5 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

I still have to understand why VFR would be less « hardcore » than IFR

The difference is that flying under VFR flight rules is a lot less complex and challenging. Yes, sitting in an airliner cockpit and mashing the LNAV and VNAV button may seem less challenging than navigating with a sectional on your lap and trying to find your VFR checkpoints, but this isn´t what IFR is all about.

I went throught VFR and IFR training and while VFR is not without challenges...IFR is all of the VFR skills plus the added complexity of operating under IFR rules and procedures.

Jan

 

 

25 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

An eternal rule of the internet : you don’t control what happens to a thread you initiate more than you control a child that you gave life to.

Tell that to the mods 😘

1 hour ago, Janov said:

The difference is that flying under VFR flight rules is a lot less complex and challenging. Yes, sitting in an airliner cockpit and mashing the LNAV and VNAV button may seem less challenging than navigating with a sectional on your lap and trying to find your VFR checkpoints, but this isn´t what IFR is all about.

I went throught VFR and IFR training and while VFR is not without challenges...IFR is all of the VFR skills plus the added complexity of operating under IFR rules and procedures.

Jan

 

 

Interesting points, maybe the different points of view between a pure simmer (me) and an experienced pilot simmer ?

I do not discard the intensity and interest of IFR flying, I am just a bit tired of the ultra-simplistic view that IFR is the only hardcore part of simming, VFR being equated to some childish sightseeing. Those who say that have never seriously flown a VFR flight with all its constraints (including in VMC minima conditions) or they have an agenda. Or both.

Also is there any sim or ATC addon today which truly allows « the added complexity of operating under IFR rules and procedures » of real life ? 

And, maybe more importantly, at the end of the day, is the fun of simming and real flying in following procedures or in the proverbial hands-on aviate and navigate ? 

Edited October 25, 20205 yr by Dominique_K

A valid question - like I said before, it is a question of scope of a simulator.

One can make a great soaring simulator.

Or a great helicopter simulator.

Maybe even one for airships...or crop dusting. Or naval aviation, or bush flying.

All those tasks are fun and one can go into great detail. All of those are hard to really master and definitely enough to occupy one for their whole life, honing and perfecting your skills in each field.

Whoever makes a "flight simulation application" for the consumer market must ask himself what do I want to portray in my simulator?

And every user or prospective customer must ask themselves what kind of flying or activity do I want to pursue with the program I am using?

I don´t think there is one shoe that fits everyone - and there really is no need to, either, because most of us can easily (if they have broad aviation interest) get and use many different programs.

It is just a reality of pc simulation that the "holy grail" isn´t here, yet. The blanket is invariably too short or too narrow 😉 - despite what many were hoping for just a few months ago.

Jan

 

9 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

Interesting points, maybe the different points of view between a pure simmer (me) and an experienced pilot simmer ?

I do not discard the intensity and interest of IFR flying, I am just a bit tired of the ultra-simplistic view that IFR is the only hardcore part of simming, VFR being equated to some childish sightseeing. Those who say that have never seriously flown a VFR flight with all its constraints (including in VMC minima conditions) or they have an agenda. Or both.

Also is there any sim or ATC addon today which truly allows « the added complexity of operating under IFR rules and procedures » of real life ? 

And, maybe more importantly, at the end of the day, is the fun of simming and real flying in following procedures or in the proverbial hands-on aviate and navigate ? 

What I dont get is why people feel the need to argue about the need to fix IFR in MSF. It is not like VFR needs fixing. VFR is already  the best it's ever been in any sim before. 

8 hours ago, Janov said:

I don´t think there is one shoe that fits everyone - and there really is no need to, either, because most of us can easily (if they have broad aviation interest) get and use many different programs.

It is just a reality of pc simulation that the "holy grail" isn´t here, yet. The blanket is invariably too short or too narrow 😉 - despite what many were hoping for just a few months ago.

MSF has basically arrived with only 1 shoe. VFR is increadible now! IFR is missing in action and they haven't said a word about it. I wouldn't have a clue if it is baked in the "garmin fixes" or something else. When I read the patch notes, wishlists, or work in progress I do not see any point that makes me think "ah yeah, that's the missing IFR features that are being worked on". 

