NavData ? Navigraph vs MS...

[fppilot 4,389]

1 hour ago, kaosfere said:

Not sure what's going on there for you, but those show up using the latest Navigraph data in Little Navmap, at  least.

Perhaps you misunderstood me.  Those waypoints are all there in Navigraph. Did not say they were not there.  What I said was that I could not select them as initial fixes (IAF) for the approach.  I could only select BUF, BERKI, or ROC to initiate the approach.  i.e. I could not pick up the approach at the TOPKE IAF.  I had to fly to ROC first, and thence to TOPKE.  That might be necessary in a commercial jet but would rarely need to be done in a Mooney, 172, Baron, or Bonanza.

Edited April 1, 2021 by fppilot

[sergemodular 12]

Not a big deal just load the approach with ROC transition and then delete ROC or go direct to TOPKE after the last waypoint. 

Edited April 1, 2021 by sergemodular

[NAVData 24]

4 hours ago, fppilot said:

Navigraph does not provide all of the approach points in its procedures.  If I recall my IFR fllght into KBUF, I was only given the choices I have circled in blue. Those I circled in red were not offered.  Flying drawn out approaches limited to like what are offered costs unnecessary time and fuel and are not realistic for lighter aircraft.  It seems what Navigraph offers is for tubeliners and not supportive of lighter aircraft that would turn at the IAF points, including the offer of a course reversal at TRAVA. 

Hi,

this is not a Navigraph issue, it´s more a MSFS issue in their in-game flightmanagement, which will be used in the WorldMap and in all default aircraft models (Airbus, Boeing, Garmins, ...). We have reported such cases to ASOBO (via the 3rd Party Developer forum - when someone has access) and their are aware of it. They have also confirmed that this is a limitation. The "missing" points are all included and also the approach-transitions are correct. Attention! LNM doesn´t read the terminal procedures from the MSFS, it takes the terminal procedures from our external sqlite database file which we provide monthly. So, to compare it with LNM is not 100% correct because this doesn´t really view the real situation in the sim.

Currently, the only way to look, if a procedure is complete is the way over the "WorkingTitle CJ4 mod". WorkingTitle has developed their own flightmanagement and doesn´t use the in-game flightmanagement. So, they take the same files from the sim but build their own logic for their mod. So, here from the WT CJ4:

FMC page KBUF RNAV33-Y

... and here on the ND:

You see, the waypoints are all included - I have only selected the RNAV 23Y approach, with the ROC transition. The WT CJ4 reads all information correct and build also a correct flight path - that´s what is not working correctly in the default flightmanagement system and that´s what is independent of the data you use (stock or our, Navigraph data). It´s the in-game logic, which truncate waypoints, re-build STARs and approaches, and so on ...

Again, we still have reported this for months. We had also describe exactly this issue in our "Known issues" category in our forum:

https://forum.navigraph.com/t/star-approach-limitation-truncate-waypoints-odd-flightpaths-pseudo-waypoints/4321?u=navdata

Hope that helps,

Richard

 

 

[NAVData 24]

43 minutes ago, fppilot said:

 I could only select BUF, BERKI, or ROC to initiate the approach.  i.e. I could not pick up the approach at the TOPKE IAF.

TOPKE is a IAF but isn´t a own approach-transition. Therefore you have two possibilities: add the ROC transition and delete ROC, or select only the approach and add TOPKE. The same when you come from north via BULGE - WASKI is also an IAF and when you come from south via BUF, than TRAVA is the IAF. The reasons are the airway arrival restrictions of all these transitions.

When you are not authorized for the arrivials via BUF, BULGE or ROC due these restrictions, you may not use these approach transitions and than you must enter the specific IAFs.

Cheers,

Richard

Edited April 1, 2021 by NAVData

[fppilot 4,389]

5 hours ago, NAVData said:

When you are not authorized for the arrivials via BUF, BULGE or ROC due these restrictions, you may not use these approach transitions and than you must enter the specific IAFs.

Does not encounter those restrictions in Garmin trainers.  I believe the restrictions are related to speed. IRL there is no way that a 120 kt to 180 kt GA aircraft would be sent clear to Rochester to pick up an instrument approach to that runway.  ATC would determine appropriate spacing, but nothing like that!  IAFs are IAFs.  They should be available for selection.

Edited April 2, 2021 by fppilot

[fppilot 4,389]

5 hours ago, NAVData said:

Again, we still have reported this for months. We had also describe exactly this issue in our "Known issues" category in our forum:

Thank you for this insight!  I understand the reasons why some insist on proclaiming MSFS...  But MSFS  limitations like these to those of us who fly seriously, especially in IMC conditions, is highly frustrating.  I am back to logging now close to 80% of my hours in a previous sim with Reality XP and Garmin Trainer support.  In the often IMC conditions that I fly in real time simulation the excellent MSFS scenery is not even in view.  Game changer!  Asobo needs to "get in the game" so to speak.  As far as they are ahead in some areas they are as much behind in other areas.  And some of those areas are years old...

[eslader 1,791]

On 3/31/2021 at 7:15 PM, Gazzareth said:

there's any downside to using Navigraph?

I suppose the main downside would be that Navigraph provides real-world charts, and most of the taxiway designations in MSFS do not match the real world. So if you use default ATC and Navigraph, ATC will be telling you to taxi on taxiways that don't exist, or aren't where Navigraph will tell you they are. 

Other than that... Navigraph is great. 

 

[NAVData 24]

9 hours ago, fppilot said:

I believe the restrictions are related to speed.

No Frank, what I mean are these restrictions - therefore the IAFs are always after the first transition waypoints. IAF is not equal to a starting point of an approach transition. In this case, the approach-transition are BULGE, ROC and BUF and when these procedures are not authorized, you can enter the IAFs directly, but WASKI, TRAVA and TOPKE are only a part of the approach-transitions but not a transition per-se.

 

Cheers,

Richard

[fppilot 4,389]

3 hours ago, NAVData said:

but WASKI, TRAVA and TOPKE are only a part of the approach-transitions but not a transition per-se

From the Garmin Trainer: