No EFS like aivlasoft needed

[Sekstifire]

Pretty much every European chart published are available for free from Eurocontrol and for those countries that arent supported by Eurocontrol you can find those charts really, really easily as well, usually (I'd say 98% of the time) found on the first page of a google search. Its incredibly straight forward and easy to get charts for the European airspace.

 

That said, I'm not a huge fan of using EFBs either, as they only show the data that navigraph has in their procedures. This data is frequently incorrect, infact, I would say that it is incorrect more often than not. Usually some altitude restriction or speed restriction is wrong. Thats why I always 100% of the time use real life charts, as they are accurate, besides, they often contains lots of information that an EFB doesnt contain, for example that the pilot should contact a specific frequency right after takeoff, or that a specific procedure is only available at a certain time of day. There are of course countless other examples of info provided in the charts that will be lost when solely using an EFB.

 

TL;DR: OP is correct, using an EFB as the sole source of the procedures / as an alternative to using charts will reduce the realism. Singling out Aivlasoft EFB as a waste of money seems to be a bit too much tho, as they are providing refunds for whoever did not enjoy their product

[Andydigital]

Things will change at Navigraph once Aerosoft start supplying data too from LIDO, if they dont they will fail.

[Pete Dowson]

You must have a very busy cockpit there ;). Don't tell me you also have a kinda realistic cockpit!

 

It's the PFC 737NG cockpit (www.flypfc.com), fully updated and with the overhead replaced by the full forward and aft Cockpitsonic ones with speakers added, and some extra touch screens on both side walls, plus an aviation-type intercom with two headsets. The cockpit is narrower than a real one, squeezing out the lower DU and only allowing a non-realistic radio stack on the centre console. It currently uses six PCs other than the main FSX PC which provides the outside view on a 10' projection.

 

Pete

[Pete Dowson]

Hello

A nice source of UK charts that I also use is the NATS site

http://www.nats-uk.e...&Itemid=13.html

 

That looks interesting, for UK only though. Thanks.

 

Pretty much every European chart published are available for free from Eurocontrol and for those countries that arent supported by Eurocontrol you can find those charts really, really easily as well, usually (I'd say 98% of the time) found on the first page of a google search. Its incredibly straight forward and easy to get charts for the European airspace.

 

Hmm. You've had more luck than me, then. I may try more.

 

...they only show the data that navigraph has in their procedures. This data is frequently incorrect, infact, I would say that it is incorrect more often than not. Usually some altitude restriction or speed restriction is wrong.

 

I've not really noticed much wrong, but then I don't know most of that stuff off by heart. AND things change all the time in the real world. I'm not that fanatic that I'd update my Navigraph stuff every month.

 

Thats why I always 100% of the time use real life charts, as they are accurate, besides, they often contains lots of information that an EFB doesnt contain, for example that the pilot should contact a specific frequency right after takeoff

 

And do you? Do you get a response on said frequency? What ATC program are you using?

 

Such instructions would need to be part of the ATC program I use -- Radar Contact. That always gives you the departure frequency to contact, if there is one. Else you go direct to Centre from Tower.

 

Regards

Pete

[Sekstifire]

...

I've not really noticed much wrong, but then I don't know most of that stuff off by heart. AND things change all the time in the real world. I'm not that fanatic that I'd update my Navigraph stuff every month.

Usually the inaccuracies are quite small, like a missing or incorrect altitude restriction. These things can be hard to notice unless the pilot studies the charts along with the programmed flight plan route. Most people probably doesnt even care if the data isnt 100% accurate. I understand that, people are after different things when it comes to their simming. Some people just want the VC to look like the cockpit of their favorite plane, even if the sim plane flies nothing like the real plane. Other people are more into systems realism and might not care too much if the graphics arent 100% accurate. Another group is into procedure realism etc. Different people want different levels of realism. Personally I like systems and procedure realism. That said, I love great graphics as well, but not at the expense of reduced realism in other areas. But now I'm digressing

 

 

 

And do you? Do you get a response on said frequency? What ATC program are you using?

 

Such instructions would need to be part of the ATC program I use -- Radar Contact. That always gives you the departure frequency to contact, if there is one. Else you go direct to Centre from Tower.

 

Regards

Pete

I do get response, yes, as I fly exclusively online. Online ATC are trained for local real life procedures. I really like the realism it gives in regards to aviation rules, regulations and procedures. Online ATC is actually capable of providing separation between two aircraft, something I unfortunately cannot say about the default ATC :( (I know, such a basic thing. The default isnt even capable of providing the primary function of real life ATC). I havent tried RC so I dont know how it fares in regards to real life procedures, locally as well as globally

[kavehmz]

It's the PFC 737NG cockpit (www.flypfc.com), fully updated and with the overhead replaced by the full forward and aft Cockpitsonic ones with speakers added, and some extra touch screens on both side walls, plus an aviation-type intercom with two headsets. The cockpit is narrower than a real one, squeezing out the lower DU and only allowing a non-realistic radio stack on the centre console. It currently uses six PCs other than the main FSX PC which provides the outside view on a 10' projection.

