Has anyone tried the new Ideal Flight?

[henri5]

Thx Steve, I didn't know that the Majestic Q400 did not support the co-route (no wonder I couldn't load my saved route back into the Q400 FMC, I thought I was doing something wrong...). I am looking forward to being able to get a flight plan into the Q400 FMC without having to do it by hand. Ideal Flight is a  fun product because one can set up a flight in seconds without having to know  about the destination airports in advance. The evaluation feature is fun too (I always forget something like  pulling the parking brake or turning off the lights).

 

Henri

[SteveW]

Yes me too, when I come back to the plane it should have rolled away downhill and the battery flat, perhaps I should put that in!

 

All the best.

[henri5]

OK I got the new version and made a flight from San Diego to KLAX in the Pilatus PC12. I chose the approach option expecting to have a STAR added to the flight plan, and a few waypoints were added near Los Angeles. I changed the runway to 25R. When I flew there, it turned out that the flight plan arrived at runway 25R right at the beginning of the runway at an angle of about 45 degrees (approximately the direction of San Diego). The additional waypoints had only prolonged the line from San Diego to KLAX and did not constitute a STAR. Needless to say I ended up landing in the ocean. Did I miss something? How exactly do I get a STAR into the plan?

 

The new additional  maps of departure and arrival in the flight plan cannot be zoomed, so I expected that I would arrived some 10 km North of runway 25L and not right at the end of the runway. Did I miss something?

 

Henri

[SteveW]

The plan contains GPS waypoints. So we can have the Waypoint that is the Entry to the STAR from the Airway, and the FAF. However, in your FMC you would select the STAR when you get near the destination and have been given the procedure by ATC. The GPS route puts you on the runway from the correct direction.

[SteveW]

Henri,

 

Have a look at this route for example.

 

 

 

FFI2 is the departure IDF rwy 30, EXMOR is the waypoint from the Airway which appears in several SIDS. CAN is the waypoint from the Airway at the STAR, and FI05 is the FAF for ILS rwy 05. But these are GPS waypoints, SIDs and STARs are a set of instructions you load into your FMC at the appropriate time. The co route file installs the GPS waypoints as shown. That's not to say you are going to use them when you get there, but nice to have in the plan anyway. ATC programs like RC4 can use the GPS plan. The runways can be set up by selecting windspeed and direction in the Weather page, or once a flight is built, it can be edited in Flight Gen (Edit Plan button) to change runways or delete waypoints etc.

[henri5]

The Pilatus PC 12 has no FMC, and I was not using ATC, so I was following a GPS route put into the FSX planner by the IF program. But as I said this route did not line me up with the runway (the "correct" direction) but intersected the end of the runway at about 45 degrees. I know that in real life the ATC would be used, or that I would ask ATC for permission to use  the STAR if I already programmed it. Since  the Pilatus has no FMC, I don't know what you mean by " the procedure given by the ATC". Do you mean that talking to the ATC would actually change the FSX route as I near the destination? In the previous version of IF (as with the FSX flight planner  itself), as I neared the destination, I would have to deviate from the route and change from GPS to NAV so that I could interset the glideslope at a fair distance from the runway. I don't understand in what way this version is different, except that it added a few useless additional waypoints. What I WOULD expect IF to do is plot a route to say, POM or another waypoint that is on the runway centerline at least 10 miles away, after which additional approach waypoints would follow the runway centerline with recommended altitudes. Maybe I am doing something wrong? The manual says nothing about how to use STARs and SIDs.

 

Henri

 

[edit] I wrote the above before I read the previous message.  In the above example, the FAF for LFPD seems to put the aircraft in the right place to intercept the glideslope about 5 miles from the runway, which was not the case for me. Could it be that it screwed up the plan because I changed the runway? Anyway I will do more experimentation to see how it works.

[SteveW]

There's plenty in the help but it won't be teaching all about SID/STARS.

 

If you used the computed approach you get a 60/30 intersect designed for the FSX AI pilot to catch the ILS, and the final around 10 miles out intersects the runway centreline.

