Thank you for taking the time to write that up, @cwburnett! I appreciate it ❤️ Personally I suspect it is option A that it tries to skip waypoints "that are out of the way". What seemingly makes your FMC stand out compared to the A320 FBW, is that you are able to program in a STAR without selecting an approach (at least that is what I understood from your post). That is not possible in the A320, and thus I get this issue all the time. Transitions are VERY common in EU, at least in Scandinvia and Germany (countries I fly a lot), and the MSF logic, according to Navigraph devs, is to pick the first transition in alphabetical order, and as you say, then cut out "out of the way" waypoints. 

 

Also, it is worth mentioning that the issue is very visible if you program an approach that has a transition WITHOUT programming in the transition. Then MSF will just slap a transition onto your approach whether you like it or not, and that transition will be the first one in alphabetical order. 

Edited October 26, 20205 yr by Andreas Stangenes

3 minutes ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

pick the first transition in alphabetical order, and as you say, then cut out "out of the way" waypoints

Yea, the flight planning page is maddening because of this. It's what prompted me to dig into it in the first place...how can you possibly fly with just the first transition...it actually isn't even always alphabetical, all the transitions are just indexed 0 through however many there are...and it defaults to 0. So, adding enroute transitions for departures and arrivals was our first task and we did that a few weeks ago, but getting the runway transitions was harder because it has to be done by searching and matching in the name of the runway transition based on the name of the selected approach...it's not an ideal technique, but it works most of the time to cause the FMS to select the correct runway transition index.

Anyhow, I don't even bother with the flight planning page anymore except for enroute waypoints...I leave setting procedures to the FMS.

As I mentioned, it isn't perfect yet, but it's much better than it was when we started and it will just keep getting better...

5 hours ago, cwburnett said:

. I think this is due to one of two things.... (a) it's because there's logic in the sim that sometimes tries to skip waypoints that are out of the way or (b) that there's a matching problem that's occurring when there are no runway transitions at all, which is common in Europe.

You might want to have a look here:

File: OneStore\asobo-vcockpits-instruments\html_ui\Pages\VCockpit\Instruments\Shared\Map\MapInstrument.js
Line: 560

The Map code is advancing the GPS next leg on its own. In other words, on one hand you have the internal GPS code doing its stuff, and the VFR map is interfering in advancing the leg sequencing regardless. No need to report this it is already done and will take, let's say, "some time" until they make the VFR map minding its own business (I can't detail more any bit of the conversation). But there is hope they fix this in the future, I'll make sure to remind them from time to time.

Edited October 26, 20205 yr by RXP

26 minutes ago, RXP said:

You might want to have a look here:

File: OneStore\asobo-vcockpits-instruments\html_ui\Pages\VCockpit\Instruments\Shared\Map\MapInstrument.js
Line: 560

The Map code is advancing the GPS next leg on its own. In other words, on one hand you have the internal GPS code doing its stuff, and the VFR map is interfering in advancing the leg sequencing regardless. No need to report this it is already done and will take, let's say, "some time" until they make the VFR map minding its own business (I can't detail more any bit of the conversation). But there is hope they fix this in the future, I'll make sure to remind them from time to time.

Thanks! I was actually worried the advancing bug was behind the scenes, but if it is in MapInstrument, there might just be something we can do about this AND the skipping closely spaced waypoints also... I really appreciate the heads-up! RXP to the rescue as usual! 😉

So here is another problem airport: ENVA

Again, waypoints are missing from the STAR between Nediv and Bampu (the fan going westward before joining the transition for the ils 09). 

And at EKCH: 

At EDDF it isn't too bad, but still one waypoint is missing from the STAR (SPESA):

Yea, I gotta dig into these European procedures more and see what's what. Almost done testing the metric units setting for the plane...then I'll get back on this and VNAV again...

3 hours ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

At EDDF it isn't too bad, but still one waypoint is missing from the STAR (SPESA):

Definitely don't want to lead anyone astray here: the redone flight plan system I and others were speaking of is not a complete thing. We, like everyone else, are still using the sim plan builder to receive the procedure waypoints, so all the funky interpretations and waypoint drops that you see elsewhere will be present on our FMC as well, for now. We've just fixed some (many) bugs preventing you from selecting various transitions and other FMC plan management wonkiness. Whether or not we get the right waypoints back from the sim when we tell it we're selecting those procedures is a different story altogether.

Hopefully we'll have more to show folks on the new flight plan system front soon. Good progress is being made for sure.

-Matt

20 hours ago, Lorby_SI said:

PMDG never used the sim-internal nav database either - because there wasn't one. All RNAV information was hard coded into the scenery BGL files, scattered everywhere. So they decided to use external Navigraph data instead, and they can just do the same in MSFS. The "roadblock" with MSFS was/is, that a WASM module (which their FMS would likely be) cannot access the local file system that easily - so they can't access the Navigraph files - yet.

[...] 

As an add-on developer, this is exactly my concern. How to use a Navigraph database if the add-on cannot have access to the local file system? 