 

Pete

 

Cool.

For the moment I hate you :D :P

Have enjoyable flights Pete.

[CoolP]

Intentionally leaving out the dreaded realism topic or just the next of 12456 rounds of it. ^_^

 

Pretty much every European chart published are available for free from Eurocontrol and for those countries that arent supported by Eurocontrol you can find those charts really, really easily as well

I would be happy if that was the case. But can you, for example, point me to a current and legal rw chart set for lets say Rome LIRF?

 

There once was a payware summing up a ton of rw charts with an unknown date. This at least worked around the need to click Google, look here, look there and find year 1999 charts from three different authors and one bad scan. May not be a downside for the guys flying the same routes over and over again, but just looking up a chart can be a challenge at times, right?

 

I forgot a nice exception. The close to rw charts from the online communities. Those are easier to find, but often enough differ on the format and philosophy, so to speak.

 

I agree on the case that rw charts offer a lot more information than the Navigraph set can provide, but I receive the impression that some of us didn't not get the nice system this dedicated sim database enables.

 

For instance, all your addon planes rely on it. And the ones which do not, rely on the rather static FSX data, only being able to receive updates by editing bgl files. The only exception form the mentioned circumstances are the RXP equipped planes, but they remain static (or very expensive) too.

 

So that special sim database, the support for it and the monthly updates may incorporate errors, but also allows the sim folks to stay current and legal at very reasonable costs. With an EFB being able to read and use this data (same as on your plane!), you have a perfect match for the sim.

 

Agreed, it makes sense to cross-check with available rw charts and correct this and that. Looking closer, you may also find out that e.g. DME arcs don't work for our planes as the format itself doesn't allow the definition, only the workarounds. So you may see things on those rw charts which your plane can't fly without tricking. This leads us to the realism topic again, huh? :o

 

I like the paragraph on the extra info on 'paper' charts, but we may agree that those nasty rw folks sometimes alter frequencies, build new or replace navaids, alter the runway designators, change the layout, add a runway and so on. So the only way to fit all that to the data and dependencies of your sim in use is to incorporate a tool being able to read and know about the sim's data and how it fits to the one from e.g. Navigraph.

 

I do hope that you receive an answer/reception when switching to the rw frequencies after takeoff, but I also think that the 'realism downside' from this or that EFB in use receives a much more severe impact by a controller not being online where you want to fly.

 

Besides, I'm happy that we agree on the 'bit too much' impression on the OP's tenor.

[Sekstifire]

Wow, what a long answer, I wish I was half as good of a poster as you are!

I dont want to argue, so I'm just going to say that online ATC has it's own set of problems, particularly the issue where you have to monitor unicom when there's no online ATC for the airspace you fly in. I can see how that would turn people off.

 

As for up to date charts for LIRF, you can get them straight from Eurocontrols website, for free. They only require you to sign up. Their website is at http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/publicuser/public/pu/login.do From there you click 'Enter Applications', click OK on the disclaimer, click PAMS Light [AIP] in the nav menu, select authority code 'Italy', AIP type 'Charts', Part 'AD' then click the search button. The website should now list all the current charts it has for Italian airdromes. You can find charts for most european airports from the same website.

[ajpongress]

He said Aivlasoft's EFB was lacking in features. That alone shows he doesn't really understand how to use the product's full potential.

It's absolutely more feature rich then a paper chart he keeps referring to as "the most realistic".

[CoolP]

Thanks for the information, Johan. Much appreciated. As said, I like to cross-check the stuff, but I actually came to EFB after being annoyed by searching for PDFs. It surely is based on convenience too, in case anybody wonders. You type in the ICAO and have your charts, current and always in clear views, being customizable.

 

Don't read my answers the wrong way, please. I think the OP had a discussion in mind when posting. The basic intention of a thread. So that's what we do, discussing and advancing on the knowledge.

 

I've listened to the fsbreak episode he mentions in the background, just to find out where and when they've pointed at the tools to be the cause of forming up bad (sim) habits. They don't! What they actually discuss, in a rather lengthy form, is the downside of the sim when it comes to the handling of the plane, the lack of feel, the bad habits like only flying the instruments.

 

This makes sense of course and I like the fact that they stress that 1000 hours in the sim can be worth 0 in the real plane, or even give a negative value if you come in with the habit of flying the plane with the trim and things. Good remark! I guess a good instructor will be able to correct some though.

 

So when it comes to this or that tool in use, I doubt that anybody will become a bad pilot (if he ever becomes a pilot) just because the chart depiction was so nice and clear in FSX. However, there's nothing wrong with using this or that soft or not using another one.

 

Thanks to your tip, I may browse some more rw charts these days.