 

If you have >augmented then you can use the SID/STAR approaches and departures as shown in the example. The FAF (and the IDF) intersects the runway centreline, the other waypoint you say is "useless", is in fact the on/off waypoint of the Airway, which is there specifically to match the airway with the runway.

 

If you tell me what route you are creating I can build it here and check if it is correct.

 

In the Flight Gen page, have you chosen a Plan Type with Approaches? Next in the Mission Page, near the bottom, Approach and Departure, choose Computed Approach. You get a plan as I said with the final splitting the runway centreline, IF10 always had this. The Pattern is 60/30 which is to comply with the latency in the Ai Pilot (AP APPR setting). The >augmented expansion pack includes a 45/45 pattern. The section lengths can be adjusted, in seconds flight time.

 

...

Hi Henri, the AVSIM way of adding to an old post has got me missing your posts. It seems you have got the right idea, if you "Edit Plan" in Flight Gen the sequence of computed waypoints will be remade. If you have >augmented SID/STAR approaches the IDF and FAF should be reselected to suit, i'm checking that. Speak later.

[henri5]

I don't have  it here, but I will check tonight. I used the plan type with approaches, but I don't remember seeing  near the bottom, "computed approach", somaybe that is the problem. As I remember, I only chose KSAN and KLAX as start and end airports, the aircraft was the Pilatus PC12 (no FMC). I chose the plan type with approaches, and do not remember doing anything else but generating the flight plan. Since it gave me runway 7 I preferred coming fromthe East, I edited the plan  to arrive at runway 25L or 25R (not sure which) and recomputed the plan, which I think had only one waypoint between KSAN and KLAX (forgot the name), and a bunch of additional waypoints near KLAX arriving at the end of the runway along the line KSAN-KLAX.

 

BTW I just realized that I was using "STAR" to mean both STARs and Transitions, maybe that is part of the problem, since the program ads do not mention supporting TRANSITIONS (from the end of the STAR to the end of the runway). Some STARs are far from lining up the aircraft with the runway and most cut off a fair distance from the airport.  Of course planes with a FMC make it easy to add a transition to the flight plan when a STAR is chosen), but planes that use the FSX flight planner have neither a STAR nor a TRANSITION. Am I to understand that  the augmented IF adds STARS but not transitions? If that is the case, it seems to me that the old way of leaving the  "beeline" FSX GPS straight route to the destination airport some 30 miles away from the destination in a direction appropriate to intersect the glideslope would be easier than using a STAR (albeit losing one's pilot licence in the process in the real world).

 

Henri

[SteveW]

OK. Remember that the planner uses the most appropriate waypoint from the STAR (or SID) which could be

the transition. The point is the waypoint is selected for the airway, and the FAF (or IDF) is there to intersect the runway. With >augmented, the SID/STAR/Transition information is compiled from the AIRAC to produce the appropriate waypoint/navaid from the area for the runway to airway.

[henri5]

I do have "computed approach" on. I have tried a number of different flight plans, all with the same type of result, i.e. essentially a direct beeline for the destination airport with the additional  waypoints apparently all at the same place at the end of the runway. Here is an example flight plan for KSAN to KVNY (the flight plan of course has much more than this, but this is the problematic part for me).

Route: KSAN KVNY

Waypoint Region Name Heading T(m:s) Total Leg(Nm) Alt(ft) Min Route

Airport KS KSAN 0.7 44:26 - 108.2 15 3000 -
Waypoint - APP5 322.3 3:29 0:44 9.0 22000 5000 AP16R
Waypoint - APP3 265.6 0:02 0:48 0.1 4300 5000 AP16R
Waypoint - APP2 205.7 0:02 0:48 0.1 4300 5000 AP16R
Waypoint - APP1 161.5 0:03 0:48 0.1 4300 5000 AP16R
Waypoint - TDWN - - 0:48 - 774 5000 AP16R
Airport KV KVNY - - 0:48 - 774 5000 -

Aircraft Situation: Parking 1013
Depart: RWY 09, TORA 9394ft, ALT 15ft, HDG 0.7°, ILS 111.55MHz
Arrive: RWY 16R, LDA 8012ft, ALT 774ft, HDG 161.5°, ILS 111.30MHz

 

Note that the last 4 waypoints are all located at the same place 0.1 nm from the destination (the end of the runway), and the flight does not seem to follow any STAR, as was the case for KLAX. Oh well, I can always make a flight plan in minutes with FS Commander, save it and load it into FSX and have a flight plan with a SID, a STAR and a TRANSITION. Unless there is a bug, I don't understand how this version is any more useful for flight planning than simply doing a direct -to GPS  flight plan between two airports with the FSX planner, except of course for the other bells and whistles (that are not negligible).

