Hi Jim, yes I did, all the way to the bottom. All I have listed is:

Ottawa Approach 135.15
CYOW 121.15
CYOW 132.95
Ottawa Clearance 119.40
Ottawa Departure 128.17
Ottawa Ground 121.90
Ottawa Tower 118.80

If you have the ILS listed (ILS 07 109.50 and ILS32 110.30) and I don't, then may be there is something wrong with my setup.

Confirm you see those 2 ILS listed using Roman's CYOW v1.1?

Edited April 17, 20215 yr by NBouc
Added what is listed

1 hour ago, NBouc said:

 

Not wanting to contradict you, but on my sim they don't 😞

Noel, I checked with and without my Navigraph subscription active and only the COMM frequencies are listed, not the ILS ones. I tested with the latest CYOW v1.1 update issued today.

I can understand that this is important to you, if you don't have easy access to approach plates, but for me, having a Navigraph subscription, I never check the ILS frequencies in this manner since I always display the Navigraph charts to have the full information regarding any approach.

Thanks Normand.  Part of my reaction to this issue came from first learning about and enjoying using the feature that obviates the need to look outside the sim, though yes indeed it's not really a big deal, that is to say having to look outside the sim for something like an ILS frequency.  It was the principle of the thing as it were--to create addon payware airport and omit this desirable capability that Asobo enabled in-sim.  I didn't like the issue of payware removing functionality, even though we both agree it's not a major deal.  And it begs the question, what other attributes present in the default airports might be left out of an addon airport in the transalation, since we have proven there indeed are transcription errors?  Anyway, I gave it lots of effort and yet it hasn't made it to people like developers like Roman, which is unfortunate.  Umberto, of FSDreamTeam, has managed to learn how to do this correctly apparently--his CYVR does in fact populate ILS frequency data and there is information in the link above  from.

Oh boy. Do I have a lot of egg on my face.

When I checked earlier, I had forgotten that I had turned off Roman's airport add-on off, as I was flying around east Africa.

Turns out the ILS freq's are missing from the MFD Waypoint info in the TBM.

Apologies to all concerned.

(My comment concerning how the question was originally asked still stands, but I do understand the frustration this can cause).

Roman, here's the relevant part of Umberto's post that explains what is going on:

Quote

MSFS doesn't have any 3rd party airplanes with custom FMC yet, but has planes that DO offer automatic tuning and, it seems they cannot find an ILS, unless it comes WITH the runway. I think such ILS would still work when tuned manually, it's just the auto-tune that doesn't work if the ILS is coming from the default and not with the runway. 

It's not the SDK doesn't allow to create and ILS, because it surely does. It's the visual *Scenery Editor* that can't ( although we have been promised this will be fixed soon ) so, if you create a new runway with it, there's no way to add an ILS using the Scenery Editor. But editing the resulting XML code generated by the Scenery Editor manually, to add an ILS, seems to work just fine, it's just annoying, because you must find all lat/long coordinates of the localizer, glide and dme on a map, and eventually tweak them a bit to match your own custom scenery ground textures, but it works.

Note that this is from November, 2020 and apparently has yet to be fixed by Asobo.

If I understand what he is saying, it is that the FMS auto tune will not work on a custom runway created via the scenery editor, even if you do not "delete" the ILS in scenery editor. The default ILS itself still works, but it has to be manually tuned in the FMS.

The way around that (for now) is to delete the ILS in scenery editor, and then go into the scenery XML and manually add the ILS information for each runway. Apparently that is not a fun job. IE: "you must find all lat/long coordinates of the localizer, glide and dme on a map, and eventually tweak them a bit to match your own custom scenery ground textures"

...jim

 

One last comment, Noel,

Thanks for calming down. Appreciated.

But, just to let you know that there are some default airports that do not auto tune the ILS frequency. I've flown into a couple of hundred airports in Canada, the US, Europe and Africa, and have learned to check the RAD/NAV page in the A320NX after setting up the flight plan (with a preselected ILS approach), to make sure the ILS frequency is there. If not, I quickly jump over to Little Nav Map, zoom in to the airport in question, grab the ILS freq and enter it in the RAD/NAV page. And then it's on to an enjoyable flight.

If I am letting ATC pick the approach, and it is an ILS approach, again, once selected in the flight plan, I check the RAD/NAV page and proceed accordingly. Agreed that having to do that mid flight is a bit annoying, but I just think of it as checking my EFB to ensure that the right freq is in the RAD/NAV page. 😉

All the best,

...jim

 

57 minutes ago, JimBrown said:

Oh boy. Do I have a lot of egg on my face.

