I think what hasn´t been said in the context of VFR/IFR is that a big - and probably the major - chunk of aviation as it happens around the world is "IFR". Almost all commercial and airline flying is done IFR, even if the sun is shining bright over the Arizona desert...IFR is not to be confused with "IFR conditions". One is a set of flight rules, the other is a meteorological condition or environment the airplane is moving in.

Yes, a lot of pilots fly VFR only, heck, a lot of pilots fly planes that don´t even have an engine. The question is to what scope a "flight simulator" alludes to. There are some that only focus on a small aspect of flying, and they do it well - like the Condor soaring simulator. Others only simulate one aircraft. Or just a small chunk of the earth.

I can understand the disappointment if the large sector of IFR operations is not portrayed well enough to take part in cross-platform online flying. It is one thing to be "able to fly in IFR conditions" but yet a totally different thing to follow IFR flight rules and procedures.

Cheers, Jan

 

Very well said, @Janov!

9 hours ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

In short, I believe you are wrong that it will never be fixed. Navigraph cant publish anything for MSFS yet because of the way MSF handles the various "bits" of a route. It doesnt help that 3rd party devs give us up to date navigational database when the sim has hardcoded rules for picking transitions and combining them with the ILS automatically, and then overwrites part of the STAR. Navigraph has already an updated database ready to be released, but they dont want to do that because MSF navigational bugs are hardcoded into the sim. So if it isn't fixed, it can NEVER be a sim for professional/hardcore simmers. It will just be a nice game. 

You're wrong, my friend. I developed aircraft add-ons that use their own navigation database (provided and updated by Navigraph) that is completely independent from what is defined in the sim. In FS2004, FSX and P3D, there was a navigation database, used by the GPS, and any aircraft that has its own database does not rely on what is in the sim. It means that when the SDK will be complete and I will know how to code advanced systems (especially FMS), I will be able to manage SIDs, STARs, transitions, approaches even if MSFS does not. That is the interest of advanced add-ons.

26 minutes ago, Rocky said:

You're wrong, my friend. I developed aircraft add-ons that use their own navigation database (provided and updated by Navigraph) that is completely independent from what is defined in the sim. In FS2004, FSX and P3D, there was a navigation database, used by the GPS, and any aircraft that has its own database does not rely on what is in the sim. It means that when the SDK will be complete and I will know how to code advanced systems (especially FMS), I will be able to manage SIDs, STARs, transitions, approaches even if MSFS does not. That is the interest of advanced add-ons.

This, my friend, is a quote from the developer of Navigraph:

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.

Quote

Yes Andreas, we are in contact with ASOBO. There is an own development forum, like the public flightsim-forum - but it seems that the navdata are not on their priority list and it seems also, that they have troubles also with the navdata because the default dataset is also not updated as expected and announced from ASOBO. Anyway, we are one of many ...

About your question:
Sorry, for the misunderstanding - the worldmap uses exactly the same navdata files as in the addons. That means, normally when you plan a flight with SIDs/STARs and IAPs you can use this planned flight 1:1 in the FMC of the addon. But in the worldmap you can´t ie. choose any transition not for SIDs, not for STARs and not for IAPs. But you can do this in the FMC (in some addons).
So, when you plan a flight with only the basic-information (SID, STAR and approach) via the worldmap - all is good. You can use it 1:1 in the addon - means the navdata are coded correctly. So, now try a planned flightplan from the worldmap to change it directly in the FMC. Change only the runway or the approach type - you will see, the result is not same as when you do this via the worldmap planning. And that´s the issue. Planing via the worldmap is correct but when you try to re-plan it directly in the FMC the data are broken - sometimes more, sometimes less.

My question to the Navigraph devs: 

Another question popped into my mind (too much free time, jeez)...

So MSF has a problem separating approaches from transitions. If you select an approach, more often than not the STAR will get messed up. If you program the route in the world menu before you start your flight and leave the approach to automatic, you will be fine.

So why does this happen with navigraph database installed? Why does MSF have this problem? If Navigraph has coded stars, approaches and transititions separately, then how can MSF start combining them and messing things up?

