PMDG has had the signature rule in place for over 26 years. Does anyone think they are going to change it  because of a few posters on Avsim having a hissy fit over it? 

14 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

PMDG has had the signature rule in place for over 26 years. Does anyone think they are going to change it  because of a few posters on Avsim having a hissy fit over it? 

That "does anyone think they are going to change" is applying to you, because you wrote something against to be forced to use our real name in the PMDG forums (precisely, in the DC-6 forum).

Things change and now that PMDG has having a larger customer base because the 12,000,000 msfs users, the problem of the privacy violation is more evident.

Edited December 5, 20232 yr by Claudius_

2 hours ago, Claudius_ said:

That "does anyone think they are going to change" is applying to you, because you wrote something against to be forced to use our real name in the PMDG forums (precisely, in the DC-6 forum).

Things change and now that PMDG has having a larger customer base because the 12,000,000 msfs users, the problem of the privacy violation is more evident.

That is not true. Why are you claiming I said something I didn't?

Edited December 5, 20232 yr by Bobsk8

On 12/2/2023 at 10:23 AM, LRBS said:

Clearly, it can be observed that the airplane is not tracking correctly the magenta line, oscillations left/right before and after the WPT passage, bank oscillations during turns, and very jerky and unrealistic behaviors.

I fly the 800 all the time and have none of these problems and haven’t for at least 6 months. 

5 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

That is not true.

Yessir, it's true, and it's not the first time that you write something and then you change radically your mind/opinion. If you are short on your memory, you can check your post where you were deeply disappointed about a not working DC-6 gyropilot/gps.

On 12/4/2023 at 6:09 AM, Claudius_ said:

Ask to your lawyer, these are matter of public and privacy laws, not opinions like yours.

 

I’m sorry but that’s simply not true. I work with EU privacy laws all the time. You have to give your consent to use your information, yes, BUT the part that you are missing is that EU privacy laws require that they get your consent to share your information with third parties, which they are not doing. You are consenting and posting it yourself. If you don’t want to, don’t. Up to you. For that matter you can just put Bob Johnson. 

They are not violating privacy laws. Sorry. 

Edited December 5, 20232 yr by mryan75

Just now, Claudius_ said:

Yessir, it's true, and it's not the first time that you write something and then you change radically your mind/opinion. If you are short on your memory, you can check your post where you were deeply disappointed about a not working DC-6 gyropilot/gps.

That is not what you said. You stated that I said on the PMDG forum that I was against posting my name,which is not true. Again, why are you claiming  I said something that is totally false? 

1 minute ago, mryan75 said:

I’m sorry but that’s simply not true. I work with EU privacy laws all the time. You have to give your consent to use your information, yes, BUT the part that you are missing is that EU privacy laws require that they get your consent to share your information, which they are doing. For that matter you can just put Bob Johnson. 

They are not violating privacy laws. Sorry. 

This guy just makes up stuff and posts it, even when it is false. 

Let's try to keep the topic on focus before it steers into untirely unrelated tangents like PMDG's forum habits, privacy law and or the behaviours of other members of this forum.

There is documented instances of the LNAV in PMDG not performing with respect to it's real life counter part. Now some may say that the aircraft performs fine, though it's a matter of correctness. Importing multiple TF legs to emulate a AF leg or more importantly an RF leg. These leg types are especially important to conform with ANP requirements to fly RNP approaches.

I don't think its fair to discard these important leg types, under the guise it flies them fine with TF legs (it doesn't comply with RNP and often the ANP doesn't correlate to what's seen on the ND), as this isn't correct and as customers it's fair to call out that error.

32 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

Let's try to keep the topic on focus before it steers into untirely unrelated tangents like PMDG's forum habits, privacy law and or the behaviours of other members of this forum.

There is documented instances of the LNAV in PMDG not performing with respect to it's real life counter part. Now some may say that the aircraft performs fine, though it's a matter of correctness. Importing multiple TF legs to emulate a AF leg or more importantly an RF leg. These leg types are especially important to conform with ANP requirements to fly RNP approaches.

