GBAS in B748?

[JC75 22]

The question still remains if PMDG are going to update the FMC coding and Navdata used, so that other elements of RNP performance, RF legs , in SIDS/STARS and Transitions and AR APCH etc can be flown correctly in the 737, 777, 747-8 all of which should be capable now(in varying formats) but the PMDG version doesn't.

 FSLABS are part of the way there, Ifly also. and of course aerowinx does - as people have pointed out, regulation is coming, and  that the level of these types of approaches, sids and stars, that will exist soon, will mean that PMDG aircraft will have lost their edge of realism(and likely drive the online flying community nuts, when they see PMDG aircraft wandering all over the sky trying to follow the LNAV path but getting it horribly wrong)

I don't know if its still on the cards but there was talk of a major update to the NGX - perhaps this could be the time for PMDG to step up this capability, and learn whats needed to then port across to the other aircraft. as ultimately even any 747 400 still flying in the next two years will find it needs upgrading to have this capability - a certain dual runway operation is pushing big time to have cat 3 GBAS curved approaches.

[downscc 1,327]

1 hour ago, JC75 said:

The question still remains if PMDG are going to update the FMC coding and Navdata used, so that other elements of RNP performance, RF legs , in SIDS/STARS and Transitions and AR APCH etc can be flown correctly in the 737, 777, 747-8 all of which should be capable now(in varying formats) but the PMDG version doesn't.

James, that wasn't the question. My goodness, wandering all over the sky and horribly wrong. It's really bad isn't it. I guess you need to stick to FSLabs until PMDG catches up to everybody else.

If there was a question there, and all I read was passive aggressive attacking, then the answer would be there is work in progress but they have not announced anything.

[Copper. 78]

I tend to agree with much of what James has said.

There was a time when I was so engrossed in anything and everything RNP/PBN related that it truely became an obsession. Now, not so much. I can live with traditional RNAV and ILS approaches for the time being.

Anyway, there are so many things we can demand of PMDG but we need to step back sometimes and appreciate what they, and Boeing, have given us. 

There was a time when I wondered if there would ever be an official endorsement of flight simulation by major corporations, ever again! Microsoft pulled out; Jeppesen pulled out (with their sim charts); it was all looking very glum.

And then the NGX was born. And after that then LM brought us P3D - now into its 4th generation and is now 64bit. ORBX, Aerosoft, PFPX, Navigraph, HiFi, REX etc.

And now we have a vibrant and living hobby again I would say largely thanks to the PMDG and Boeing relationship, which I'm sure is now the PMDG, Boeing and LM relationship.

The moral of this is, we will get there, when is the only question.

And the answer has always been... when PMDG are ready!

[JC75 22]

On 03/08/2017 at 9:07 PM, downscc said:

James, that wasn't the question. My goodness, wandering all over the sky and horribly wrong. It's really bad isn't it. I guess you need to stick to FSLabs until PMDG catches up to everybody else.

If there was a question there, and all I read was passive aggressive attacking, then the answer would be there is work in progress but they have not announced anything.

Nothing of the sorts - Im very grateful to PMDG for the aircraft they produce, the level of realism and the enjoyment they bring to the hobby, and equally agree they are fundamental in keeping the Flightsim hobby alive.

However this crucial fundamental change in real world aviation(which is causing just as much angst in the real world) is something that needs addressing also in the Flightsim world, as for all the realism that is built into these planes, it will become almost pointless if as we try to simulate real world, following procedures and charts, and online ATC is equally utilising such, that the basic ability for the plane to fly up/down left and right in the correct manner to follow these routes and approaches will almost make the rest of the realism seem pointless . PMDGs dominance is equally why my comment, as if PMDG set the Bar they will equally ensure the progress of the supporting elements for it, scenery, navdata etc.

