Navigraph for MSF beta has begun

[P_R_S 18]

2 hours ago, harrry said:

It seems to me the rush of Navigraph is in response to Microsoft realising it is failing in this regard.  I think a few contract clauses are being very closely looked at right now.

I think that we are, as usual, too much impatient, Probably we will get navdata update with the nex patch; and let pass some more weeks to have the navblue partnership really engage...

[Tuskin38 6,468]

2 hours ago, duckbilled said:

If there really was a partnership, we should have seen something more with the RC. Instead, we got a static AIRAC cycle that was already outdated at launch. It is now outdated by 2 months.

If there wasn't a Partnership, they wouldn't have announced one.

[FPStewy 538]

19 hours ago, P_R_S said:

I think that we are, as usual, too much impatient,

I think the community has been very patient and accepting of it, MS has been upfront on what they are working on and that has been quiet good, except when it comes to this, they just acknowledged it.

My issue is to have a 3rd party like Navigraph stepping in to fix it and acknowledging they have a beta in the works before the actual partner who's job is to provide this service. If MS doesn't fix or even address this before Navigraph steps in it's going to be very distressing at it's core in my opinion.

[KenG 492]

20 hours ago, duckbilled said:

...Also, I can't understand how anyone could test IFR capabilities without up to date nav data. This, IMO, is a key feature that should have been part of the RC AND included with the alpha and beta versions.

Oh I'll tell you exactly how this happens as the same people have promoted how great IFR flight is right here in this forum. These people feel that the totality of IFR is still based on ground based navigation and promote how great MSFS is at flying ILS, VOR, and NDB procedures. 

However, these people seem to have missed the whole Performance Based Navigation (PBN) era that we entered. While yes, ground based navigation still exists, it has been vastly supplanted by RNP and RNAV procedures. Here is a perfect visual example of what I am discussing, Italy High. I bring this up in my PBN class to highlight the world is changing, especially for my old school guys who just can't let go of their ADF receivers. 

So how are you going to fly IFR in this airspace with /A capability? Well I guess you can go VOR to VOR, but for the most part old school is dying quickly. You better get a firm hold of those black boxes and their mysterious ways before you find yourself bypassed by technology.

So yes, in the modern IFR environment correct and accurate databases and navigational equipment capability is a must. There are a lot of airports these days you cannot depart IFR without RNAV capability and you cannot arrive without RNP capability. It costs an airport a lot of money to maintain an ILS whereas it costs next to nothing to maintain RNAV (GPS) to LPV minimums. Also consider that every day the world of PBN is becoming more complex. Things such as RF legs and A RNP are quickly becoming more and more the standard. 

Fourteen years ago when FSX was on the streets yes, GPS approaches were the exception, today the world has flipped and GNSS and SBAS are primary means of navigation. So a brand new flight sim released in 2020 and the ability to fly current procedures (RNAV/RNP) is questionable at best is a huge disappointment. We are not talking future navigation we are talking about what is required to fly IFR TODAY.  A huge swing and a miss by Asobo. Hopefully, they understand and fix this or we will all be tied to add-on developers to be able to fly current procedures.

[JRBarrett 3,070]

20 hours ago, FPStewy said:

I hope they address it soon, I have nothing against Navigraph it's a good service if you want to pay for it. What we don't want in this sim is to have Navigraph become a necessity.

Having had dealings with NavBlue in r/w aviation, I wouldn’t use their US AIRAC data if they paid me. They are a very Euro-centric company. Their European FMS data is apparently quite good, but their US data is another story.  The NavBlue r/w FMS databases for the US often completely lack RNAV approaches for smaller US airports, or there are overt errors.

Mesa airlines switched to NavBlue AIRAC and charts in 2011-2012 as a cost savings measure, and there were so many problems and complaints from pilots that they went back to Jeppesen after a just few months.

Air Wisconsin is the only US regional airline I am aware of that currently uses NavBlue. (No US major airline uses NavBlue - they all use Jeppesen or Lufthansa).

In MSFS, my home airport, KELM, is missing all 4 RNAV approaches and one of the two ILS approaches. The one ILS that is present (ILS 6), contains fix names that were changed in 2014!!

You might say “well, it’s a bug in the sim, or NavBlue is not yet implemented”, but the fact is MSFS is using NavBlue data, and I verified that the very same errors existed in their current r/w FMS data for KELM in their August 2020 AIRAC. 

A former co-worker is employed by a part 135 operator who is on a tight budget, and which uses NavBlue. (One selling point of NavBlue for r/w operators is that they cost about half of what Jeppesen or Lufthansa (LIDO) charge). He verified that the errors were present in their NavBlue FMS database for KELM.

The 5 missing approaches, and (especially) 6-year-old obsolete fix data for the ILS 06 at KELM was of such concern to me that I contacted NavBlue directly. They got back to me in less than 24 hours, and verified that the KELM data was indeed in error, and said that it would be corrected in the new cycle that was issued on Sept 10th.

There is no way to see the fix in the MSFS nav data, since it did not update with the new cycle on the 10th. I’m curious if the upcoming patch will contain updated nav data.

BTW, Aerowinx PSX also uses NavBlue for their once-per-year FMS AIRAC updates. They originally used Lufthansa as their FMS supplier, but the cost rose so high that Hardy Heinlin had to make the change to NavBlue in 2017. I just checked, and the very same errors at KELM exist in the PSX database as well.

I am now using the beta version of the Navigraph nav data for MSFS, and will continue to do so. Since I have long been a Navigraph FMS and charts subscriber it’s an easy choice to make, but even if I wasn’t already a subscriber, I would gladly pay Navigraph for Jeppesen data that I fully trust to be accurate. I would not trust NavBlue any farther than I could throw a USB thumb drive containing their r/w nav data.

[Adrian123 1,015]

26 minutes ago, KenG said:

Things such as RF legs and A RNP are quickly becoming more and more the standard. 

With P3D and XPL, perhaps 70% of my approaches are RNAV.  100% GA aircraft small airports with no ILS!

Edited September 15, 2020 by Adrian123

[P_R_S 18]

4 hours ago, FPStewy said:

I think the community has been very patient and accepting of it, MS has been upfront on what they are working on and that has been quiet good, except when it comes to this, they just acknowledged it.

My issue is to have a 3rd party like Navigraph stepping in to fix it and acknowledging they have a beta in the works before the actual partner who's job is to provide this service. If MS doesn't fix or even address this before Navigraph steps in it's going to be very distressing at it's core in my opinion.

I completely agree and this is the reason of the navigraph rush, I dont think Navblue data or charts are inferior to jeppesen (and this may be the reason behind the navigraph VFR charts) they are not there yet... Still I'll wait at least until the next cycle before making a choice.

[FPStewy 538]

8 hours ago, JRBarrett said:

I am now using the beta version of the Navigraph nav data for MSFS, and will continue to do so. I would gladly pay Navigraph for Jeppesen data that I fully trust to be accurate. I would not trust NavBlue any farther than I could throw a USB thumb drive containing their r/w nav data.

Which brings up the obvious, since Navigraph is used for P3D/XP/FSX why in the name of puppies didn't MS make a deal the Navigraph instead. Why not have the same data across the platforms that would match Online ATC's.

[Adrian123 1,015]

7 minutes ago, FPStewy said:

Which brings up the obvious, since Navigraph is used for P3D/XP/FSX why in the name of puppies didn't MS make a deal the Navigraph instead. Why not have the same data across the platforms that would match Online ATC's.

Keeping it local. 🙂