Asobo has created a beautiful shell, the graphics are stunning, but it is almost empty. You, FBW guys, make it a masterpiece by developing the flight systems and avionics.
Anything that brings reality closer is welcome, and a more accurate nav database is an essential part of that.

We cannot thank you enough for your admirable work and for your expertise.

Sounds good, as long as you maintain the ability to load a default MSFS flightplan. 

As FBW is going to work with Microsoft and Asobo, why don't you use this oportunity to make it available in the default sim ?

Does Microsoft have a partnership with Navblue? Will FBW have a partnership with Microsoft? 

Yes and yes. I think you should find a way to make the default Navdata better since you are/will all work together.

This simulator has been advertized as an all-in-one sim and this is what is the most attractive thing about it.

@Iceman I love and admire what you are doing but Please keep it simple.

Edited March 19, 20215 yr by Noooch

Yes please!

13 hours ago, Noooch said:

As FBW is going to work with Microsoft and Asobo, why don't you use this oportunity to make it available in the default sim ?

Does Microsoft have a partnership with Navblue? Will FBW have a partnership with Microsoft? 

Yes and yes. I think you should find a way to make the default Navdata better since you are/will all work together.

This simulator has been advertized as an all-in-one sim and this is what is the most attractive thing about it.

@Iceman I love and admire what you are doing but Please keep it simple.

Since when is FBW going to work with MS? Did I miss something? I know WT is.

Please add my approval to this idea.

Good luck with all of your future work and many thanks for contributions to date.

Yes for me

You're going to have to make both datasets available if you don't want to end up at the end of a pitchfork.

Edited March 20, 20215 yr by ANCRM114

Very big yes from me as well, it would tie in nicely with all the other programs that use it.

7 hours ago, FlyingInACessna said:

Since when is FBW going to work with MS? Did I miss something? I know WT is.

Feedback Snapshot Top Wishes nr1.

Hopefully the same kind of partnership they now have with WorkingTitle.

On 3/18/2021 at 1:20 PM, espent said:

Considering your new role I just wanted to say that I am very happy to see that you are initiating these kind of discussions. Great stuff!

Thanks!

This feedback loop is incredibly, incredibly critical. Without specific examples of the kinds of issues described, they can't be corrected, whether that be on the source data side or the simulator side. We obviously have our own list of navdata quibbles, but the more eyes the better, because without that there's no way to know what to correct and on what end.

Again, I encourage @IcemanFBW and anyone else working with the navdata to talk to us directly with those examples; so far we don't have any contact in that regard and that makes it difficult to help as fully as we would like to. After all, that's one of the whole big points of this partnership: we're still the same 5 dudes in the community, and we're going to be reachable and listening, as we always have tried to be.

-Matt

@MattNischan @kaosfere

Matt, Rob et al-

More than any other single facet, my hope is that WT will bring Asobo credible ability to dialogue with MS re. establishing a solid foundation of simulation before adding more icing (no pun intended, or perhaps this is a Freudian Slip?) to the slightly askew cake.  We are all thrilled with the viewable potential, but there are elemental shortcomings that despite lipstick, still detract from the delight and illuminate largely Porcine content.

God Speed WT's journey... (and FBW's)!

C

 

Edited March 20, 20215 yr by cavaricooper

13 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

Thanks!

This feedback loop is incredibly, incredibly critical. Without specific examples of the kinds of issues described, they can't be corrected, whether that be on the source data side or the simulator side. We obviously have our own list of navdata quibbles, but the more eyes the better, because without that there's no way to know what to correct and on what end.

Again, I encourage @IcemanFBW and anyone else working with the navdata to talk to us directly with those examples; so far we don't have any contact in that regard and that makes it difficult to help as fully as we would like to. After all, that's one of the whole big points of this partnership: we're still the same 5 dudes in the community, and we're going to be reachable and listening, as we always have tried to be.

-Matt

One big concern I have with the default data supplied by NavBlue is missing approaches for many smaller US airports. One in particular aggravates me, because it is my home airport, KELM. The airport has 2 ILS and 4 WAAS LPV RNAV approaches, and all are missing in the NavBlue data, and have been since sim release in August.

