What I'm saying is why wouldn't it have STARS and SIDS if it's using navdata pro.... Which has them

 

I don't understand either then. I was under the impression it supported them when he was demoing it, but it seems it was an approach he was showing and not a full STAR. In the scheme of things, it's not that important for me, but why release something half working, when with a little bit more effort we could have a complete solution, not to mention it might actually encourage more people to sign up for the aerosoft navdata. 

+1

Seems weird not to go for the full hog and add sids+stars given the data's already there in the airac updates.

It kind of seems like the way they do things sometimes though.

 

Oh well, in a future update I'm sure we'll see STARS/SIDS added lol

It's luckily not too hard to just add the points of the SIDs/STARs to your own flight plan anyway, but what's a little strange about this is presuming that just because something isn't useful to the developer himself (i.e. In his IFR training) or is not common in Europe, it should be omitted/brushed off. Unfortunately X-Plane seems to have a history of this, and it might annoy one or two people.

 

However, the good news is the API which can be used to access this information, meaning (hopefully) we'll see much better systems in future GA planes, such as a proper working G1000. Again, from what I saw at the conference, it was very impressive and far superior to what's currently in X-Plane 10.25 and even the GPS in FSX

it's not that important for me, but why release something half working, when with a little bit more effort we could have a complete solution, . 

Normally such decisions depend on the code. He has to integrate this system seamlessly into the existing code of the old GPS. Such features probably need several changes in the SDK. This might probably become one of the features of X-Plane 11.

SIDs/STARs should not depend on X-Plane code, there are just waypoints. You can enter them manually waypoint by waypoint in X-Planes default flight plans, if you have up-to-date navigation data (for example by UFMC, which overwrites the default nav data with much better data). So it should be easy to simply add a similar option to the new GPS like it has for the approaches.

 

However, as I was surprised about the lack of STARs, too, I did some research and it seems that in General Aviation SIDs/STARs are really not used very often -- they seem to be meant for airliners coming in at high speeds from high altitudes, but not for the typical GA plane.

 

One thing I read was that many GA aircraft would not even be able to fly STARs properly, because in many cases they don't reach the required flight levels. Another thing was that for GA aircraft flying STARs would lead to inefficient fuel use, because the STARs add unnecessary distances.

 

Anyway, I'm not a pilot, so maybe a real GA pilot could answer that question:

 

Do you, as real pilot, in your G430-equipped C172 (or similar) fly STARs? Is it common? If yes, if it's common, then someone should tell Laminar.

I think that since they're finally doing a complete makeover of the GNS430, why not make it right with all the features? I imagine people two years from now saying, yes the X-PLane GNS is pretty good, too bad it doesn't feature SID and STAR, that why I'm using another one, and they will keep asking for it for ever!

SIDs/STARs should not depend on X-Plane code, there are just waypoints. You can enter them manually waypoint by waypoint in X-Planes default flight plans, if you have up-to-date navigation data (for example by UFMC, which overwrites the default nav data with much better data). So it should be easy to simply add a similar option to the new GPS like it has for the approaches.

 

However, as I was surprised about the lack of STARs, too, I did some research and it seems that in General Aviation SIDs/STARs are really not used very often -- they seem to be meant for airliners coming in at high speeds from high altitudes, but not for the typical GA plane.

 

One thing I read was that many GA aircraft would not even be able to fly STARs properly, because in many cases they don't reach the required flight levels. Another thing was that for GA aircraft flying STARs would lead to inefficient fuel use, because the STARs add unnecessary distances.

 

Anyway, I'm not a pilot, so maybe a real GA pilot could answer that question:

 

Do you, as real pilot, in your G430-equipped C172 (or similar) fly STARs? Is it common? If yes, if it's common, then someone should tell Laminar.

It would be more for the turboprops etc

Yes this is true but my concern was that since this is going to be a universal GPS update it should include them anyway. The default GPS is placed in many aircraft and addons such as Carenado King air. LES upcoming Citation would have the GPS too as seen in their previews. Both those aircraft would fly STARS/ DP's.

Yup...I just don't get why they're not in lol

 

 

I imagine people two years from now saying, yes the X-PLane GNS is pretty good, too bad it doesn't feature SID and STAR, that why I'm using another one, and they will keep asking for it for ever!

Philip did not say that they would NEVER have SIDS/STARS, he said "maybe later"… big difference.

..and we all know what "maybe later" means in the X-Plane world ;-)

SIDs/STARs should not depend on X-Plane code, there are just waypoints. You can enter them manually waypoint by waypoint in X-Planes default flight plans, if you have up-to-date navigation data (for example by UFMC, which overwrites the default nav data with much better data). So it should be easy to simply add a similar option to the new GPS like it has for the approaches.

Don't even try to judge how easy a feature is if you don't know the exact code and context in which it is embedded. That's the main problem. How often do I hear from a customer a request for one small simple feature but when I think about the code it becomes obvious that such a feature would require several additional changes or raise severe problems.It is obvious that his roadmap is:

1. Get the new GPS into X-Plane.

2. Change the SDK. It is obvious that he expects several improvements from the SDK changes.

 

Since Philipp wrote the FMCs of the CRJ, the FF777 and the FF757 he knows exactly what he has to do for SIDs and STARs. Better than anyone else who wrote in this thread.

Don't even try to judge how easy a feature is if you don't know the exact code and context in which it is embedded. That's the main problem. How often do I hear from a customer a request for one small simple feature but when I think about the code it becomes obvious that such a feature would require several additional changes or raise severe problems.It is obvious that his roadmap is:

1. Get the new GPS into X-Plane.

2. Change the SDK. It is obvious that he expects several improvements from the SDK changes.

 

Since Philipp wrote the FMCs of the CRJ, the FF777 and the FF757 he knows exactly what he has to do for SIDs and STARs. Better than anyone else who wrote in this thread.

 

Totally agree!

 

 

Don't even try to judge how easy a feature is if you don't know the exact code and context in which it is embedded. That's the main problem. How often do I hear from a customer a request for one small simple feature but when I think about the code it becomes obvious that such a feature would require several additional changes or raise severe problems.

 

You might be right, and I have similar experiences with such customers. Of course it's hard to speculate about something you don't know. On the other hand, you don't need to overcomplicate things if certain things are obvious.

 

IAPs, SIDs and STARs are basically nothing more than lists of waypoints. To make the new GPS compatible to X-Plane's existing default systems (flight plan, FMC, moving map etc.), there is just one reasonable way: When a user selects an IAP in the new GPS, add the IAP's waypoints to X-Planes current internal flight plan.

 

Only by this way (which is also used already by many aircraft addons and FMC addons), the default FMC and the default moving map are able to display IAPs without a need for changing the default FMC or the default map. This is important to mention, because for now only the GPS is improved, but the default FMC and moving map stay the same as they were.

 

So you could say that for making IAPs to work, the new GPS needs an interface to send the waypoint data of the selected IAP to the default FMC (which is always active in the background, even if you don't see it in your cockpit). I see no real technical reason why the interface used for IAP could not be used for SIDs and STARs. Technically, they are all just waypoints.

 

BUT the new GPS itself would require more work if they added SIDs and STARs. It would need to have all the functions users would expect from a Garmin-GNS-style GPS, and this is what creates the real work, and would probably delay the first beta of 10.30. So it's easier to simply say "no SID/STAR support at the moment", than to implement a half-baked SID/STAR support.