While not for everyone, part of the enjoyment is online flying, and this is where we will start to see the biggest issues occurring where the mismatch in procedures vs capability of the sim occurs. Think back to levelD days, when they first had an FMC that could do proper entries and Holds - online ATC were cursing users of aircraft that couldn't do so(even though technically the aircraft type they were flying should)

My challenge was simply was with the advent of this regulatory need and ever increasing number of procedures being published as a result of it - I would have thought PMDG would have held back producing more sims and instead developed this capability as its a major rewrite and functionality change that won't be simple to achieve .

[Copper. 78]

14 hours ago, JC75 said:

Nothing of the sorts - Im very grateful to PMDG for the aircraft they produce, the level of realism and the enjoyment they bring to the hobby, and equally agree they are fundamental in keeping the Flightsim hobby alive.

However this crucial fundamental change in real world aviation(which is causing just as much angst in the real world) is something that needs addressing also in the Flightsim world, as for all the realism that is built into these planes, it will become almost pointless if as we try to simulate real world, following procedures and charts, and online ATC is equally utilising such, that the basic ability for the plane to fly up/down left and right in the correct manner to follow these routes and approaches will almost make the rest of the realism seem pointless . PMDGs dominance is equally why my comment, as if PMDG set the Bar they will equally ensure the progress of the supporting elements for it, scenery, navdata etc.

While not for everyone, part of the enjoyment is online flying, and this is where we will start to see the biggest issues occurring where the mismatch in procedures vs capability of the sim occurs. Think back to levelD days, when they first had an FMC that could do proper entries and Holds - online ATC were cursing users of aircraft that couldn't do so(even though technically the aircraft type they were flying should)

My challenge was simply was with the advent of this regulatory need and ever increasing number of procedures being published as a result of it - I would have thought PMDG would have held back producing more sims and instead developed this capability as its a major rewrite and functionality change that won't be simple to achieve .

I think you're overlooking the real world economic aspect and over simplifying your argument when the problem is a more complex one.

The technology costs money to develop then to sell for implementation; and then for maintenance. This is really big money! Big big money in the real world.

Companies like Rockwell Collins and Honeywell spend maybe millions or billions on tech R&D. Imagine how they'd feel if their technology is made available in a non-commercial simulator, well before most commercial operators have it installed on their airplanes and airfields.

The GLS, like RNP is more than just capability, it is a competitive edge financially on so many levels and can mean the difference between being a successful business and not.

with this in mind, it is unsurprising that the sim world LAG's the real world to some degree and jumping up and down asking why your NON-COMMERCIAL product isn't fitted with the latest and greatest is practical.

I live in a country where GLS and RNP are used actively. It would be great to be able to do those procedures but when you step back, GLS is just ILS. There is nothing special about it in our non-commercial, virtually costless world.

[JC75 22]

GLS yes - but in essence to put that in the sim isn't a challenge. The ARINC424 and RNP elements are what is the major restructuring for sim makers. The navdata is already out there in sim world, its the FMC and supporting logic to the auto systems that has to be changed to take advantage of it. GLS capability isn't technically anything the sim etc needs adding to, nor do any of the development, installation or other costs bother us in sim world, the actual logic and data isn't actually complex at all in sim world.

3 hours ago, Copper. said:

I think you're overlooking the real world economic aspect and over simplifying your argument when the problem is a more complex one.

The technology costs money to develop then to sell for implementation; and then for maintenance. This is really big money! Big big money in the real world.

Companies like Rockwell Collins and Honeywell spend maybe millions or billions on tech R&D. Imagine how they'd feel if their technology is made available in a non-commercial simulator, well before most commercial operators have it installed on their airplanes and airfields.

The GLS, like RNP is more than just capability, it is a competitive edge financially on so many levels and can mean the difference between being a successful business and not.

with this in mind, it is unsurprising that the sim world LAG's the real world to some degree and jumping up and down asking why your NON-COMMERCIAL product isn't fitted with the latest and greatest is practical.

I live in a country where GLS and RNP are used actively. It would be great to be able to do those procedures but when you step back, GLS is just ILS. There is nothing special about it in our non-commercial, virtually costless world.

Actually the RNP tech is old hat, its been about years, fitted and under utilised by aircraft because the associated procedures and regulation hasn't been in place. 