 

Henri

[SteveW]

Why not have a look in the FSX map at the plan. You would see they are 0.1Nm apart Henri!  Unfortunately you don't understand the table. :smile: 

Go into the sim and take a look at the plan.

...it wouldn't be much good if it had the distance of each waypoint from the runway, the distances are between waypoints, to a res of 0.1Nm. :smile:

Waypoint     -  APP4  325.6    6:00  0:53    25.0 32000  5000 AP16R
Waypoint     -  APP3  265.7    3:00  0:59    12.5  4300  5000 AP16R
Waypoint     -  APP2  205.6    3:00  1:02    12.5  4300  5000 AP16R
Waypoint     -  APP1  161.5    3:11  1:05    13.3  4300  5000 AP16R
Waypoint     -  TDWN      -       -  1:09       -   802  5000 AP16R
Airport      KV KVNY      -       -  1:09       -   802  5000

This is what I got but it looks like mine has the proper settings for the leg distances. Have you set your leg distances to 1 second?

[SteveW]

The reference you make to SIDs and STARs has nothing to do with the Computed Approach. The Computed Approach simply makes vectors to the runway to a fixed point back from the touchdown. SIDs and STARs are procedures for arriving and departing aircraft. I would check the leg times in the Mission page, perhaps somehow they got set to 3 seconds instead of 3 minutes maybe something like that. I think it's a bit early to be writing off the computed approach, it's one of the most favourable commented features in the planner, would be a shame if you misunderstood it because you rushed it.

[henri5]

YAHOO!...It looks like you put your finger on it. I changed the approach leg times to minutes instead of seconds and generated the flight from KSAN to KLAX and this time, the flight plan showed a nice curve at the end finishing up directly in line with runway 7. So now all Ihave to do is follow this with the GPS and either land by hand or change to NAV mode and APPR as the plane lines up with the ILS glideslope. I had assumed that the default leg values that came with the game (I bought it last night) would have reasonable values, but the leg times were all less than 5 seconds, which is why all the approach waypoints were all bunched up. The truth is that I had not even looked at these values until you mentioned them  in your last message.

 

Sorry about the trouble and thanks for the help, but I suggest that you change the default values to minutes instead of seconds when the program installs toavoid  noobs like me from pulling out their hair. And congratulations on your very fast response time.

 

Now I am off to generate another flight!...

 

Henri

[SteveW]

OK you are up and running. It's a funny thing the seconds instead of minutes. The update comes with the default sets in minutes. However, it is possible during the update that the windows compatibility helper came in and moved or changed the meaning of the time separator, as I have found this can happen on rare occasions. Now you are up to spec with [sf] (or the [sg01] preview available from the site), you won't need to worry about the leg times. With this approach mode you will find is exactly the same as when FSX ATC vectors you in. Eventually the plan will be rebuilt and reloaded programmatically when you get to Approach Vectors and have to change runways from the original guessed runway. Not far off.

[henri5]

Just for your information, I just did the KSAN-KLAX flight and it went perfectly. I had changed the runway from 07 to 24R, and the program had immediately generated a new plan  with  a perfect approach to runway 24R. When I turned into almost the runway heading, I turned from GPS mode to  NAV, pressed the APPR button (this was on the default Baron), and the autopilot landed the plane (I took control just before touchdown) for a perfect landing giving me a 100% score after I parked. Just to see, I pressed the new mission button and the program generated a flight plan to St Louis Obispo. I checked the approach map,. and indeed, the plan lines me up with the runway once again. So once one has done a flight, generating a new random flight with a  complete flight plan within the limits set up previously is really a one-button job (I have it set up for a max one hour flight)!

 

Henri