Sign in to follow this  
Captain_Al

FMC Issues

Recommended Posts

A couple of issues and inaccuracies with the FMC, not sure if this is the proper channel to discuss these or PMDG direct support is, maybe someone can let me know (Kyle)...

1. When you enter a route first, specifically just the first waypoint, like SEA.J90.MWH on the route page and then you go to Departures, enter a runway, there should be no direct connection between the runway and the first waypoint (SEA). There should be dashes (---) under via and then SEA. If you put the runway in first and then the route, under via it will say DIRECT to the first waypoint (in this case SEA). The PMDG FMC defaults to DIRECT in both of these cases, which is not accurate. If ATC gave you a clearance to fly RH for vectors to XYZ waypoint, it is cleaner to have no connection between the runway and your first waypoint, this is not possible with the way the FMC is currently...

2. When selecting an approach on the arrivals page, like the ILS 34R at KSEA, then select any transition, the intercept crs to waypoint at LSK R6 should be the Final Approach Fix Waypoint, not the transition. What the PMDG FMC does when you select the ILS 34R, then let's say the CIDUG transition, at LSK 6R it says CIDUG, it should be BUCKK, which is the FAF. A quick way of selecting an intercept course to the FAF is to select the approach, push any transition, then select the FAF intercept at 6R, which will give you an extended line to the FAF.

I found other issues, but I will start there. Love the product, just want to help make it better...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Not sure what you are  basing these "inaccuracies" on..., the tech team that tested this (not the beta team) was comprised of crew and support working with the B744.  If you want to provide technical data to support your findings the proper channel is direct to them at PMDG Product Support. Create a support account and open a ticket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they missed these 2, thanks I will do that. I am basing it on teaching and checking in this jet since 1988 as an instructor and FAA Examiner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Captain_Al said:

A couple of issues and inaccuracies with the FMC, not sure if this is the proper channel to discuss these or PMDG direct support is, maybe someone can let me know (Kyle)...

If you're absolutely 100% sure that there is a bug, it's best to go directly to support. The forum is for customer-to-customer discussion/interaction/support, so apart from telling them that something is alleged to be wrong and making them aware of it, no real action is guaranteed to come of it. The official support function is linked from our webpage, from our Intro Manual, and in most of our staff signatures here in the forum. That's where to go to make us aware of issues.

If you feel like sharing inaccuracies for forum cred, then by all means feel free to post here (too), but if you're looking to have it addressed and acknowledged by us: support.precisionmanuals.com. When you submit your ticket, please provide as much evidence as possible via pictures, references to manuals, and/or specific enumerated experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These 2 items I have taught and seen a thousand times so yes, thank you, I will submit. I am on my way to my recurrent in the 747-8, when I get to Miami, I can reference the FCOM for item 2 and not sure if item 1 is referenced anywhere, but I will look. I can take some shots in the sim if I get a chance. Thank you for the feedback...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the PMDG team can allow us 747/747-400 old timers to bend a few rules? :happy: It's great to hear this stuff on the forum.   

We're not just here to give Dan a hard time ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Captain_Al said:

I can take some shots in the sim if I get a chance.

These really do help if you can snag them.

Even better if you can prove that it isn't a software version difference.

24 minutes ago, Qavion2 said:

Maybe the PMDG team can allow us 747/747-400 old timers to bend a few rules? :happy: It's great to hear this stuff on the forum.   

We're not just here to give Dan a hard time ;)

It's not a rule, really, and I wouldn't want people to think that I'm discouraging people discussing bugs here - my main issue is timing. The sooner we hear about stuff, the sooner things can be looked at. If someone is absolutely sure something is wrong, it should go directly to support. Then, after that point, feel free to post away here to discuss it, the technical details and so on. Al's note on why there's no connection between the runway and first waypoint is actually something of interest to the sim crowd, since a number of them are brought up with this thought that the magenta line should be unbroken at all times. Stuff like that is great for people to learn on, particularly from an FAA DE.

So, my issue is really timing: get the info to us ASAP, and then discuss it all you want here. We all try to be on here to make sure the forum is kept in order, but I do know that I don't read every single post in every single thread, all the time. We do, however, read every single ticket. The thought that something could be corrected might slip through the cracks here does bother me, which is why I can occasionally get a little bent out of shape if something shows up here first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, thanks, Kyle. I'm up to speed now. I guess I'm just used to doing it a little differently. Sometimes it's good to get a concensus before submitting a ticket. With so many aircraft system variations, it's great to hear about other people's experiences. i.e. The collective wisdom of a forum can sometimes be greater than a sim developer team's.The FCOM and other manuals are a starting point, but they sometimes contain expressions such as "may happen". If it only happens .0001% of the time, it's probably best not to base sim behaviour on this (that's just plain annoying). e.g. the books say the BAT DISCH messages may take up to 2 minutes to appear during Standby Power tests. If it took 2 minutes on a pax 744, I would consider it a fault. 99.9% of the time it takes a few seconds... othertimes, it may take a little longer based on aircraft type and what systems are operating. The nuisance Autoland messages due to power transfers probably fall into this category (and I'll submit my theories on when this might (rarely) happen in a ticket).

Also, I no longer have access to the real aircraft, so, apart from a few hundred odd manuals, I'm relying on memory..  so I may need to ask "did I remember this correctly?". However, after almost 40 years of working on 747 series aircraft (and on the 744 since 1989), minus a year or two in the classroom on 747/744-specific courses... and after 15 years working with 744 sim developers... some things do tend to stick ;)

Cheers

JHW

P.S. Are the Avsim forum "Like" buttons working? 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Qavion2 said:

I guess I'm just used to doing it a little differently. Sometimes it's good to get a concensus before submitting a ticket.

If you're unsure, then I absolutely agree. It's better to vet it amongst the people who might know (or corroborate) before going off and telling someone that something is wrong. All the same, if you're 100% sure, just bring it to us directly. That's all I'm saying. If you need/want to verify, then verify; if you're 100% sure, bring it directly to us.

Either way, don't simply post here in hopes one of us might happen upon it. I try to see every single post of every thread, but messages here are not tracked like they are in the ticket queue, so that isn't guaranteed. If I take a few days away from the forum, I'm going to miss something, and that something could be something we'd want to see.

In the end the issue is this:
The forum is for you all to interact with each other. We may pop our heads in, but people shouldn't hang their hopes on that if something needs to be addressed.
An official avenue for support exists and should be used in cases where we need to see something. We point to this function in as many places as possible, so I'm usually pretty baffled when people show up here wondering if we'll see it (or why we're not responding to it directly).

 

Decision Tree:
Does PMDG need to see this in an official capacity?

  • Yes - Go to support.precisionmanuals.com.
  • No - Continue to discuss here.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love all the feedback from the "747 old timers" - these are the sort of things you don't always see in manuals but come from experience and we all learn from it, thank you guys!

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Werner747 said:

I love all the feedback from the "747 old timers" - these are the sort of things you don't always see in manuals but come from experience and we all learn from it, thank you guys!

Regards

+1

I agree...love the insights you guys give us.  Much appreciated!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, issue #1 is already in our bug tracker, I noticed it during testing when comparing that situation to an actual level D sim. It'll get fixed but likely not until we do the long-awaited navdata format rebuild. Issue #2 is going to be similar because as it stands right now, the navdata does not define what the FAF is like the actual ARINC 424 spec does. Same reason we don't have automatic transition altitudes/levels, glidepath angles for RNAV approaches, etc like the real FMCs do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tabs said:

It'll get fixed but likely not until we do the long-awaited navdata format rebuild. 

When do you think this will happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jgoggi said:

When do you think this will happen?

C'mon...I think you've been around here long enough to know the answer to that :P

(When it happens.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

C'mon...I think you've been around here long enough to know the answer to that :P

(When it happens.)

You mean that I know it may take decades? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jgoggi said:

You mean that I know it may take decades? 

Yeah...totally...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Tabs said:

For what it's worth, issue #1 is already in our bug tracker, I noticed it during testing when comparing that situation to an actual level D sim. It'll get fixed but likely not until we do the long-awaited navdata format rebuild. Issue #2 is going to be similar because as it stands right now, the navdata does not define what the FAF is like the actual ARINC 424 spec does. Same reason we don't have automatic transition altitudes/levels, glidepath angles for RNAV approaches, etc like the real FMCs do.

Thanks Ryan, then I really do not need to submit to PMDG if you are aware of these 2 unless you want me to. For those who are interested, here are the references from the FCOM, pages may be different in your references. Both of these work identically between the 400 and -8. I did take pictures if you want I can submit those.

I am doing my recurrent in the 400 instead of the -8 this time around...

 

* During preflight when entering a runway on the RTE X page 1 and entering a waypoint in the TO column without first entering a VIA airway displays a DIRECT segment on the first VIA line from the runway threshold. When a runway has not been entered on the RTE X page 1, dashes display on the first VIA line. 

* FCOM VOL 2.  Flight Management/Navigation 11.40.24


Selecting an arrival runway or approach displays an approach intercept waypoint  on the approach course for selected approach or runway. Following selection of a transition, the charted fix or CFXXX is replaced with the final approach fix (FAF) intercept (example: PELLY INTC).

FCOM VOL 2.  Auotmatic Flight 4.20.16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it won't take decades - in ten years' time we get the QOTSIII anyway :biggrin:.

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this