GLS meanwhile is the newer stuff - but GLS in sim world isn't the issue - no more so than ILS.

Im not jumping up and down about anything - other than just stating that as much as sim world vs real world have differing drivers etc...they merge by nature of how we use our sims, charts, procedures, scenery etc. VORs, NDBs, and even regulation to remove ILS is happening in the real world - the navdata we use equally won't have those in them, the procedures will be built on RNAV, and fundamentally the sims we use won't be able to utilise that data correctly, the online ATC will struggle etc. So as much as the reason the sim world we love and enjoy continues to thrive because of its realism and capability to simulate real world - If the difference to real world is that much, then people will lose interest in it. Whats the point of APU start up sequence being spot on, when the aircraft can't actually take off fly the SID, star and transition and approach into the paid scenery.

its merely an observation, that rather than another aircraft coming along, I think the time would be better invested in updating the nav capabilities of the existing fleet, as ultimately that work will pay off for all future aircraft released.

[Copper. 78]

4 hours ago, JC75 said:

Actually the RNP tech is old hat, its been about years, fitted and under utilised by aircraft because the associated procedures and regulation hasn't been in place. 

GLS meanwhile is the newer stuff - but GLS in sim world isn't the issue - no more so than ILS.

Im not jumping up and down about anything - other than just stating that as much as sim world vs real world have differing drivers etc...they merge by nature of how we use our sims, charts, procedures, scenery etc. VORs, NDBs, and even regulation to remove ILS is happening in the real world - the navdata we use equally won't have those in them, the procedures will be built on RNAV, and fundamentally the sims we use won't be able to utilise that data correctly, the online ATC will struggle etc. So as much as the reason the sim world we love and enjoy continues to thrive because of its realism and capability to simulate real world - If the difference to real world is that much, then people will lose interest in it. Whats the point of APU start up sequence being spot on, when the aircraft can't actually take off fly the SID, star and transition and approach into the paid scenery.

its merely an observation, that rather than another aircraft coming along, I think the time would be better invested in updating the nav capabilities of the existing fleet, as ultimately that work will pay off for all future aircraft released.

Your argument has now diverged into two seperate but related topics, nav data spec and pbn capability. It also goes off on another tangent about old fashioned radio nav aids. Key point is, the changes ARE NOT going to happen overnight.

424 - pmdg have spoken about it many times in this forum. I have done my bidding for incorporating 424. If my memory serves, they have always said it will be ready when it's ready.

Pbn capability - to quote you:

"Actually the RNP tech is old hat, its been about years, fitted and under utilised by aircraft because the associated procedures and regulation hasn't been in place."

did you ever stop to think why RNP AR turned out that way for some countries and in aviation terms, it's not old as such because anyone who knows anything knows it can take a while before new tech becomes normal? Or ask yourself, is GLS similar and could the same thing happen? 

Let me give you a hint... $, specifically cost, will drive what happens. If an airlines fleet isn't ready for it, it can take a bit of time and money to bring it up to spec. Same with airspace controlling authorities and airfield capabilities. As it turns out, GLS is probably cheaper to use in the long run.

The rules haven't changed so much that aircraft HAVE to be RNP AR ready, and they WILL NOT change so that they HAVE to be GLS ready. And I'll give you another hint, they will not change immediately nor will GLS be made mandatory - airlines could be crippled if regulators tried that. Therefore, although there are plans to transition to PBN, it is not yet mandatory because FAA, ICAO, CAA, CASA and every airlines knows to mandate would be to cripple the industry. Instead, there is a measured transition in the real world, and we will lag it by x years. The point being, the real world transition isn't as black or white as you seem to suggest.

radio aid retirement - I really don't see how this comes in to the GLS problem. But it comes back to my original point, $ cost will be the driver, I've read a hundred million is saved by my countries retirement of some of the old stuff as we transition to the next stage (gnss/gps reliant). And I get back to my original point, it will be a transition and some states will be more forcefull in making industry changes than others. Their retirement will happen over time, and industry will have time to improve their fleet. it ain't going to happen over night as you infer and that gives PMDG breathing space.