Because of the portability (for Xbox) Microsoft has been breaking things that were working perfect in FSX/P3D, I am not sure this is the right way to go. 

 

2 hours ago, Rocky said:

add-on cannot have access to the local file system? 

Both JS and WASM can read from the local file system. The WT Garmin stuff already uses this today to read some aircraft configurations.

-Matt

Edited October 27, 20205 yr by MattNischan

I made a topic over at MSF forums for the upcoming Dev QNA, but the topic hasn't been approved. I dont know why, but I asked the moderator about it and awaiting a reply. 

I tried to make a vote topic on the official msf forums, but my question didn't get approved. Now that part of the forum seems locked to me - I cannot make another question there. Is it just me, or can't anyone else make more questions there either?

Well, you people certainly opened a can of worms here - both philosophical and technical! This kind of begs the question: Did Microsoft bite off more than it can chew? The implication here is that IFR ops/functions are more important than lowly VFR ones - perhaps just because they are more complicated, and because MS chose to equip the aircraft with pricey and incredibly complex glass panels, which most users would expect to be reasonably functional and not just eye candy. Imagine what it must have cost Garmin, in terms of both time and development to turn out the G1000. And we expect it's functionality to be perfectly implemented in PC hobby software. I can't begin to imagine what the coding to replicate one would even look like!

I'm enjoying the challenge of glass panel ops, because since I quit flying, a lot of the real-world thrills that came from stick-and-rudder physics and the sensations that come from moving around in an ocean of air are missing. As a VFR-only pilot, the challenges of mastering IFR procedures and instrumentation in this sim are tough enough. Throw in a bunch of bugs/malfunctions/missing features and it makes me want to just quit. Where does that leave people like me?

That leaves us with good-ole' stick-and-rudder ops, and a nice variety of aircraft to play around with. And guess what you tube-liner folks...things at this end of the sim leave a lot to be desired too. Real AC all have a different feel (even amongst different members of the same family). A less-than-perfect flair and touchdown feels very different between a Beechcraft Sundowner with oleo struts, and a Cessna 140 with stiff, unyielding steel gear legs. A full-on sideslip feels very different between a Cub and a Cherokee. In fact, in this sim, I haven't yet found an AC that can actually duplicate a deep slip without introducing behavior I could only describe as "digital disaster." Not one of the GA AC available here really replicates the feel of the real thing. They do it well enough to be able to drag nostalgic feelings out of me. But it leaves ME wishing the flying (note I did NOT say flight...) characteristics of these "models" felt a little more substantial - a tad more satisfying.

IMO this sim needs attention from top to bottom! I can't imagine how software writers could replicate complex and expensive IFR gear for convincing use on a PC. I doubt they are ever going to spend enough time on the flying characteristics of the out-of-the-box AC to make an old VFR pilot like me totally happy. The biggest mistake I think designers make on sim software is to go for the numbers, instead of going more artsy and going for the "feel" - the "experience."

In the IFR world, make the gear and the system function more smoothly together, so the average user can feel like they successfully completed a flight from planning to touchdown, even if every switch and function on a panel didn't work and you didn't NEED it to. And for the VFR people, let us feel the difference in flying different types, even if things are a bit exaggerated or de-emphasized. I don't think this kind of software is intended to train pilots - VFR OR IFR. I think it's intended to give you a "flight experience" I don't think of it as a "game." I think of it as a whole package that can help me re-live some experiences. For others, who may never be able to experience the real thing, it can give them a pretty convincing taste. I think MS has set a very high bar here. I just hope they can eventually reach it.

 

  

10 minutes ago, Janov said:

The problem is that in many cases nowadays you are operating in airspace that requires a certain RNP (required navigation performance). And a lot of these, like RNP1, can only be flown with an FMS/autopilot/flightdirector combination that is capable and approved (and the pilots need to be as well).

So yes, you can fly a C-172 on V airways going from VOR to VOR like you did 50 years ago...and that is certainly IFR in the sense of the word.

But you can´t just handfly your A320 from waypoint to waypoint if you get cleared for a P-RNAV transition, the ANP (actual navigation performance) is only 1.1 if it is flown raw-data, even if the procedure is depicted accurately on the nav display. Now you "could" certainly get away with that on VATSIM, but you would still need the correct waypoints shown on the map, not even talking about radius-to-fix segments that define a curved path laterally.

You can´t operate into many (most) bigger hubs because they require a certain RNP capability which goes far beyond what used to be known as RNAV for the last few decades. These procedures require an FMS and autopilot/flight-director to fly them. There is a whole slew of nagivation procedures coming down the line, defined very precisely in 3D space and you simply can´t fly those conventionally with a DME and an HSI.

So yes, technically you can fly IFR with a very basic set of instrumentation, but if you want to simulate the way that airliners and the more complex commercial aircraft operate you need the nav database, avionics and other required onboard equipment that allows to partake in the procedures used at the airports these aircraft operate to.

Cheers, Jan

This is cross-posted from this thread, but it was such a great explanation of the issue that I wanted to get it in here to have the arguments in one place.