate fixes are unrealistically and illogically way outside any possible flight profile. The top of descent is calculated incorrectly, and all crossing restrictions are missed.This particular STAR has a lot of altitude restrictions (six), and looking at the T/D it currently calculates, I wonder if the FMC is silently ignoring all the altitude restrictions if the total is over a certain maximum number (four?).Steps to reproduce:1. Place aircraft at KCMH2. Load up the route KCMH ZZV AIR J34 SHAAR ELDEE5 KDCA3. Fill out the rest of the FMC stuff as usual (doesn't matter)4. Look at LEGS page. Note all the restrictions on the published STAR correctly appear (DRUZZ at 15000, REVUE at 1500, PUGEE 12000A etc). However the fix after PUGEE (TAPPS) shows FL279 ?!.5. Likewise the next fixes POOCH 12000A and WZRDD 10000A are accurate per the STAR, but the next fix DARIC is back up to FL241?! Likewise next fix ELDEE as published is 8000, then DMALL after that is FL188?!6. Fly the route, cruise level FL370. Dial in 8000 prior to SHAAR (i.e. "descend via ELDEE5 arrival). Note how the FMC misses all the crossing restrictions.The correct behavior should be the FMC calculates a proper descent profile such that all STAR crossing restrictions are met.Just to add, this bug exists both with SP1 and the previous version.

Those without an A or B are fixed one. Look at your chart and change those Altitude (and speed)that´s wrong. It's an Navigraph thing. Has nothing to do with PMDG. / Leffe

Yes, data from Navigraph doesn't seem to include A or B, like in 220B or 10000A.

anakletor, the Navigraph data DOES include at or above/below. The altitudes are correct in the FMC per the STAR. Leffe, this is indeed a PMDG problem, not a Navigraph problem. See it for yourself -- I gave the steps to reproduce it.And jgoggi, I'm glad you don't get the problem on other routes. Neither do I. But it occurs on this route. Why are some of you so defensive about bug reports? Bugs occur in software, and may not get discovered until after it has been released. That's why publishers issue service packs and other program updates. It's nothing to get defensive about!

Did you fly from the IPL transition? That has five altitude restrictions, which might support my idea the current max is 4 and if there are more than that it just ignores them all.

My transition point was TNP, and the FMC warned me after starting my descent that my path was unachievable. Bug or not, I will pay better attention to my altitudes.

Up until SP1, the VNAV descent seemed flawless! No other addon I have matched it.However, two flights with two guys flying the same route (me in the -800W and the other guy in the -600) both experienced grossly inaccurate VNAV descents. I don't know the particualars for the other guy as I was pretty busy with mine at the time, but my decent never started and when I looked into why, the descent path just never started and the line just ended. I've been using VNAV on many simulators and the NGX for sometime now, and I'm reasonably certain that it wasn't operator error or the NAVDATA (same NavData used prior to SP1), and it's from the most recent NavGrapgh AIRAC.I haven't posted on this as I wanted to collect more data, but since someone else has brought it up...