The Airbus doesnt have a garmin unit, so if Asobo is working on the IFR bugs under the category "garmin", I wouldn't know that's what it meant. 

Edited October 25, 20205 yr by Andreas Stangenes

Well, there are several guys in THIS thread:

...that swear that IFR is working for them completely and flawlessly...so something is wrong, here...

Jan

2 minutes ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

What I dont get is why people feel the need to argue about the need to fix IFR in MSF. 

We have seen on this forum develop a confusion at two levels : 

- on one hand, between IFR and using modern avionics and autopilot  

- and between IFR and flying airliners on the other hand.

You obviously can fly IFR a GA aircraft with traditional navigation equipment !   IFR is not constrained by having a super-Garmin on the dashboard or  70 tons of metal strapped under your buttocks.

Confusion born from ignorance for many and malice for some desirous to prove by any means that MSF is not a simulator yada yada yada....

What MSF really lacks to be really IFR-grade, in my opinion, is a  convincing ATC, just like P3D or XP...

8 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

What MSF really lacks to be really IFR-grade, in my opinion, is a  convincing ATC, just like P3D or XP...

Exactly.

I am more than excited to see what their Neuronal technology will bring.

What good does it do to have better ATC if the fundamental icao rules of IFR navigation aren't being adhered to by the simulator? It cannot be a SIMULATOR of things happening in the real world if it doesnt code the IFR rules correctly in engine of the SIM. 

34 minutes ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

IFR is missing in action and they haven't said a word about it

Part of the confusion is caused by gross generalizations and hyperbole fueled statements as above.

Missing SID’s or STAR’s from a database or an FMC that will not fly a proper approach are bugs to be sure.  The OP has submitted bug reports to official channels.

No one argues this.  What many do argue is whether these bugs equal IFR as “missing in action” and whether or not such behavior which makes flying with VATSIM harder than necessary is something that should be prioritized over other bugs or whether if not fixing these bugs relegates MSFS to the label of “game”.

 And let’s not forget that much of this attitude seems preemptive since we are a mere 3 months since release and a developer who has a published timeline for regular bug fixes.  Something we haven’t had before.
 

 

18 hours ago, Janov said:

I went throught VFR and IFR training and while VFR is not without challenges...IFR is all of the VFR skills plus the added complexity of operating under IFR rules and procedures.

Absolutely true, but in that particular case, given a supply of charts, msfs2020 is perfectly capable.

Where it falls down is in its numerous deficiencies in automatic assisted IFR flight compared to many currently available addons for previous flight simulators.  (note, I did not say that it is deficient compared to the previous sims alone).  This is the crux of the issue at the moment, and while I agree that IFR is infinitely more complex and challenging to perform manually than VFR, this isn't how most simmers (even hardcore ones) approach the sim.  In fact, I would hazard a guess to assume that a good many simmers who posit themselves as ultra hardcore, would not be able to complete an average simple IFR cross country flight without a GPS and it's magic NAV AP mode.  I'm not talking down on anyone, I'm definitely in that category too, yet I can punch a flightplan into the PMDG NGX with the best of them, and ride the magenta line into the final approach with little issue.

If you try to do automated airline IFR in msfs2020 at the current stage of its development, and in my experience, it will work reasonably well a majority of the time, but there are obviously bugs, weird occasional glitches, and simplifications that make it untenable for use in a VATSIM environment, but the same would be generally true for default aircraft in FSX, p3d, or Xplane.  There are two main differences this time around. First, previous sims generally always had some overlap in available aircraft from the previous sim edition.  When FSX came out,  there were a number of fs9 planes/addons that were simply able to be ported with little fuss, even as there were some that didn't.  Here, you are stuck with default for a good while.  The second difference is that Asobo actually gave an effort towards this particular facet of simming compared to its predecessors.  FSX/P3D's IFR allowances are toward the GA IFR flying end of the scale, so no SIDs/STARs,  the atc just vectors you to your approach, and the instrumentation matches that.  The default Airliners in FSX aren't any more capable of fully automatic flight than an average Beechcraft Bonanza. (I don't even think the current version of p3d even ships with any airliners) The Asobo Airliners have an FMC,  there is at least a semblance of things like Fly By Wire and FADEC/autothrottle and VNAV.  It is certainly not at the level that we would want, even for an avowed medium duty simmer like me, but there has been an attempt at least, not just big jet powered Cessnas that look like Boeings, and leave it to the third party market to create the entire airline simming infrastructure like fsx/p3d do.