I don't think its fair to discard these important leg types, under the guise it flies them fine with TF legs (it doesn't comply with RNP and often the ANP doesn't correlate to what's seen on the ND), as this isn't correct and as customers it's fair to call out that error.

It’s not really an “error” as much as a long-standing limitation of the nav data format they have been using for 20+ years. The current format does not support RF legs - As you noted, it displays and flys them as a series of closely spaced straight line segments, which will indeed cause the aircraft to turn/straighten/turn/straighten as it tries to follow the path. 

A completely new ARINC 424-based nav data format is coming to all PMDG aircraft, but I have no idea when. It is “in development”. The new format should support all leg types and allow the LNAV to perform turns correctly for RNP-AR procedures. It remains to be seen how it will actually work in practice.

Edited December 5, 20232 yr by JRBarrett

38 minutes ago, mryan75 said:

I fly the 800 all the time and have none of these problems and haven’t for at least 6 months. 

You do though. There's absolutely nothing wrong with not noticing, but it's how PMDG's 737 works, so there's no way someone doesn't have this issue in their addon.

The F/D is erratic at times and when the airplane follows it at a waypoint in LNAV, it often banks too far, then reduces the bank and increases it a little to settle where it's supposed to be before doing the same coming out of the turn. It's not two, smooth movements but a series of corrections. Depending on the angle of the turn it can be fine, but especially during a greater angle in cruise this is rather frequent.

24 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

There is documented instances of the LNAV in PMDG not performing with respect to it's real life counter part. Now some may say that the aircraft performs fine, though it's a matter of correctness. Importing multiple TF legs to emulate a AF leg or more importantly an RF leg. These leg types are especially important to conform with ANP requirements to fly RNP approaches.

I don't think its fair to discard these important leg types, under the guise it flies them fine with TF legs (it doesn't comply with RNP and often the ANP doesn't correlate to what's seen on the ND), as this isn't correct and as customers it's fair to call out that error.

It obviously doesn't always comply with RNP because it lacks the ability to realistically fly RF legs, but outside of this isn't it abiding by RNP requirements pretty well on a "normal" RNAV and ANP is spot on? The reason for the question is that they did release an LNAV update a while ago. Before that, it was often way off its own magenta line, but after the update it's almost spot on and following it very precisely, even if not perfectly. The roll behavior is off still.

1 hour ago, Claudius_ said:

Yessir, it's true, and it's not the first time that you write something and then you change radically your mind/opinion. If you are short on your memory, you can check your post where you were deeply disappointed about a not working DC-6 gyropilot/gps.

What the heck does that have to do with my not wanting to sign my name on the PMDG forum?

1 hour ago, JRBarrett said:

A completely new ARINC 424-based nav data format is coming to all PMDG aircraft, but I have no idea when. It is “in development”. The new format should support all leg types and allow the LNAV to perform turns correctly for RNP-AR procedures.

Oh I'm aware of the sought after LNAV 2.0, whenever we may be blessed with it. Though you're write up was really useful to those who aren't up to speed with the reasonings behind the situation.

 

1 hour ago, threegreen said:

but outside of this isn't it abiding by RNP requirements pretty well on a "normal" RNAV and ANP is spot on?

Personally I've found the aircraft way off the magenta line during RNAV capture, but the ANP states 0.2 or something miniscule. Which doesn't really correlate. This was sometime last year could've been fixed.

2 hours ago, threegreen said:

You do though.

Uh, no I don’t. I’m an instrument rated pilot, I know how an approach is flown. So again, these problems did exist and for me they no longer do. I fly the 800 literally every day. 

24 minutes ago, mryan75 said:

Uh, no I don’t. I’m an instrument rated pilot, I know how an approach is flown. So again, these problems did exist and for me they no longer do. I fly the 800 literally every day. 

I didn't tell you how to fly an approach though.

But even PMDG have acknowledged the issue with the wonkiness so I'm not sure what to make of this unless there's different versions of the addon going around. Any chance you're on a version older than the LNAV update?