Navigraph Extension Pack for the S550 Citation II released!

[Guest JustanotherPilot]

Same impression here. Carenado made the right move to go for more detailed gauges but it seems like it needs more than one small update.  :mellow:

 

Currently running the ISG mod from Janek and it's a stable basis so far plus a gain over my rather simple RXP 530 addition which I had before.

 

Thanks to Steve for that video on the new gauges btw. In the video, you are entering things in the VC only. Is there a 2D popup for the FMC available?

 

In case I've missed it. What Navigraph format are they using? Adapted from an existing one or should we expect the new and own 'Carenado' one to come alive within the next cycle?

 

 

Sorry if there is any confusion but I found the video posted on YouTube  by Ehviator I merely provided the link, perhaps any inquires could be asked via his channel on that site.

[Wink207 78]

When I installed this along with a fresh install of the S550 it brought my high end system to its knees.....FR 2-10 where I'm usually pegged at 30. Must have screwed up the install somehow. Anyone else see anything like this?

Thanks

[ryanbatc 12,770]

This thing is pretty brutal.  If this took them a year....  I'd recommend they just stick to GTN and RXP integration....

 

This FMS is similar to the Milviz 350i fms...  But the operation doesn't work so well.

 

I can't DTO a fix on my FP and get the CDI to deviate (in other words I can't navigate to the new DTO fix).  The MFD is just plain weird.  There's a white line but nothing changes when you DTO something.  BTW, the DTO shows the new fix on the FMS in magenta (which is correct), BUT it's only updating on the FMS, and it's showing the track from the previous fix to the one I just DTO'ed.  You cannot present position DTO a new fix.  That makes the FMS pretty much worthless unless this is PEBKAC.

 

NAV button is INOP (in this plane it turns the AP NAV mode on and off hehe)

 

VNAV INOP (in this plane it turns the entire AP on and off.... sigh)

 

Can't select a departure runway if the airport has no DP/SID.

 

FUEL page kinda works... doesn't really show fuel to dest/next fix.

 

Too painful to list the rest.  I'd skip it and stick with Bert's GTN mods

 

For Silverheels... fps seem not great but typical for glass payware on my "older" 2500K 4GHz

[CoolP 283]

A..anyone who's really happy and flying approaches and stuff? :unsure:  Not wanting to dive into a bashing mood (after all, the plane is great) but I was under the impression that the FMC addon would deliver this ability.

 

I did expect initial problems, like when you perform lots of edits and then mix up the flight plan or so, but reading the reports.. I don't know. Far away from that.

 

 

Steve, thanks for the clarification re: the video.

[Dark_Oblivion 0]

Just working on a video review, will upload it very soon

[jcmmg 2]

Hi All

 

To work with the FMC it is frustrating. I manage to set a SID, STAR and arrival, but it took me very long time. So lessons learned:

 

0) Update your AIRAC, I did it with Navigraph, no problem.

 

1) Set your departure and arrival airports

 

2) Once your Departure and Arrival airports are set on page 1 of the FLP page, then press menu and you will get into the Depp and Arr procedure page. Select as shown in the video.

 

2.1) Ensure that your SID, STAR and Approach are correct. Everytime you change your SID or STAR or Approach it will delete all your route information (fixes and altitudes)

 

3) Check your SID, STAR and Approach restrictions

 

4) Once you are 100% sure, with your SID, STAR and Approach, proceed to add your route fixes with altitude.

 

5) Routes are not supported or I couldn't figure out how to add them. What I've done was to type: J101, -J101, +J101, LFK-J101, J101-JOT, LFK+J101, J101+JOT. Neither of them worked.

 

5.1) If you realize that you have the wrong STAR at this point, think again, it might be the correct one after all, particularly if you have 20 fixes in your route (Check point 2.1) 

 

6) Fuel your airplane and fly.

 

7) LNAV: No problem at all. DTO not tested.

 

8) VNAV: It works nicely, however, the altitude is set on the flight plan fixes, so if the distance between them are too short, expect crazy vertical speeds. It doesn't calculates TOD or TOC., or I didn't know how to set them.

 

9) VNAV: I couldn't reach FL350, I don't know why, but if is a safety feature because the pressurization system can keep a 10000 ft atmosphere there, then, welcome!

 

10) The autopilot works well but it is too odd.

 

11) Flying without autopilot, very nice indeed!

 

FINAL COMMENT:

 

Carenado, I really appreciate your effort on delivering what we asked. This effort can be translated into sales as long as they create more inmersion not frustration!

 

If adding an FMC with NavData is too hard, why not to repeat the success from the past, when you mod your flight decks to accommodate 3rd party addon like RXP integration! However, on this opportunity to preserve the 1980's look of the S550, please use  ISG mod from Janek,.

 

Clear skies,

 

Jcmmg

[apollomaker 6]

After reading this, I don't know why they keep doing this. Hopefully not a glimpse of what we will see in the Hawker 850XP.

I will stick with the Garmin 750 in the Citation. It works. Keeping fingers crossed for the Hawker..... :mellow:

[bjornkeizers 0]

Has it popped up on any other sellers' pages yet? Carenado still hasn't seen the light with regards to PayPal payments. Even with the bugs, I might just purchase it now at the reduced price and use it later.

[l_jayma 6]

After reading this, I don't know why they keep doing this. Hopefully not a glimpse of what we will see in the Hawker 850XP.