So, since several of you seem content with MSF' IFR capabilities currently, what are YOUR biggest issues that you think Asobo should prioritize?

Also, I am fully able to do a ifr cross country with charts doing vor to vor. I am also able to do a VFR flightplan, and I can do both kinds on Vatsim. That is, however, not how I would fly an airbus. Also, you cannot fly RNAV STAR with transition to the approach in the sim without something important being messed up. You can of course ask for a different kind of STAR, but then we are back to my point of being unable to do basic stuff. I can also vector myself and pretend that I am actually flying the star the way real pilots are, but they dont put their planes on heading modes to be able to do the procedure. 

I will probably buy navigraph as soon as it comes out for MSF. I dont need MSF to have a perfect database actually. I can buy the addon for that. However, Navigraph cant overcome the bugs in the navigation because they are hardcoded into the sim. It is those hardcoded bugs I want to have fixed ASAP. Of course, if we must wait we must wait. PMDG will never release anything for MSF until this is fixed Im sure.Unless they are more clever than the devs over at Navigraph. 

It's not enough for me. It simply will not do!

Edited October 26, 20205 yr by Andreas Stangenes

58 minutes ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

However, Navigraph cant overcome the bugs in the navigation because they are hardcoded into the sim. It is those hardcoded bugs I want to have fixed ASAP. Of course, if we must wait we must wait. PMDG will never release anything for MSF until this is fixed Im sure.Unless they are more clever than the devs over at Navigraph. 

As Matt said, the data is actually good. And it's worth making the distinction that the failings with procedures isn't so much hard coded into the sim as it is the avionics. The reason I say this is that if you pick up the latest Working Title CJ4 (0.6.0 right now) you will find working departures with runway and enroute transitions, you will find working arrivals, with enroute and runway transitions, you will find approaches with arrival transitions and you will find altitude constraints, for all procedures for which they are published. In fact you will find a quite functional FMS with takeoff and landing performance calculations and complete flight planning capabilities, in addition to the ability to directly load a simbrief flight plan to the FMS. All of this was done without any add ons, relying only on the core sim. Most of the procedures are there and the ability to enter them into the FMS and fly them is there.

Why they didn't finish it is a head scratcher.

There's nothing on the navigation side of things that would stop a PMDG or any other airliner shop from building and releasing product, especially with Navigraph. Their hangups lie elsewhere, namely in their wish not to program in JavaScript and the lack of some important interface features related to flight controls, most importantly deployed for FBW and Autothrottle/FADEC systems.

That said, we take Asobo's name in vain every day in our development discord because there's plenty to shake your head at. We've found so many silly bugs...for example there's a javascript method called 'removeDeparture' in the code. Want to know what it actually does? Sends a coherent call to the simulator to delete the arrival procedure. Oops.

From a navigation perspective, the only real serious hang-up is the inability to modify an approach. For this we are writing our own flight plan manager, because not being able to work with an approach is just a deal-breaker for full functionality. Lack of support for holds, vector waypoints and missed approach procedures is annoying, so will also be addressed.

In any case, all hope is not lost. And I'm sure you can expect much of the progress we've made on navigation to find its way into the FBW 320 relatively soon.

And at some point soon these advances will be ported into our G1000, G3X and G3000 upgrades as well.

We are hard at work building out a new flight plan manager and VNAV for the CJ4. You can fly a vatsim worthy IFR flight at mach 0.77 today in MSFS. Not saying it will be bug free, but it can be done without too many workarounds at this point.

I love you guys, @cwburnett ❤️ You are doing great work for the community. I will pick up your modded CJ4 asap and test it out. If you have done all the things you said, you are blowing the A320 flybywire out of the skies. I would love to finally be able to program in a route from A to B with SID, airways, STAR, trans and APP in the cockpit without everything going haywire and overwriting various parts of the route rendering me unable to fly the planned route on VATSIM. 

Finally, the only thing left for me to say is that I *really DO hope that Asobo reads this thread and fixes the issues so that we dont need to have every plane modded to follow procedures.