When I checked earlier, I had forgotten that I had turned off Roman's airport add-on off, as I was flying around east Africa.

Turns out the ILS freq's are missing from the MFD Waypoint info in the TBM.

Apologies to all concerned.

 

No worries Jim, can happen to anyone. At least I now know that I don't have to search my computer for a non-existing mis-configuration 🙂

Best regards,

Edited April 18, 20215 yr by NBouc
typo

2 hours ago, JimBrown said:

Oh boy. Do I have a lot of egg on my face.

When I checked earlier, I had forgotten that I had turned off Roman's airport add-on off, as I was flying around east Africa.

Turns out the ILS freq's are missing from the MFD Waypoint info in the TBM.

Apologies to all concerned.

(My comment concerning how the question was originally asked still stands, but I do understand the frustration this can cause).

Roman, here's the relevant part of Umberto's post that explains what is going on:

Note that this is from November, 2020 and apparently has yet to be fixed by Asobo.

If I understand what he is saying, it is that the FMS auto tune will not work on a custom runway created via the scenery editor, even if you do not "delete" the ILS in scenery editor. The default ILS itself still works, but it has to be manually tuned in the FMS.

The way around that (for now) is to delete the ILS in scenery editor, and then go into the scenery XML and manually add the ILS information for each runway. Apparently that is not a fun job. IE: "you must find all lat/long coordinates of the localizer, glide and dme on a map, and eventually tweak them a bit to match your own custom scenery ground textures"

...jim

 

Hopefully Roman Design updates their offering after which I will def consider picking up CYOW.

2 hours ago, JimBrown said:

One last comment, Noel,

Thanks for calming down. Appreciated.

...But, just to let you know that there are some default airports that do not auto tune the ILS frequency.

...jim

 

Well I've yet to fly into one that was missing its ILS freq.   But in any case, believe me I patiently went thru channels to bring this to the attention of Asobo and two devs but alas it seems to fall on def ears in large part, so airport after airport continues to get churned out without this capability.  I'm quite happy w/ the default airports in MSFS as they are vastly superior to the relative garbage in P3D which is where I come from.

13 hours ago, Roman Design said:

Nice! What's this stairs vehicle? I've never seen it before. Is it an addon or replacement for defaults?

I’m using this addon

https://secure.simmarket.com/latinvfr-arex-north-america-msfs-(de_14653).phtml

 

Edited April 18, 20215 yr by Tuskin38

16 hours ago, Noel said:

Thanks Normand.  Part of my reaction to this issue came from first learning about and enjoying using the feature that obviates the need to look outside the sim, though yes indeed it's not really a big deal, that is to say having to look outside the sim for something like an ILS frequency.  It was the principle of the thing as it were--to create addon payware airport and omit this desirable capability that Asobo enabled in-sim.  I didn't like the issue of payware removing functionality, even though we both agree it's not a major deal.  And it begs the question, what other attributes present in the default airports might be left out of an addon airport in the transalation, since we have proven there indeed are transcription errors?  Anyway, I gave it lots of effort and yet it hasn't made it to people like developers like Roman, which is unfortunate.  Umberto, of FSDreamTeam, has managed to learn how to do this correctly apparently--his CYVR does in fact populate ILS frequency data and there is information in the link above  from.

Now this is a much calmer tone. There wasn't any factual problem with what you said. in fact, you were correct about pointing out the problem, which i I did say I will look into. It's the accusatory and aggressive tone that is the problem, repeating "threats", and assuming evil developers omit it "because they don't think it's important". I can tell you that what SDK documentation says is that you selectively overwrite the airport features only for what you want to redo. It doesn't say you HAVE to erase and redo all ILSs in order for the autopilot to work, this doesn't make any sense. Nor is it a known practice I heard of or read in a closed developer forum. But indeed, I tested it the ILS freqs are gone in TBM. The problem does exist, and it's a MSFS bug. So I suspect other developers might not like the accusatory tone, that's why you are getting no reaction from most. You should not blame the developers for what is clearly the MSFS undocumented bug. This is another bug that came out of the blue and we have no idea why. It's not because I "omitted" something or decided it's not important. I specifically "preserved" default ILSs, but MSFS bug still prevents them from working. So I did everything by the book, but the book is trash. Literally, SDK documentation is incomplete and too basic, while there are plenty of bugs - and this one is not the one that I' could have thought to test for. I just checked the needles to make sure ILSs are working.