As I said before, PMDG will deliver when THEY are ready. Not satisfied? Buy and fly something else in the meantime that can do what you want. And finally, your words about system fidelity regarding apu is just absurd.

[JC75 22]

3 hours ago, Copper. said:

Let me give you a hint... $, specifically cost, will drive what happens. If an airlines fleet isn't ready for it, it can take a bit of time and money to bring it up to spec. Same with airspace controlling authorities and airfield capabilities. As it turns out, GLS is probably cheaper to use in the long run.

The rules haven't changed so much that aircraft HAVE to be RNP AR ready, and they WILL NOT change so that they HAVE to be GLS ready. And I'll give you another hint, they will not change immediately nor will GLS be made mandatory - airlines could be crippled if regulators tried that. Therefore, although there are plans to transition to PBN, it is not yet mandatory because FAA, ICAO, CAA, CASA and every airlines knows to mandate would be to cripple the industry. Instead, there is a measured transition in the real world, and we will lag it by x years. The point being, the real world transition isn't as black or white as you seem to suggest.

Thanks for the Hint - Ill go however with the EASA NPA, the ICAO Roadmap, and the SESAR PCPS - which are hard cold regulation, requiring states, ASNPS, airlines and airport operators to comply. Yes there are phases, yes there are clauses,(all because the initial regulation got watered down because of cost etc) but half the regs are in place now for compliance to start, others are just being finalised through consultation - you quite correct $ are the issue - hence why Regulation steps in, the issue being most of this capability requires someone to pay for it who don't directly benefit first hand. 

The VOR rationalisation is also now a year into its work - with over 15 VORS already decommissioned - which has resulted funnily enough with airports and ANSPS requiring to make new SIDS/STARS,  based on RNAV(admittedly in a rather naff way, due to the fact the other half of the regulation isn't up to speed, such as noise, airspace change regs, and equipage) hence the next batch of regulation to fix these holes so that its deployment actually results in benefits, but equally happens.

 

Not sure why the need to argue - I raised an observation that PMDG should start to look at this more seriously due to the effects real world will have on the sim - Im not demanding it, quite happily can and do use their wonderful aircraft (with some limitations at some locations) and I also use other aircraft. Its merely feedback and awareness that one element that "could" start to let down the standard that PMDG set is this - something that till now wasn't of any concern to us. If we took the attitude "that who cares" - then PMDG could just rattle out pretty looking planes and not bother with replicating all the other systems they amazingly do. RNP performance in the NGX - why bother editing a figure that in the sim world technically nothing effects the ability of the aircraft to be always spot on, but they do go to these levels of realism. 

[Copper. 78]

 

 

10 hours ago, JC75 said:

 

Not sure why the need to argue - I raised an observation that PMDG should start to look at this more seriously due to the effects real world will have on the sim - Im not demanding it, quite happily can and do use their wonderful aircraft (with some limitations at some locations) and I also use other aircraft. Its merely feedback and awareness that one element that "could" start to let down the standard that PMDG set is this - something that till now wasn't of any concern to us. If we took the attitude "that who cares" - then PMDG could just rattle out pretty looking planes and not bother with replicating all the other systems they amazingly do. RNP performance in the NGX - why bother editing a figure that in the sim world technically nothing effects the ability of the aircraft to be always spot on, but they do go to these levels of realism. 

PMDG are not known for slacking on the fidelity front and the weather radar is probably the best example of how reactive they can be, and I can't think of a reason beside ignorance as to how one can arrive at the point where they can form the outlook that PMDG would be going backward on system modelling.

Who suggested that they/we have adopted "that who cares" attitude! My god man, get some sense into you!

PMDG have just come out of P3D v4 airframe software conversion almost immediately after having released a 744 with ALL VARIANTS, bar the -8i/F! AND they have a secret project under way all the while providing support to customers AND most likely they are building the 748 as we speak, you know, that whole 74-8 i AND F SEPERATE airplanes and all its 50 odd systems and sub-systems... very complex systems! PLUS, A QRH FAILURE LIBRARY which is a feature not every other developer incorporates into their product, a reasonably accurate failure library. And I'm confident that if they didn't make that failure library, they'd have time to make a piddly silly GLS system that would need a bunch of workarounds because ground based infrastructure and possible simulator limitations.

