Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest D17S

flight path accuracy

Recommended Posts

How accurate are the flight paths for takeoff and landing in FSX compared to reality? What's a good way to compare this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Do you mean the vectors that ATC gives you? Or do you mean what the AI aircraft do? Are you talking about SIDS and STARS (pre-determined departures and arrivals)?In the answer to the first point, the default ATC is not very realistic, although a lot of that depends on your own experience as a sim pilot. What I mean is, if you just follow the ATC, then it's not realistic, although it isn't bad either.However, you can use SIDS and STARS, which can make your flight plan extremely realistic. You can manually enter in your own SIDS and STARS, or you can get an application to do it for you.Then, you can do proper Intrument Approaches using the GPS. All of the major SIDS and STARS are already pre-loaded into the GPS. You can call them up and ask ATC to allow you an Instrument Approach, in which case what you are doing is again very realistic. As for the AI aircraft, their flight plans are not very realistic. Youy can get add-ons that improve the realism somewhat, but even so, they will dive at the runway or make crazy climbs, or even disappear as you are looking at them. I guess if you live in the X-Files Universe, that would be realistic.If you want to learn more about SIDS and STARS, there's plenty of info online. As well, you can start looking at "approach plates". There are websites that provide free approach plates for airports, especially in the USA. Pilots use the plates to help guide them through proper approaches and departures. Jeff ShylukAssistant Managing EditorSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Jeff. That was helpful. I did not know about SIDS and STARS so I will definitely research them further, as well as "approach plates".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a simmer is seriously interested in learning to operate a modern aircraft navigation system, the FS platform can offer ~ 80% of that education. Both the PMDG 744/737 and the Level-D 767 addons have fully functional Flight Management Systems (FMS) modeled. The FAA issues updates to navaids (including SID and STAR routes) every month. Real world operators update their FMS with these updates. This service is also provided in our sim-world. Learning to fully operate a PMDG/Level-D FMS will take a simflyer 80+% toward being fully capable of operating the real-deal's nav system. You Will be able to sit down in a real 744/767 cockpit and basically get through an FMS setup then operate a flight from point A to point B (ONLY try this at home, boys and girls!) However, for a simmer that wants reality beyond a sightseeing tour via GEXn/UTX/FEX flybys, this is the place to start.BTW, here's the real-world, latest-and-greatest from Gulfstream. There's nothing like this modeled for FS, yet. These guys are not interested in sightseeing. They are interesting in avoiding the mountain. Watch: http://www.gulfstream.com/gulfstreamplaneview/#So, what IS the best modeled general aviation navigation system payware addon currently available for FS? Any suggestions? Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Then, you can do proper Intrument Approaches using the GPS. >All of the major SIDS and STARS are already pre-loaded into>the GPS. You can call them up and ask ATC to allow you an>Instrument Approach, in which case what you are doing is again>very realistic. >There are no SIDs and STARs pre-loaded into the default FSX GPS receiver>>As for the AI aircraft, their flight plans are not very>realistic. Youy can get add-ons that improve the realism>somewhat, but even so, they will dive at the runway or make>crazy climbs, or even disappear as you are looking at them. I>guess if you live in the X-Files Universe, that would be>realistic.>>>Jeff Shyluk>Assistant Managing Editor>Senior Staff Reviewer>AVSIM>Is that the fault of FSX? I don't see any of their planes that are flyable when used as AI based on their FP's diving at a runway, making crazy climbs or disappering from the TrafficToolBox utility that is bundled in the SDK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Jim: two tough items for me to tackle! If I got paid to work for AVSIM, I'd suggest that you are trying to get me to earn my paycheque today!Firstly, there's a good article on GPS approaches in the Larning Center. The part that I am thinking of centers around the use of the "PROC" button, which calls up Procedures. When you do that, you can call up the approaches in the database.Apart from actually booting up FSX and making a demo of how the GPS works, I can also quote from authoritative sources on GPS Instrument Approaches. Here's from Jeff van West and Kevin Lane-Cummings, who are both CFI's, and their book "Microsoft Flight Simulator For Pilots: Real World Training":"You can use a GPS for approaches, but the process is a little more complicated because you must load the approaches into the active flight plan of the GPS. Lucky for you the GPS approaches are kept in the GPS database..." p.442(On a flight from KBFI to KSHN: ) "Because you already have a flight plan of a direct route from KBFI to KSHN, the GPS prbably knows you want to shoot an approach at KSHN. To load the approach into the GPS, press the PROC button on the GNS500. Select Approach should be highlighted... Next click Enter...Now you need to choose the approach. If the GPS23 is not highlighted, use the inner knob to highlight it and click Enter. The GPS now asks you for the transition... Since you are on a vector, you can simply chose Vectors." This loads the final approach fix...When the approach is loaded, you see the flight plan page wityh a whole bunch more fixes on it. These are the fixes in the GPS approach..." (The GPS approach for 23 starts at the waypoint OYRED: )"If you like seeing the extra waypoints and holding patterns, but want to fly vectors... load and activate the approach staring at OYRED. Now press FPL to view the flight plan.... scroll... to PORSY. Now push the Menu button. You'll get a Fly Leg? option... the GPS will give you guidance on the course from OYED to PORSY... but all of the visible waypoints remain." pp. 457- 461The Chapter is #18: "GPS Approaches".Now, as for finding fault with FSX, I would suggest that as in most cases if there is a fault, the blame can be shared equally among FSX itself, the FSX interface with a third-party utility, and the misuse of the product by the end user. FSX is sold as a "complete" product, in that you can enjoy it without adding to it at all. However, if we all did that, AVSIM would be a much smaller place. That being said, not all add-ons are created equally, and some developers release products without a full understanding of how their product relates to FSX.Even more to the point, many users don't fully understand how either FSX works in its entirety or how an add-on is supposed to work. A good example is setting the Air Traffic slider to 100%. If you do that, you're going to cause a lot of stress on your computer system. A reasonable setting is 60%, tops. If you use an add-on traffic program, you can greatly multiply the number of models FSX can handle before it bogs down. Arbitrarily, I will pick 20 as the number of default AI aircraft FSX can handle at 100% at a busy airport. Using Traffic Program X, maybe that number is boosted to 200. When that happens, FSX will generate clusters of aircraft in flight and clusters on the ground. Aircraft will dive at the runway and climb in strange patterns. If the aircraft is not seen as moving fast enough, it will be "disappeared".So as I see it, the fault lays three ways: that FSX isn't adaptable enough to fully handle add-on traffic, that the add-on itself creates too much traffic for FSX to handle, and that the user is cranking the program past useful parameters. As a Reviewer, I try to crank FSX past its useful parameters every time I look at a new product, so I frequently get to see the limitations of FSX. Average users probably would not use the extreme settings I use, and they won't see the problems that I see.Jeff ShylukAssistant Managing EditorSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to compare the takeoff and landing checklist/procedures with actual realworld checklist/procedures to see how accurate it is. Does anyone know where I can get the realworld checklist/procedures for the following aircraft: Bombardier CRJ700, Bombardier Q300, Bombardier Q400, ATR72, and Embraer 170.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I'd like to compare the takeoff and landing>checklist/procedures with actual realworld>checklist/procedures to see how accurate it is. Does anyone>know where I can get the realworld checklist/procedures for>the following aircraft: Bombardier CRJ700, Bombardier Q300,>Bombardier Q400, ATR72, and Embraer 170. http://www.smartcockpit.com--