Now, the important think is what I can do about it. I have now extracted/decompiled the original ILS information from bgl, marked to ERASE the defaults and places the ILS strings in my XML. Basically I erased the defaults and defined them again, the exact copy. I hope that should fix the problem. Will it? I hope so.  I will test. This will be out in the next update. Now, if someone familiar with the solution - let me know if that's all I have to do.

Here is my definition as after the change:

		<Ils lon="-75.64169" lat="45.32659" alt="112.776" frequency="109.500" magvar="13.600" range="50017.000" backCourse="TRUE" heading="70.996" width="4.4" ident="IOW" name="ILS RW07">
			<GlideSlope lon="-75.66687" lat="45.31388" alt="112.776" range="50017.000" pitch="3.000" />
		</Ils>
		<Ils lon="-75.69139" lat="45.3297" alt="111.861" frequency="110.300" magvar="13.600" range="50017.000" backCourse="TRUE" heading="319.984" width="3.7" ident="IRP" name="ILS RW32">
			<GlideSlope lon="-75.65884" lat="45.31116" alt="111.861" range="50017.000" pitch="3.000" />
		</Ils>
		<DeleteAirport deleteAllApproaches="FALSE" deleteAllApronLights="FALSE" deleteAllAprons="TRUE" deleteAllFrequencies="TRUE" deleteAllHelipads="FALSE" deleteAllRunways="TRUE" deleteAllStarts="TRUE" deleteAllTaxiways="TRUE" deleteAllBlastFences="FALSE" deleteAllBoundaryFences="FALSE" deleteAllJetways="TRUE" deleteAllControlTowers="FALSE" deleteAllDepartures="FALSE" deleteAllArrivals="FALSE" deleteAllPaintedElements="TRUE" deleteAllLightSupports="FALSE" deleteAllTaxiwaySigns="TRUE" deleteAllILSs="TRUE" deleteAllTerminalWaypoints="FALSE" deleteAllTerminalNDBs="FALSE"/>

 

Edited April 18, 20215 yr by Roman Design
code added

18 minutes ago, Roman Design said:

 It's the accusatory and aggressive tone that is the problem, repeating "threats", and assuming evil developers omit it "because they don't think it's important". I

I'm sorry for you that you found any of that 'accusatory'.  There was frustration that yet another likely nice product made it out the door w/o this feature being incorporated.  I didn't accuse you of anything but I will now:  if you had just read the first few lines of those '15 pages' you would quickly have learned of the issue, and would have learned of the work around that Umberto refers to.  Instead, you went off w/ a long tirade about being accused and attacked, which again I can only conclude has to do with your own hypersensitivity.  It is a fact I won't by any 3rd party airports that don't incorporate this feature, and there will be a few others who will feel the same.  That is the reality and if you perceive that as a 'threat', that's your problem.   

I'm glad you've settled down and took the time to appreciate the issue, and will try to fix it.  You're welcome--glad to let you know where you can improve your work.  Once it's resolved I will put CYOW on my short list.

Edited April 18, 20215 yr by Noel

3 minutes ago, Noel said:

I'm sorry for you that you found any of that 'accusatory'.  There was frustration that yet another likely nice product made it out the door w/o this feature being incorporated.  I didn't accuse you of anything but I will now:  if you had just read the first few lines of those '15 pages' you would quickly have learned of the issue, and would have learned of the work around that Umberto refers to.  Instead, you went off w/ a long tirade about being accused and attacked, which again I can only conclude has to do with your own hypersensitivity.  It is a fact I won't by any 3rd party airports that don't incorporate this feature, and there will be a few others who will feel the same.  That is the reality and if you perceive that as a 'threat', that's your problem.   

I'm glad you've settled down and took the time to appreciate the issue, and will try to fix it.  You're welcome--glad to let you know where you can improve your work.  Once it's resolved I will put CYOW on my short list.

Seriously? You're the one was coming across aggressively here.

Go take care of Roman he needs your sympathy.  I'm done here.

6 minutes ago, Noel said:

I'm sorry for you that you found any of that 'accusatory'.  There was frustration that yet another likely nice product made it out the door w/o this feature being incorporated.  I didn't accuse you of anything but I will now:  if you had just read the first few lines of those '15 pages' you would quickly have learned of the issue, and would have learned of the work around that Umberto refers to.  Instead, you went off w/ a long tirade about being accused and attacked, which again I can only conclude has to do with your own hypersensitivity.  It is a fact I won't by any 3rd party airports that don't incorporate this feature, and there will be a few others who will feel the same.  That is the reality and if you perceive that as a 'threat', that's your problem.   

