RF Legs? (curved)

[QFA1213 0]

I've had the NGX for just over two years now but I've been reading posts previous posts about RF segments being added in the future. Although I don't have any other PMDG aircraft I'm pretty sure it is relevant the 777 and 747 as well.

 

The last one I found was this one in almost two years ago:

 

 

No RF yet. Restructuring our FMC code to accept ARINC-424 data is a massive project and I honestly don't know when that will happen. Possibly with the 744v2 but no guarantees. The way the FMC interprets procedures is at the core of everything it does and doing this amounts to scrapping our FMC code and starting over from scratch essentially. Doing it isn't just about RF legs - there's a ton of other things in the real life data - glidepath angles, transition altitudes/levels, turn direction, DME arcs, procedure turns, different definitions for some of the leg types than what we currently use etc. We'll get to it eventually but this is a long term project.

 

I just was wondering if this is still happening and if so can you give any sort of time frame? (I know PMDG don't like giving time frames with how fiddly code can be)

 

I fly Qantas 737-800 (virtually) and RNAV approaches are used at nearly every airport. Even if ARINC-424 isn't finished, is there any possibility to at least hide fixes because doing approaches like this (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/dap/BBNGN13-140.pdf)
Result in most of the ND being covered (unless you use a very small range) in arc fixes making the real fixes hard to see especially when combined with the missed approach track. (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/dap/BBNGN14-140.pdf)

 

Thanks

[pcubine 143]

I've had the NGX for just over two years now but I've been reading posts previous posts about RF segments being added in the future. Although I don't have any other PMDG aircraft I'm pretty sure it is relevant the 777 and 747 as well.

I think you would get a better response if this post was in the PMDG General Forum or the 737NGX Forum.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

I think you would get a better response if this post was in the PMDG General Forum or the 737NGX Forum.

 

This is the PMDG General Forum...

[JC75 22]

Be nice to get an answer to it also. the post quoted states long term project that was in 2013 - I would say that fairly long term, id have thought it would have been something worth doing before the 747 and it being a feature of it.

 

With regulation within Europe soon forcing that RNP1 sids/stars and a greater uptake of RNP/AR approaches to assist with noise, GBAS coming online etc. Going to find the PMDG fleet will be struggling to follow  a number of procedures correctly.

 

Im lead to believe FSlabs Airbus will be the first sim that be capable of this when its released.

[Tao 0]

 

 

I just was wondering if this is still happening and if so can you give any sort of time frame?

Good question! I'm sure it would make a great update.

[ubersu 78]

@JC75 - no, the Airbus will. not be the first...

 

David Jones

[downscc 1,327]

Within past year, Ryan has commented on ARINC-424 and they were not very optimistic.  It is a major software change but that's not the show stopper.  The problem as I recalled it explained was the availability of AIRINC data at a reasonable price.  There was a short exchange between folks who had suggestions but I don't think it's gone anywhere. I know very little about this but would really like to see the old wpNav stuff retired with something like xml based navdata with ARINC-424 compliance. That would be sweet. It's very easy to edit the wpNav macro syntax, easy to learn, easy to read but it's old school designed for the pre-GPS navigation era.

 

On the plus side, the wpNav syntax will allow most procedures with RF legs to be approximated and I've created some very nice ones in the past for the NGX at a few of my favorite approaches such as Palm Springs KPSP.  True, its only an approximation and nice to have things like realistic nav performance is barely there for these analog procedures but it's not a show stopper.  Decent approaches can be developed with wpNav format for most any published procedure.

[kevinh 409]

As Navigraph now get their data from Jeppesen it seems likely to me that they receive it in ARINC 424 format and convert it to the navdata formats we are familiar with. I expect there are restrictions on releasing the full database.

 

The problem is that ARINC 424 is what is used in real aviation nav databases and so if it was released at a low price to hobbyists it would also be available cheaper to airlines.The solution might be a modified format which contains the information but in a way that can't be used for real aviation purposes.