I will stick with the Garmin 750 in the Citation. It works. Keeping fingers crossed for the Hawker..... :mellow:

 

I am right there with you..ugh!

[~Craig~ 10]

A few more days with it.....and..... I'm sorry but I hate it even more..   :unsure:

 

As someone said above, it seems to really impact on performance on my system.  Must be all those flippin' waypoints displayed on the MFD 'permanently'.

 

And as Ryan said, the DTO is just a mess.   

 

.....and what are Carenado playing at by linking the NAV and VNAV buttons on the UNS FMS, to the autopilot ?!?!

 

.... I really think they are so out of their depth, and this mess of a FMS will cost them sales when the Hawker is released.

 

Yes, they should definitely stick to RXP and GTN integration!!!

[lzamm 143]

Hi guys,

      I'm writing this not because I have this FMS or the S550 - which I don't - but because your experiences seem to eerily mirror mine while trying to code a replacement for the Razbam Metroliner's Trimble GPS.  I ran into so many brick walls that I put that project on hold, so I'm not defending Carenado's release of an apparently half-baked product, but highlighting some of the technical issues involved may help you get some use of this product.

 

First off, you can code a nav system either completely separate from the FS GPS or to inject coordinates into it.  If you go down the first route, the GPS map functions won't display the routes or the waypoints so you also have to code a separate EHSI.  Also the autopilot NAV function won't know about it so you have to use the heading function to follow the route.  Users of the ISG and similar systems will recognise what I'm talking about.

 

The second route, which is what I took and what Carenado seem to have taken, looks great on the surface because you can use the standard functions for the EHSI map and autopilot.  Reading external nav data from text files isn't all that hard with the excellent XMLTOOLS package (Francois Dore over on the Gauge Design forum seems to be doing something similar).  The problems arise, as always, when you try to get the standard FS systems to do what you, not they, want to do.  If you keep in mind that all Carenado's FMS is (probably) doing is injecting lat/lon waypoints into the standard FS GPS system, its idiosyncracies may become somewhat clearer.

 

The FS GPS does not let you change the departure and arrival airports in a flight plan: you can either modify an existing (flight-planner) flight plan or create a direct-to flight plan and then modify that.  The direct-to flight plan has no knowledge of arrival and departure airports, which is probably why Carenado opted to enter them separately.  On the other hand neither does the UNS FMS, other than as the first and last waypoints in the plan, so I'm not sure I would have done it this way.

 

As regards approaches, the MS GPS is modelled on the Garmin units where the approach is a separate set of waypoints from the main flight plan, which have to be "loaded" and "activated".  The Trimble uses a similar system.  On the other hand, the UNS and other FMS's treat the approach (and departure) as a seamless part of the flight plan, once confirmed by deleting the route discontinuity.  Modifying these segments therefore means keeping careful track of what has to be deleted: Carenado have apparently opted to delete the entire flight plan.  Not excusable, but understandable!

 

The MS GPS does not have a DTO waypoint function, only a "join leg".  So when you "DTO" a flightplan waypoint, the GPS plots a course to intercept that between the selected waypoint and the previous one.  From what I read, this is what the Carenado FSM does.  This is a problem I have actually solved for the Trimble, by inserting a dummy waypoint (called T-P a la Airbus) at the current location; however ensuring that this waypoint gets deleted when no longer needed is not a trivial matter. 

 

So apologies for a long post but I hope that this goes some way to explaining why the Carenado FMS (probably) behaves as it does, and may give some indications on how to use it better.

[mcbellette 145]

Why would you pay for an update? It should be free!

[ryanbatc 12,770]

 

The MS GPS does not have a DTO waypoint function, only a "join leg".  So when you "DTO" a flightplan waypoint, the GPS plots a course to intercept that between the selected waypoint and the previous one.  From what I read, this is what the Carenado FSM does.  This is a problem I have actually solved for the Trimble, by inserting a dummy waypoint (called T-P a la Airbus) at the current location; however ensuring that this waypoint gets deleted when no longer needed is not a trivial matter. 

 

 

 

Thanks for that writeup... I've got no clue what it takes to program this sort of thing.  Your conclusion about the C550 FMS seems correct to me.  When I DTO, the FMS activates the track from the selected fix to the next fix (or maybe it's what you wrote), either way it's not really a direct to operation.  

 

This concerns me a lot because I saw on their FB page that the Hawker is coming soon....  argh.  I might have to stick with GTN 750 mods....

Why would you pay for an update? It should be free!

 

That's not fair though (even if the update is broken)....  these things take time.  Obviously it was their first go at a more realistic FMS.  They should be compensated for doing some work at least.  I'm guessing they don't make much (on this project) at 5.95 a pop.

[mcbellette 145]

Ryan, if they haven't finished a product, they shouldn't release it unfinished. If they want to add things in later, they should be free. And the current price is only for a short time. Going by the posts on the myriad of problems this update has brought with it, it really should be free because it's obscene to be charging for an update with this many problems - especially while they have no support forum of their own.

[ryanbatc 12,770]

Ryan, if they haven't finished a product, they shouldn't release it unfinished. If they want to add things in later, they should be free. And the current price is only for a short time. Going by the posts on the myriad of problems this update has brought with it, it really should be free because it's obscene to be charging for an update with this many problems - especially while they have no support forum of their own.

 

While I have issues with unfinished product (it's always the same with them), they probably did it to test the "financial waters."  And they needed free beta testers