I'm glad you've settled down and took the time to appreciate the issue, and will try to fix it.  You're welcome--glad to let you know where you can improve your work.  Once it's resolved I will put CYOW on my short list.

Noel (my middle son's name btw) pardon the fatherly tone:  My Mom had a boatload of sayings that imparted bits of wisdom I am still (at the age of 48) discovering.  One of these that I heard repeatedly throughout childhood I understood soon after I first heard it although to this day it invokes a rather comical mental image: You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.   While I'm sure you can grok this without assistance I will nonetheless 'break it down'.  Whoever or whatever your target audience is you will always get a more welcoming productive response when addressing them with geniality, kindness and respect.   I challenge you to objectively analyze your posts in this thread and compare that with an analysis of others posting in this same thread to the target audience, Roman Design.  If you do not see the difference I concede without further discussion.  To me the tone and choice of words is clearly aggressive at the least and should you desire a better more productive response (as your posts indicate) perhaps you should consider the aforementioned aphorism.

Good day.

 

1 minute ago, badgenes said:

I challenge you to objectively analyze your posts in this thread and compare that with an analysis of others posting in this same thread to the target audience, Roman Design.

Thank you for the fatherly advise.   I'll take you up on your challenge:

As said, my first post here was one born out of frustration at having patiently presented this issue to Asobo thru Zendesk, to Orbx, and to LVFR, with essentially no response.   I have months of history with this, and what you saw in my first post was indeed born out of frustration, which I stated in a latter post.   All of the posts I made to these folks were cordial, carefully laid out to make clear what the issue is, and to date nothing's been done.  Lots of airports released in the market place all likely still containing the issue.  Here's the first post I made which got the attention of Roman Designs:  https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/598985-cyow-ottawa-international-airport-is-available/?do=findComment&comment=4520212    Real wicked post wasn't it?  Hardly.

Roman Designs responded reasonably, inquisitively.  So I then took the time to list several posts about this issue so as not to have to re-explain the entire thing yet again.  If he had taken just a minute to read the first few lines of those he would have been on to the issue quickly.   Here was my 2nd post:  https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/598985-cyow-ottawa-international-airport-is-available/?do=findComment&comment=4520244   Another real accusatory and aggressive post right?  Yeah, sure.

Roman Designs then indicated he still wasn't sure what the issue nor resolution was, so I gave him this wicked challenge:

Very easy:  load up the TBM930 at any airport, in the MFD chose Waypoint Info, enter your CYOW, choose the Freq tab, and note if they correctly appear where they should.  If you don't know what I'm talking about read the first linked thread and you will see with in a couple of posts what I'm talking about.  I would never buy your airport until this is proven to work as all default airports work in this regard!

 

Was this too aggressive for the developer?   Yes, I wanted to make clear again this issue will matter to me, hint hint, and others, hint hint, so you may want to pay attention and see what's happening.

Here was RD's reply:

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/598985-cyow-ottawa-international-airport-is-available/?do=findComment&comment=4520280

I'm sorry, but really?  

I'm glad he will address the issue.  So in the end, this method of getting this developer to actually take notice--worked.  All other patient, informative attempts floundered at Asobo, Orbx and LVFR.  Here's my most recent attempt at Orbx let's see what Misha says now:  https://orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/205774-have-you-made-sure-w-msfs-airports-include-the-display-of-ils-frequencies-in-waypoint-info-airport-frequecies/?do=findComment&comment=1749817

Nothing yet, but hopefully he will respond.

 

 

Fair enough.  I do see your point.  And I think I have your typical mode of speaking (at least on the Internet) down as well so that I can understand that perhaps you sound harsher to others due to syntactical and vocabulary choice.  Something to consider for everyone involved.  I can totally get that you didn't intend to come off the way it seemed but given the sentence construction and chosen words it could appear that way.  It isn't always how WE view things that matters as much as how those we interact with do is perhaps a relevant rider to my previous post.  Don't get me wrong I am about as contrarian and non-conformist as you can get and still earn a reasonable living so the opinion of others isn't often a factor in my decisions.  I have learned to bend a bit in regard to that 'earning a living' part.  A wee bit and no more 🙂  Beyond that everyone can word not allowed me running for all that I care :0 

As I promised, I concede the point.  and bid you adieu.