EUREKA! Why STARs are warped

[Andreas Stangenes 1,628]

I usually program my fmc/MCDU in the cockpit. My stars are usually always very strange and different from the published ones. Ie, in ENGM program the RIPA4M arrival to 19R with ILS to 19R, and halfway through the star the programmed flightplan simply goes to the FAF and skips like 50% of the star.

Today, I tried to program the flight in the world menu, and I DIDN'T program an ILS. Instead I left it in automatic, and selected RIPA4M for 19R. In the cockpit, the approach is unselected, and no ils frequency for the arrival field is in the mcdu.
Look and behold - the STAR is now complete..!! It is just as published!

If I chose the ILS for 19R it goes back to shortening the STAR by 50%. If I just set the approach to automatic and select the STAR, the star is populated perfectly. At least for ENGM RIPA4M. I haven't tried doing this in the cockpit yet. I have reported this to the Navigraph beta team and the ms zendesk. 

Feel free to experiment some more with this and report back here. 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Andreas Stangenes

[Andreas Stangenes 1,628]

Unfortunately, when you are in the cockpit, you are unable to just select a STAR. You must select an approach to be allowed to pick a STAR. Thats a bummer 😞 This is at least true for the airbus logic. 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Andreas Stangenes

[Andreas Stangenes 1,628]

Quoting Richard, a Navigraph developer, in his response to me:

Quote

Right Andreas, call it bug or feature ... the procedures are correct coded so far because when not, you will see the same issue via the worldmap programming. I believe ASOBO mixes a few things in the FMCs - seen this for approaches, where they mix transitions with the final approaches. To plan a flight via worldmap is more correct as via the FMC and the reason is, because here you can´t set any transition - only SIDs, STARs or the main approaches but without the transitions and I guess, there is exactly the bug.

What I don´t understand now is, why nobody has identified that via the alpha/beta phase. Have all only look outside the window how nice the view now is and has nobody tested the functionality in the addons of the sim? Or are ASOBO so overloaded with bugs that they can´t fix all or won´t fix all? No idea but its hard for us developer also because sometimes we don´t also know, if this is a data issue now or is it a sim-issue.

 

[Andreas Stangenes 1,628]

Ok so some more experimenting. I am using simbrief to plan my flight, and I import the .pln file into msf. This is what happens:

This is very confusing and annoying. Looking at the blue line it is picking up the waypoints, but it ISNT showing up in the textual waypoint list (where it currently says Heathrow and Frankfurt. 

 

EDIT: My bad, I didn't notice that I was using the wrong format. I was using the .pln format for FSX, but they have added the .pln format for MSFS2020, and that works. 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Andreas Stangenes

[Der Zeitgeist 1,575]

2 hours ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

What I don´t understand now is, why nobody has identified that via the alpha/beta phase. Have all only look outside the window how nice the view now is and has nobody tested the functionality in the addons of the sim? Or are ASOBO so overloaded with bugs that they can´t fix all or won´t fix all?

I'm pretty sure these issues were noted during the Alpha & Beta stages of testing. However, remember that the autopilots were almost nonfunctional for a lot of planes back then, so avionics-wise, problems with arrivals and approaches didn't seem quite so glaring compared with other bugs.

[Andreas Stangenes 1,628]

2 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

I'm pretty sure these issues were noted during the Alpha & Beta stages of testing. However, remember that the autopilots were almost nonfunctional for a lot of planes back then, so avionics-wise, problems with arrivals and approaches didn't seem quite so glaring compared with other bugs.

Yeah thats what I was thinking too. Also, I think many bugs were reported, but not acted upon by Asobo as far as I understand. 

[airlinejets 709]

20 minutes ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

I think many bugs were reported, but not acted upon by Asobo as far as I understand

They still aren't. If you want something corrected, you need to have it massively up-voted for them to take notice.

[lambourne 211]

Remember in the pre launch publicity when Asobo said they would be relying on ARINC 424 compatible navdata for the new sim? Imagine stating that publicly and then not writing an FMS emulation capable of correctly reading said ARINC 424 data.

If this carries on most of the non visual USPs of MSFS2020 will fall away as third party devs plug their existing solutions in while Asobo struggles to finish the core sim. Navigraph must be cackling all the way to the bank - a sim platform that by all appearances should have destroyed their business model has been so badly botched on release that the market is looking to them again.

A 3PD who builds a standalone FMC that can be integrated with Navigraph data and the MSFS autopilot will probably make thousands of pounds. Even better if someone ported an off the shelf ARINC 424 compatible FMS emulator to read and use the MSFS nav database in the same way.

[Mike S KPDX 597]

SID/STAR usage is different here in the US.  The STAR will get you to the field but more often then not you are then assigned an approach, trans and runway.  I think in Europe, STARS are much more associated with specific runways.

[cwburnett 1,809]

5 hours ago, lambourne said:

A 3PD who builds a standalone FMC that can be integrated with Navigraph data and the MSFS autopilot will probably make thousands of pounds. Even better if someone ported an off the shelf ARINC 424 compatible FMS emulator to read and use the MSFS nav database in the same way.

We are just starting work on this for the CJ4 right now. The biggest challenge in all of this is feeding enough data back to the sim to not break in-sim ATC, however terrible it is...but adding the capability for primary and secondary plans, saving routes, missed approach procedures, holds, etc. It will be a long road, but the in-sim capabilities are woefully inadequate right now.