Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
F737MAX

04MAY24 PMDG Update

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

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

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 2

Baber

 

My Youtube Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/HDOnlive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Keirtt
  • Like 7

Gaming rig
Intel i9 13900k - NZXT Kraken Z73 cooler - ASUS Maximus Hero Z790 
32GB Trident Z 6000MHz DDR5 - Gigabyte 4090 GAMING OC 24G
10 x 120mm Lian Li UNI fans - Lian Li OD11XL Case - Corsair HX1500i PSU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by Kevin_28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?


Gaming rig
Intel i9 13900k - NZXT Kraken Z73 cooler - ASUS Maximus Hero Z790 
32GB Trident Z 6000MHz DDR5 - Gigabyte 4090 GAMING OC 24G
10 x 120mm Lian Li UNI fans - Lian Li OD11XL Case - Corsair HX1500i PSU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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

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 by btacon
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

  • Like 1

i9-10900k @ 5.1GHz 32G XMP-3200 | RTX3090 | 3T m.2 | Win11 | vkb-gf ultimate & pedals | virpil cm3 throttle | 55" 4k UHDTV | HP R-G2 VR | DCS

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 5
  • Upvote 1

Jeff D. Nielsen (KMCI)

https://www.twitch.tv/pilotskcx

https://discord.io/MaxDutyDay

10th Gen Intel Core i9 10900KF (10-Core, 20MB Cache, 3.7GHz to 5.3GHz w/Thermal Velocity Boost) | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 24GB GDDR6X | 128GB Dual Channel DDR4 XMP at 3200MHz | 2TB M.2 PCIe SSD (Boot) + 2TB 7200RPM SATA 6Gb/s (Storage) | Lunar Light chassis with High-Performance CPU/GPU Liquid Cooling and 1000W Power Supply

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by JRBarrett
  • Like 6

Jim Barrett

Licensed Airframe & Powerplant Mechanic, Avionics, Electrical & Air Data Systems Specialist. Qualified on: Falcon 900, CRJ-200, Dornier 328-100, Hawker 850XP and 1000, Lear 35, 45, 55 and 60, Gulfstream IV and 550, Embraer 135, Beech Premiere and 400A, MD-80.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator | PMDG 737 for MSFS | Fenix A320 | www.united-virtual.com | www.virtual-aal.com | Ryzen 9 7950X3D | Kingston Fury Renegade 32 GB | RTX 3090 MSI Suprim X | Windows 11 Pro | HP Reverb G2 VR HMD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

spacer.png

KSBS VOR DME (amended TERPS)

spacer.png


AMD Ryzen 5800X3D; MSI RTX 3080 Ti VENTUS 3X; 32GB Corsair 3200 MHz; ASUS VG35VQ 35" (3440 x 1440)
Fulcrum One yoke; Thrustmaster TCA Captain Pack Airbus edition; MFG Crosswind rudder pedals; CPFlight MCP 737; Logitech FIP x3; TrackIR

MSFS; Fenix A320; A2A PA-24; HPG H145; PMDG 737-600; AIG; RealTraffic; PSXTraffic; FSiPanel; REX AccuSeason Adv; FSDT GSX Pro; FS2Crew RAAS Pro; FS-ATC Chatter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...