1 hour ago, Tuskin38 said:

The A350 shouldn't have some of the same nav issues that ini A320V2 has when it comes to Navdata.

The A320 V2 issues is related to the WASM API, and ini are forced to use WASM on the Neo because it's a default aircraft.

If I understand what was said on ini Discord correctly. For example some approaches into NZCH appear fine on the Javascript API, but won't appear on the WASM API.

The ATR has the same issues because it uses WASM.

It won't solve all issues though, as they're still using the in Sim API instead of external data.

Okay, that pretty much answers my question then. Disappointing. Don't they use their own darn products? Don't they find it upsetting to realize in the preflight that you don't have procedures for certain airports?

Edited July 26, 20241 yr by NovemberUniform

9 minutes ago, NovemberUniform said:

Don't they use their own darnn products? Don't they find it upsetting to realize in the preflight that you don't have procedures for certain airports?

There's nothing they can do about it, it's an issue with the data provider not them.

I can't find any reason why they don't use external data. I'd assume it's so people aren't forced to subscribe to stay up to date, but that's a guess.

Edited July 26, 20241 yr by Tuskin38

Using the API is the right way to go, not forcing you to pay a yearly subscription like other addons do.

7 hours ago, DaWu said:

 Not having Navigraph support makes this plane completely useless no matter how good it looks.   

Maybe for you Lukas, but generally that statement is well over the top and a ridiculous overreaction. 

For for most, it won't be completely useless. It will be a miniscule handicap at best, but most users won't even notice it.

Tens of thousands of simmers will buy the plane and will enjoy it with the planning system it comes with.  The vast majority of MSFS simmers like me don't even own Navigraph and never will.

Anyway, hopefully the system coming with MSFS2024 will make this a non-issue.

1 hour ago, bobcat999 said:

Maybe for you Lukas, but generally that statement is well over the top and a ridiculous overreaction. 

For for most, it won't be completely useless. It will be a miniscule handicap at best, but most users won't even notice it.

Tens of thousands of simmers will buy the plane and will enjoy it with the planning system it comes with.  The vast majority of MSFS simmers like me don't even own Navigraph and never will.

Anyway, hopefully the system coming with MSFS2024 will make this a non-issue.

Well I fly Vatsim exclusively and not having up to date and complete navdata is not an option 

5 hours ago, Tuskin38 said:

I can't find any reason why they don't use external data. I'd assume it's so people aren't forced to subscribe to stay up to date, but that's a guess.

 

3 hours ago, Aglos77 said:

Using the API is the right way to go, not forcing you to pay a yearly subscription like other addons do.

PMDG, Fenix, Leonardo (and others) don't force you to pay yearly subscriptions, though. When you buy their products, you get the Navigraph navdata from the time of release, shipped with your purchase. This data will get old too, if you don't choose to update it. But this will not put you in a situation where you are without any procedures at all, like in the other case. This approach gives you options, which in my world is always the best approach. Don't you own any products of said developers?

7 hours ago, Tuskin38 said:

It won't solve all issues though, as they're still using the in sim API instead of external data.

What issue won't it solve now that they've confirmed to be using the JS API?

 

7 hours ago, Tuskin38 said:

because it's a default aircraft.

Not sure I get the default aircraft reasoning, default aircraft aren't constrained to WASM. most of WT's products almost entirely use the avionics SDK that's purely typescript (i.e javacsript)

Edited July 26, 20241 yr by Lucky38i

1 hour ago, NovemberUniform said:

 

Sin embargo, PMDG, Fenix, Leonardo (y otros) no te obligan a pagar suscripciones anuales. Cuando compras sus productos, obtienes los datos de navegación de Navigraph desde el momento del lanzamiento, que se envían con tu compra. Estos datos también se volverán obsoletos si decides no actualizarlos. Pero esto no te pondrá en una situación en la que te quedes sin ningún procedimiento, como en el otro caso. Este enfoque te brinda opciones, que en mi mundo siempre es el mejor enfoque. ¿No tienes ningún producto de dichos desarrolladores?

Unfortunately, this is a disadvantage for these products, as they can use Microsoft's constantly updated database, without having to pay a subscription that costs more in a year than the simulator itself.

I'm not sure you entirely understand the discussed problem. But if you don't feel affected I guess everything is fine.

Using the sim data may be a benefit in 2024 when the LIDO charts and flight planning stuff goes in. Hopefully, MS will update their nav data more frequently.

That way folks who use Navigraph are covered and those who do not can use the new 24 stuff.

4 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

Not sure I get the default aircraft reasoning, default aircraft aren't constrained to WASM. most of WT's products almost entirely use the avionics SDK that's purely typescript (i.e javacsript)

That's what one of the ini developers said on Discord, they have to use the WASM Sim API. It's specifically the Nav Data API they said, not everything in the aircraft.

 

  

4 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

What issue won't it solve now that they've confirmed to be using the JS API?

The one example I saw is if there's a mismatch between the scenery runway number and the runway number in the nav data, procedures for that runway won't show up in the flight computer.

Edited July 26, 20241 yr by Tuskin38

49 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

The one example I saw is if there's a mismatch between the scenery runway number and the runway number in the nav data, procedures for that runway won't show up in the flight computer.

This is due to scenery developers adding their own navdata into airports or adding delete flags in the scenery.xml to delete navdata. For example the deletion of a runway, MSFS then just ignores any navdata relating to that runway, even if the navdata is still applicable for other runway such as STARs and Approaches.

The Navblue Navdata is already aware of the runway not existing, There's no need for scenery devs to add their own delete flags or add their own nav data.

https://docs.flybywiresim.com/dev-corner/scenery-developers/#ils-auto-tuning

Edited July 26, 20241 yr by Lucky38i

On 7/24/2024 at 8:19 AM, abrams_tank said:

From threexgreen's comment last year:

I'm still curious how iniBuilds got the information to develop the A350. From my understanding, a lot of the information about the A350 is still confidential, and not public like the older airliners.  But I think iniBuilds implied they had access to the necessary information somehow. Obviously, they have A350 pilots giving information to them. But I think a lot of the information on the systems and internal mechanics are not fully public and the pilots don't know all that information either, so it will be interesting to see the final result of this A350 and I hope we hear about how iniBuilds got the necessary information to make the A350.

I'm not an Airbus guy, but as the drivers for IRL airliners are the same across the industry, I'm gonna bet that the 350 is very similar to the 320 in the same way that a 777 is similar to a 737.

So while there are undoubtedly differences, they were hardly starting from scratch.

On 7/24/2024 at 9:07 AM, Fiorentoni said:

 

I'm very sceptical that this will lead to a an actual correct systems depth. That's like eating 100 pots of Spaghetti Bolognese in order to "guess" the recipe.

Umm. No, not at all...

Level D simulators are as close as you can get to operating the real aircraft without buying gas.

The FMS, avionics, and other systems are what sells airliners add-ons, and those are fully represented in an IRL training tool like that 

19 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Umm. No, not at all...

Level D simulators are as close as you can get to operating the real aircraft without buying gas.

The FMS, avionics, and other systems are what sells airliners add-ons, and those are fully represented in an IRL training tool like that 

You did not understand my point at all. It's not about the simulator, it's about knowledge of systems. You can fly the Fenix in MSFS for 1000 hours straight and still would not know how to code a Fenix.