ANSWER

Quote

Sorry Andreas, but thats more a question to ASOBO ... I have no idea. But you see the same with the default data (if you have a procedure with transitions because that´s the important part on it). The how and why, I don´t know - what we do is, that we map real-world ARINC424 data with the MSFS schema, which are offered via the SDK. There are two checks:
1. if the xml file is general coded correctly
2. when you compile the files, if the logic behind is correct so far

Both checks give us no error, but the result in the sim is differ - also between the worldmap and the FMCs. So, sorry - I can´t give you a clear answer, as I can´t 100% say, where the issue is. This question can only be answer by ASOBO.

Another question from me to Navigraph devs:

The thing I dont understand is that I am not selecting any transitions. I am flying on a STAR that I programmed in the world menu, and without an approach (set to automatic in the world menu). The star is perfect. When I select the ILS (ONLY) then the whole star is messed up with random transition onto the ils. Why does it pick a transition when I havent? I guess that is what you guys dont know yet 

ANSWER:

Quote

Absolutely correct Andreas. The same happens with transitions or vias. When you select an simple ILS approach, then the FMC adds the first transition to it (if there is one), without any input from outside, automatically and thats mess all in the system.
No, I keep on my opinion - there is an internal issue and we had currently no other chance to compare such reports with the default data. I'm also sure, that this data revision 12 is a very stable and complete version but we run into so many limitations/bugs that we are currently not in the situation to offer these in production. And that is sad ....

Navigraph are unable to, as I have stated several times in this thread, to overcome the HARDCODED BUGS that are in the sim in regards to how it handles the various PARTS of the nav database. Navigraph CANNOT fix it. Asobo has to fix it. 

Edited October 23, 20205 yr by Andreas Stangenes

Just to be clear, it is perfectly possible to fly under instrument flight rules in FS2020, using SIDs, STARs, approaches, etc., in aircraft equipped with VOR/DME units, whether displayed on steam gauges or the G1000 glass system. And one can do it on VATSIM or other online platform of choice, so long as a flight plan is filed with the corresponding FAA/ICAO equipment code (/A in FAA land). No problem for controllers and none for the pilot, who will however be mighty busy dialing in raw data frequencies and bearings. Just don't file or accept RNAV procedures and all will be fine.

Where FS2020 falls short of some folks' expectations is in the use of the GPS-based navigation and advanced flight management systems. The deficiencies in the Garmin simulations has been acknowledged by the developers and I believe that they indicated in their most recent Q & A that at least some of those deficiencies will be addressed in the coming months. This would make a lot of sense for this product, because it would greatly facilitate the creation of a robust fleet of third party GA aircraft. It would be great if highly capable FMS systems were rolled out in the near future, but I'm not very hopeful of that happening until third party developers are able to adapt their technologies to the evolving FS2020 SDK. In the meanwhile, we have wonderful alternatives on other simulators that make for a great experience.

Be safe everyone.

Edited October 23, 20205 yr by jrw4

Well according to Navigraph, who I would consider experts in this field, it is not a fault in the nav-database. There are several hardcoded errors in how MSF, garmin or no, reads the nav database. It is not garmin relatated, it is in the core of the sim. 

And no, you are not able to fly all STARS, especially moderns one that require RNP. They are not distance from VOR based, but GPS based.

@jrw4 I am actually a bit shocked by your reply. To me it sounds like you are defending the current state of the sim. I would think that if anything the Vatsim network would have a big interest in getting these issues resolved. I dont get you people. All I get from you all is resistance, and I have no idea why.

Tell me how you would fly this STAR with VOR/DME:

A lot of people were flying tubeliners  IFR on vatsim before. How's that going for you on MSF?

Edited October 23, 20205 yr by Andreas Stangenes

Please note that the RIPAM 4M STAR is an RNAV procedure. As I noted in my remarks above, RNAV procedures should neither be filed or accepted either online or in the real world, if flying using VOR/ILS/DME only. While I'm unsure about the rest of the world, in the USA, it's perfectly possible to navigate under instrument flight rules without the need for GPS equipment. It's quite challenging and helps develop situational awareness. Everyone should gIve it a try sometime.

