Is it possible to fly a GPS approach with vertical guidance in FSX (or FS9)? I'm able to load and activate a GPS approach but no vertical guidance is given. I'm choosing GPS approaches where I'm expecting vertical guidance. Does the FS navdata include LPV and LNAV/VNAV approaches? Would 3rd party GPS (e.g., simflyers GNS 480) show this?Thanks,C.

Unless I'm much mistaken, GPS in FSX is strictly a horizontal mode. Use the GPS to intercept the localiser/glideslope (the various approaches in the Garmin database will help), then use ILS to complete the picture. Don't forget you'll need to swap between GPS & NAV mode in your autopilot (if that's how you're descending) to get ILS to work.

I think it is possible in addon FMS-style aircraft (such as LDS767) to fly LNAV/VNAV or RNP minima, although I'm not sure that the actual performance of the FMS would meet a certification requirement. I don't see any reason that someone couldn't do a Garmin 530W or equiv that could be used for LPV minima, but don't know of any.scott s..

NO.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

Is there a 3rd party add-on that always GPS approaches with vertical guidance?

No.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

You could try FSXPilot. It will completely automate the flight from takeoff to landing, if you like. It will follow the flight plan you set out for it, so as long as you have a GPS-based flight plan in mind, it should be able to land properly. It can also navigate for you, too, so that it can auto-land in airplane without GPS guidance. All you have to do is be a passenger. Or you can interact with the aircraft at the level you are comfortable with.I'm not sure this is what you are loking for, but it's the closest thing I can think of this moment to what you are asking for.http://www.fsxpilot.com/My review of it on AVSIM:http://www.avsim.com/pages/1106/FSPilot/FSPilot.htmJeff ShylukSenior Staff Reviewer, Avsim

>Is there a 3rd party add-on that always GPS approaches with>vertical guidance?None that I know of that are 100% realistic, but...There is the little known freeware fs2x WAASv2 GPS gauge.Quoted from the fs2x site:fs2x_WAAS GPS Navigation System version 2.0. The Wide Area Augmentation System is a relatively new system for horizontal and vertical navigation that uses satellite based signals only. This eliminates the need for ground based equipment and signals, and allows the user to land on any runway at any airport in the GPS database.You can find more info and the download link here:http://www.fs2x.com/Freeware.htm#avionicsTodd

Thanks,I will check that out. Sounds like what I'm looking for. I fly IFR in real life, but want to practice some LPV approaches in FSX.C.

>None that I know of that are 100% realistic, but...>Frankly based on what I could read/see - I doubt there is even 20% realism there ;)As a real life IFR pilot if I wanted to get a realistic feel for those new exciting approaches I would rather download and play directly with the Garmin's 'official' GNS530W WAAS simulator and forget about the FSX for a moment. Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

Umm,WAAS depends on ground based equipment. That's why it only works in the lower 48, since that's the only area in the world that has the ground based WAAS stations. Europe has its own system similar to WAAS, however.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

>Europe has its own system similar to WAAS, however.But not operational yet. Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

>>None that I know of that are 100% realistic, but...>>>>Frankly based on what I could read/see - I doubt there is even>20% realism there ;)Michael:Didn't I say none that are realistic? All I did was point users to a gauge that does have vertical guidance to runways which is what the original poster asked for. But I never stated that it was realistic at any percentage.Todd

>But I never stated that it was realistic at any percentage.Absolutely correct. However human nature is such that when you say "none that are 100% realistc" very often it is assumed that perhaps it is then .. 'only' 90% realistic. This is how humans "assume" things (telemarketers make perfect use of such vagaries of human mind) therefore I wanted to dispel any such incorrect conclusions. Perhaps saying "none that are even 50% realistic" would describe the situation more succinctly :-hahMichael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

>>But I never stated that it was realistic at any percentage.>>Absolutely correct. However human nature is such that when you>say "none that are 100% realistc" very often it is assumed>that perhaps it is then .. 'only' 90% realistic. This is how>humans "assume" things (telemarketers make perfect use of such>vagaries of human mind) therefore I wanted to dispel any such>incorrect conclusions. Perhaps saying "none that are even 50%>realistic" would describe the situation more succinctly :-hah>>Michael J.Ok understood. I guess I should have said "none that are realistic". But also you know what they say about "assuming". ;-)Todd