[JC75 22]

Don't think data availability is the issue, it's simply the PMDG fleet will need all the flightpath logic, etc updated.(I say simply but no that's not a simple task) it will(and is already in some cases) be the biggest issue with PMDG aircraft, as more and more real world RNP1 procedures come online. As someone says you can make dummy versions in the data now, but means creating bespoke procedures, full of new waypoints that don't really exist. As other sims, Airbus and ps1 and whatever else David is referring to, flying online will become where the issue starts to materialise as controllers will start to get used to pilots following the path correctly, only to then have a PMDG aircraft go blasting the wrong way,losing separation or just thinking the pilot not know what he doing.

 

Real shame this isn't top priority for PMDG, they strive for such perfection and realism and this will singularly start to make their aircraft look a bit like the same as stock fsx aircraft do when PMDG first came out, nice eye candy but the buttons don't actually do anything, or just use gps.

 

I still personally would rather see no new aircraft from PMDG and instead rerelease the NGX/777/747 with this update. Based on the timeline it likely take for PMDG to achieve this.

 

 

Shame ICAO and EASA rules don't apply to PMDG

https://easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/NPA%202015-01.pdf

[Budbud 227]

 

 

flying online will become where the issue starts to materialise as controllers will start to get used to pilots following the path correctly, only to then have a PMDG aircraft go blasting the wrong way,losing separation or just thinking the pilot not know what he doing.

 

If the approach has a RF curve on it and you are not able to fly it for whatever reason (and specially because the addon doesn't include it), you still have the right (and the duty if it is a matter of safety) to refuse the approach ("Unable...") and ask for another one.

 

It happened to me once during an event where the destination airport LFSB was changed without notice to LSZH (it was a surprise from the organizers).

The approach given was an ILS which does not exist on the base scenery in fsx and I hadn't loaded the payware scenery because I didn't expect to land there... 

I just asked for a visual instead as the conditions allowed it and the controller granted it. 

Sometimes, breaking the "monotony" can enhance the experience online and I found the controllers always disposed to play the game, may it be for emergencies or else.

[Copper. 78]

Don't think data availability is the issue, it's simply the PMDG fleet will need all the flightpath logic, etc updated.(I say simply but no that's not a simple task) it will(and is already in some cases) be the biggest issue with PMDG aircraft, as more and more real world RNP1 procedures come online. As someone says you can make dummy versions in the data now, but means creating bespoke procedures, full of new waypoints that don't really exist. As other sims, Airbus and ps1 and whatever else David is referring to, flying online will become where the issue starts to materialise as controllers will start to get used to pilots following the path correctly, only to then have a PMDG aircraft go blasting the wrong way,losing separation or just thinking the pilot not know what he doing.

 

Real shame this isn't top priority for PMDG, they strive for such perfection and realism and this will singularly start to make their aircraft look a bit like the same as stock fsx aircraft do when PMDG first came out, nice eye candy but the buttons don't actually do anything, or just use gps.

 

I still personally would rather see no new aircraft from PMDG and instead rerelease the NGX/777/747 with this update. Based on the timeline it likely take for PMDG to achieve this.

 

 

Shame ICAO and EASA rules don't apply to PMDG

I think you'll find the NGX can fly RNP1 and most of the other navigation specifications on the RNAV spectrum. A series of proving flights would confirm it, as well as a quick scan (and correct selection) of the equippage options the NGx comes with. The exceptions are RNP AR and a maybe one or two others.

 

Maybe your last comment is out of order. I think you expect too much! It's a sim addon, not a multi-million dollar aircraft!

 

And I think you don't understand RNP very well; that much is evident from what you've written.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

If the approach has a RF curve on it and you are not able to fly it for whatever reason (and specially because the addon doesn't include it), you still have the right (and the duty if it is a matter of safety) to refuse the approach ("Unable...") and ask for another one.

 

Agreed, however, as an occasional VATcontroller, I can't tell you the number of times I've assigned something, a pilot accepted it, and then proceeded to fly something else. That being said, I wouldn't count on a pilot knowing that he or she couldn't. Instead, I'd count more on the pilot seeing it in the FMC list, and simply saying 'okay' because it's technically a selectable approach.

 

 

 

Maybe your last comment is out of order. I think you expect too much! It's a sim addon, not a multi-million dollar aircraft!

And I think you don't understand RNP very well; that much is evident from what you've written.

 

I didn't see anything wrong with it. It's his opinion, and feedback as to what he would like to see done.

 

I don't particularly agree with the "shame" bit, though, because if that were true, our development timeline would take even longer