With regard to VATSIM, users of FS2020 are most welcome. And lots of pilots are continuing to enjoy their study-level airliners using other simulators, as am I. It's a wonderful learning environment for everyone, one that continues to evolve over time. There's lost of room for everyone.

Best wishes.

 

25 minutes ago, jrw4 said:

Please note that the RIPAM 4M STAR is an RNAV procedure. As I noted in my remarks above, RNAV procedures should neither be filed or accepted either online or in the real world, if flying using VOR/ILS/DME only. While I'm unsure about the rest of the world, in the USA, it's perfectly possible to navigate under instrument flight rules without the need for GPS equipment. It's quite challenging and helps develop situational awareness. Everyone should gIve it a try sometime.

With regard to VATSIM, users of FS2020 are most welcome. And lots of pilots are continuing to enjoy their study-level airliners using other simulators, as am I. It's a wonderful learning environment for everyone, one that continues to evolve over time. There's lost of room for everyone.

Best wishes.

 

Yes flying vor to vor is possible, but It is an outdated way of navigating that is not commonly used in the western world as far as I know. And Rnav approaches are quite common in Europe. Vor to vor is not something you would normally do with an airbus.

Edited October 23, 20205 yr by Andreas Stangenes

Removed 

 

Edited October 24, 20205 yr by wthomas33065
Doing what my mother told me....

On 10/21/2020 at 11:54 PM, omarsmak30 said:

Wait I think there is a fix already for the FBW issue when you land https://github.com/flybywiresim/a32nx/pull/1295

As far as I understood, this is a temporary fix until they have the full FBW re-written as the new FBW system will take sometime. 

 

So the short of is it that the mod does not fix this. 

Edited October 24, 20205 yr by Andreas Stangenes

The long and the short of the real issue is this (and I'm knee deep in the code at the moment): Every strange flight planning and/or routing issue is a fault of the in-sim gps system, which looks to be more or less unchanged from FSX, with some small bits added on top.

However, the raw data is light-years better than any sim previous. The strange procedures you see are only due to simplifications or funky interpretations made on the raw data when being interpreted by the flight plan system. But there's a gold mine there for savvy developers already.

The reality is that Asobo, for their many deserved criticisms, actually did good here, and there is a solid foundation to make extremely complex procedures work from the data available, which can literally be pulled from the simulator today, in the aircraft code. I'm talking vectors instructions, relative bearing/distance legs, course/altitude legs, DME arcs, correct above/below altitude restrictions, course/intercepts, the works. Something you see on the chart like "Fly runway heading 270 until 1500 then turn left course 215 until intercept of PLI 180 radial" is in the data. And that's the stock data. That only improves in accuracy with something like Navigraph on top.

Watch this space, because there is exciting stuff coming. 😉

-Matt

It's good to hear some encouraging news on the procedure front, Matt.  Thanks for the update.

23 hours ago, wthomas33065 said:

And what exactly is the definition of a "hard core simmer"?

That has changed.

Yes, "hard core simmer" is an easy term to banter around, but a clear look at what people deem important even in this forum of "hard core simmers" shows that the definition of "hard core simmer" isn't even easily defined.  And if we can't define ourselves, how do we expect a company to?

 

Excellent question. I used to be a hard core IFR simmer until MFS2020 arrived. Right now, I have rediscovered the pure joy of VFR FLYING and small GA aircraft is all I care about. I would even venture to say that the majority of “hard core simmers” are now more  interested in VFR flying. I could be wrong, but this an interesting question I think.

My Message:

 

Hire a Commercial rated Flight Instructor and Garmin rep and complete the IFR Functionality of this sim!

SO MUCH great discussion (despite the occasional ire) and yet @AVSIM Admin has not asked for Asobo to create @Asobo so that they are able to get a notification from us.  Asobo has mentioned AvSim as a space they watch, several times, and I do not want to resort to having to go to other sites to get Asobo's attention... AvSim is part of my daily browsing routine... can't we please get this done?

Ta- C