3 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Matt Nischan setting the record straight in his usually polite way 🙂 https://forum.pmdg.com/forum/main-forum/general-discussion-news-and-announcements/293866-may-the-fourth-be-with-you-2024-ah-the-cone-of-silence-but-we-are-nearly-through-it?p=294633#post294633

Wouldn't be surprised if he gets a snarky reply from the randazoo. You can expect the unexpected from the randazoo.

12 minutes ago, Baber20 said:

Wouldn't be surprised if he gets a snarky reply from the randazoo. You can expect the unexpected from the randazoo.

Guy got called out by one of the nicest folks in the industry. Matt always keeps it classy & professional which is why he is so well liked!

Edited May 8, 20242 yr by Keirtt

Just throwing this out there. Did Robert say that all developers aircraft read ARINC 424, but do not have full compliance for all leg types, or did he just say many?

Edited May 8, 20242 yr by Kevin_28

12 minutes ago, Kevin_28 said:

Just throwing this out there. Did Robert say that all developers aircraft read ARINC 424, but do not have full compliance for all leg types, or did he just say many?

Matt didn't insinuate that he said "all developers".... so what's your point?

13 minutes ago, Kevin_28 said:

Just throwing this out there. Did Robert say that all developers aircraft read ARINC 424, but do not have full compliance for all leg types, or did he just say many?

Many, but you already knew that because you obviously read.  So…what’s the point you are throwing out here?  

9 minutes ago, Keirtt said:

Matt didn't insinuate that he said "all developers".... so what's your point?

 

7 minutes ago, btacon said:

Many, but you already knew that because you obviously read.  So…what’s the point you are throwing out here?  

I'm trying to figure out what record Matt is trying to set straight. Robert is saying that many developers don't do something. Matt comes in and says his does it. People are taking it to mean that Robert is being put in his place.

12 minutes ago, Kevin_28 said:

 

I'm trying to figure out what record Matt is trying to set straight. Robert is saying that many developers don't do something. Matt comes in and says his does it. People are taking it to mean that Robert is being put in his place.

Don’t understand your dilemma here.  Who are “people” and why should you care?  Matt disparaged no one.  He just said he wanted to clear up some misconceptions.  No harm, no foul in my eyes.  Choose your own battles! Not Robs and Matt’s especially because there is no battle there LoL

-B

I must address this misconception here though (or perhaps just a misunderstanding or information gap): the MSFS Avionics Framework based systems (G1000 NXi, G3000/G5000, GNS430/530W, CJ4, 747-8i, and 787) all support the full suite of leg types and vectorizations defined in ARINC 424

Edited May 8, 20242 yr by btacon

10 minutes ago, Kevin_28 said:

 

 People are taking it to mean that Robert is being put in his place.

"people" who?  
and "being put in his place?"  is this some sort of macho avsim dominance talk? 

This is going to get out of control really quick when people start talking past each other because, well, it's the internet.  

Let's see if I can help here.

1.  I don't think RSR was intentionally trying to call out anyone in particular, but making more of a completive statement, maybe.  More so trying to assure us, the consumer that they are trying to go really In depth with the new navdata format.  That can easily come out wrong.  Not saying some devs maybe haven't gone that far, but not sure RSR is actually trying to find fault, necessarily.

2.  I don't think Matt was necessarily calling out PMDG either, but merely pointing out that they have, with their stuff have gone that far, or as far as they reasonably can while leaving the door open for even more refinement.  I think Matt was also wanting us, the consumer and PMDG to know that they have also taken all that into account.  

Both statements appear to be generalizing, which is fine.  

That's my take.

1 minute ago, Jeff Nielsen said:

This is going to get out of control really quick when people start talking past each other because, well, it's the internet.  

Let's see if I can help here.

1.  I don't think RSR was intentionally trying to call out anyone in particular, but making more of a completive statement, maybe.  More so trying to assure us, the consumer that they are trying to go really In depth with the new navdata format.  That can easily come out wrong.  Not saying some devs maybe haven't gone that far, but not sure RSR is actually trying to find fault, necessarily.

2.  I don't think Matt was necessarily calling out PMDG either, but merely pointing out that they have, with their stuff have gone that far, or as far as they reasonably can while leaving the door open for even more refinement.  I think Matt was also wanting us, the consumer and PMDG to know that they have also taken all that into account.  

Both statements appear to be generalizing, which is fine.  

That's my take.

That's what I mean. I don't see this as Matt is necessarily correcting Robert but merely saying that his avionics does this. That doesn't necessarily negate what Robert said either.

PANS-OPS really isn’t a feature of ARINC 424 directly, or any particular FMS. It is an ICAO set of standards used by those agencies which actually design instrument procedures. It dictates (among other things), the amount of lateral and vertical protection that must be afforded to aircraft maneuvering in the vicinity of terrain or obstacles while flying a procedure. From a regulatory standpoint, PANS-OPS can even affect industries or activities that are not directly involved in aviation. For instance, it can put limits on the maximum height of buildings that could potentially intrude into protected airspace that is part of a instument procedure, which builders must adhere to.

The US does not use PANS-OPS, but a different set of standards called TERPS in the design of instrument procedures. An aircraft that flies internationally like the 777, could be affected by both standards.

If a particular procedure has been designed in compliance with PANS-OPS, then an aircraft FMS and autopilot must be able to fly the procedure “as published”, and adhere to whatever lateral or vertical path limitations exist in the procedure. In general an FMS/Autopilot/Nav Database certified for RNP or (particularly) RNP-AR should be compliant. 

Edited May 8, 20242 yr by JRBarrett

Isn't anyone else getting tired of flight sim politics? All this constant back and forth about what developers said, who blamed who, the customers, excuses, the update is too long, attitudes, egos, manipulation... you name it.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm finally getting proper navdata and that's what's important. I don't really care whatever some flight sim addon developer said in a comment on a post on page 13 in their forums and what words were used. Who cares.

13 hours ago, JRBarrett said:

 If a particular procedure has been designed in compliance with PANS-OPS, then an aircraft FMS and autopilot must be able to fly the procedure “as published”

Absolutely correct in all what @JRBarrett says.

As an example, for Circle-to-Land procedures, the minimum visibility criteria, approach speeds per aircraft category and circling radius are much greater with PANS-OPS than TERPS.

Even the bank angle required in TERPS procedures can vary between 20° and 25° per aircraft category, whereas PANS-OPS has all aircraft based on a 20° bank angle.

In light of this, the FAA has been publishing new approaches with greater boundaries of protected airspace for circling approaches.

You can differentiate these newer, larger arcs for Circle-to-Land procedures on charts through the presence of the letter 'C', either in a black diamond (Jeppeson) or black box (other).

KASE LOC DME (TERPS)

KSBS VOR DME (amended TERPS)