That's what we know. Who knows what else they are working on.

"That who cares" attitude?! That is a despicable remark to make. Dan picked up on the under tone of your bursts a lot quicker than I did, "passive aggressive attacking" I think are the words he used to describe your borderline diatribe.

I see you've read into the roadmaps etc that the states were required to make. Good! But here's the thing, they were made for states, and not operators of airplanes. In your examples you are putting the cart before the horse. Operators of airplanes (cart) will FOLLOW the horse (state) as it moves along.

Im going to guess you're an Australian. Australia has so few airports and operators that they can manage this sort of change almost easily especially when it's national carrier is always at the front when it comes to pioneering tech advances - GLS, RNP AR, EFB, FANS1/A spring to mind. Compare that to the US, EU and ASIA... Sth America, places where domestic traffic is much greater, with a greater aircraft age and type variance, and varying state motivations and influences Hell, even France weren't overly interested in GBAS at the start. You're not comparing apples with apples when comparing how things are trending in Australia relative to any other state, and RNP AR as a case study is the very best example of this.

anyway, this is my last post on the matter.

[JC75 22]

7 hours ago, Copper. said:

anyway, this is my last post on the matter.

Thank goodness I really don't get your hostility at all - Oh and not Australian, European where this is and is further becoming law, all European states have to comply with the European law, which will equally effect the carriers wishing to operating in that airspace, RNAV routes exist now, transatlantic requirements etc - quite simply if an airport because of law or an ANSP because of law, removes traditional nav aids, designs procedures requiring a specific RNP performance or capability - the carrier will be required to equip in order to operate in that airspace or airport, yes this will be phased - but depending upon what they are coming from in first place(cat3 ILS vs traditional VOR/NDB or CAT1 ILS) the impact will vary. Equally depending on fleet mix.

This wasn't about GLS, as if you read my posts I simply stated that isn't the issue in sim world, its the NAV performance thats the issue,

The 74-8 can utilise RF Legs...so perhaps that will be the catalyst for PMDG.

I go back to my point, why are we arguing about something that would be good if the PMDG aircraft(that in real world) could do it? PMDG don't need defending about if/when or not they consider doing this, its an observation that they haven't considered the switch to this method now as part of their transition. That the changing real world will effect the capability of the sim world - at no point did I criticise the wonder of things PMDG have done - simply stating that shortly given the choice Id rather have ARINC424 data and processing over a funky weather radar.

8 hours ago, Copper. said:

"That who cares" attitude?! That is a despicable remark to make. Dan picked up on the under tone of your bursts a lot quicker than I did, "passive aggressive attacking" I think are the words he used to describe your borderline diatribe.

 Im afraid I suggest you reread your own posts - at no point have I been hostile or attacking to you or Dan, yours is the only one that lowers to personal comments, and assumptions, backed up by your opinions rather than experience. I really think you took that who cares statement out of context totally. 

 

[PMDG777 231]

Easy men. No need for you said this and you said that. We don't know what PMDG is going to implement into the final product, and arguing about it either way before it's released is pointless since it's all speculation. Anything could change between now and release.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

12 minutes ago, PMDG777 said:

Easy men. No need for you said this and you said that. We don't know what PMDG is going to implement into the final product, and arguing about it either way before it's released is pointless since it's all speculation. Anything could change between now and release.

Thanks Chris. Agreed.

EDIT: I appreciate all of you, so it's kinda tough to watch. I think there are some interesting viewpoints in the arguments, so it's tough to have to wade through the irritation in each reply while looking at the aforementioned points, particularly because I do value your inputs elsewhere. If it could be toned down a bit, I'd appreciate it. And yes, I do realize that I occasionally respond similarly to how you are responding to each other. I'm working on it. I know you all can too.