I work in corporate aviation as an avionics tech on a fleet of six aircraft, and was able to verify through a friend who operates a Citation in Florida (and who, at the time, was NavBlue as a database supplier), that these same 6 KELM approaches were missing in the AIRACS NavBlue supplies to actual aircraft operators. This verifies that this is definitely not an MSFS/Asobo problem but a problem at NavBlue’s end. This was so concerning to me that I contacted NavBlue directly in September to alert them of the issue, and they assured me that it would be corrected - but the approaches are still missing in MSFS as of Sim Update 3. My contact in Florida is now using a LIDO database, so I have no way of verifying if NavBlue has fixed the problem in their r/w AIRACs.

Regarding KELM, I have filed 6 ZenDesk reports since August, but nothing has changed. I can’t blame Asobo, because they are kind of at the mercy of NavBlue in this regard.

Another northeastern US airport missing all approaches in MSFS default nav data is Nashua, NH (KASH), which has one ILS and two RNAV approaches, all missing in MSFS default since release.

In my own case, I use the Navigraph beta replacement for the default nav data, which restores all missing approaches. 

When MSFS was first announced, I was surprised to see that Microsoft had partnered with NavBlue as the official database supplier. In FSX the partnership was with Jeppesen, and that company is, (and always has been), very “aware” of the flight sim industry and very supportive of the use of their data in flight simulation. 

On 3/19/2021 at 11:49 AM, Noooch said:

As FBW is going to work with Microsoft and Asobo, why don't you use this oportunity to make it available in the default sim ?

Does Microsoft have a partnership with Navblue? Will FBW have a partnership with Microsoft? 

Yes and yes. I think you should find a way to make the default Navdata better since you are/will all work together.

This simulator has been advertized as an all-in-one sim and this is what is the most attractive thing about it.

@Iceman I love and admire what you are doing but Please keep it simple.

I have a navigraph chart sub and i am a huge fan of what they have done but I agree with the above.

MS are paying NavBlue to give us nav data in the sim for free unless NavBlue actually doesn't have the data to begin with then we should try and be working with MS to make it better.

This will also mean other aircraft in the future can use better NavData.

3 hours ago, MattNischan said:

Thanks!

This feedback loop is incredibly, incredibly critical. Without specific examples of the kinds of issues described, they can't be corrected, whether that be on the source data side or the simulator side. We obviously have our own list of navdata quibbles, but the more eyes the better, because without that there's no way to know what to correct and on what end.

Again, I encourage @IcemanFBW and anyone else working with the navdata to talk to us directly with those examples; so far we don't have any contact in that regard and that makes it difficult to help as fully as we would like to. After all, that's one of the whole big points of this partnership: we're still the same 5 dudes in the community, and we're going to be reachable and listening, as we always have tried to be.

-Matt

It would probably best if one of the FBW devs talked to you directly, however in the meantime there is a design document on the FBW github that lays out their thinking about flight path management with some references to nav data: https://github.com/flybywiresim/a32nx/issues/4028

TLDR:

Quote

The navdata APIs from inside the sim are lacking and do not provide all the information stored in the bgl.

 

Edited March 20, 20215 yr by gdjak

7 hours ago, Noooch said:

Feedback Snapshot Top Wishes nr1.

Hopefully the same kind of partnership they now have with WorkingTitle.

That’s not quite the same thing. This was the community asking for Asobo to essentially “approve of” what FBW is doing and communicate with them to help them out. It does not mean at all that FBW is going to be hired by Microsoft, nor does it mean what they’re doing will be put in the base sim. It just means they’ll gain early access to updates for testing, as well as the ability to contact Asobo regarding fixes for the airplane (which has already been happening for months).

Working Title’s situation is very different. Asobo realized the base sim avionics were lacking, as well as the SDK and their ability to effectively communicate with other third parties, and seeing that WT was doing better than they probably ever could in regards to fixing up these avionics, they hired them. If I remember correctly, the guys at WT are all professional software engineers and/or pilots. This isn’t to say the work the FBW team is doing isn’t great (it’s incredible work, and they’re an amazing team!), but this is simply a different type of partnership.

Edited March 20, 20215 yr by FlyingInACessna