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Jeffbut you are not telling me anything that I already don't know. Since I am one of the few if any, I have been writing additional approaches and updates to the FS9/FSX database that the GPS receiver reads both pre and post .dll modes correctly. I am well aware of what documents are included in the Learning Center.For 6 years now you can find many of my updated Transition approaches for the FS9/FSX GPS Receiver here in the library. I introduced the crosswind Runway Technique in July 2005 that many use today in there AFCAD's and ADE enhanced airports. That led to many of my GPS Receiver approaches to control the behavior of AI Traffic so they can fly Curved Approaches (Kai Tak IGS13) around mountains, LDA's VORDME's BackCourses correctly, etc. in clear weather. AI Traffic can also be coded to fly a GPS Receiver Transition to the runway. That led me to introduce the multiple parallel runway arrival code system in the approach data such as used in my FSX KATL and the ones I wrote for ImagineSim's KATL FS9. Further studies and proper XML approach code as per the SDK introduced the weight restricted runway use that I have in my FSX EHAM here in the library.Many only review and look at the visual part of a highend payware or freeware scenery. They have no idea about the 108NM radius from the ARP of a airport that we call the unseen scenery. I am one of those unseen developers were my work is embedded into the GPS Receiver and the way the User/AI Traffic interacts with both the GPS Receiver and ATC. There is a ImagineSim review on the front page today of AVSIM that looks at the visual aspect only. No where did I see 'hey look, all the parallel runways (5) at Atlanta are accepting arrivals at the same time based on weight restrictions of the AI /USER aircraft and look at all those new RNAV Transitions in the GPS Receiver database that are not part of the default FSX KATL that ATC understands'. No mention of the new 10/28 which is also understood by ATC as a ILS runway and is in use both with clear weather and very poor weather. That does not happen by accident but requires additional approach coding in the unseen scenery. Not only should we look at the visual of a airport but does it work as well as FS or better. There are no STAR's in the GPS receivcer let alone any SID's. What you see in the approach section are the Transitions off a STAR arrival which lead you to the IAF for the approach of the Runway.You cannot have a LAX. ORD, DFW, ATL, EHAM STAR in the default GPS Receiver because some of those have a entrance point 350 - 400NM's from the airport. If you want the GPS Receiver and ATC to recognize a STAR arrival it has to be in the last part of a FlightPlan. AT 60 to 80 NM's from the arrival airport you tell ATC you want to decline the Novice hand holding vectors to final (the one you say is not realistic but it is) and ask for a Transition. ATC will clear you for the entrance WAYPOINT (which can be a VOR, NDB, WAYPOINT, Terminal_WAYPOINT, etc) of the Transition which then leads you to the IAF of the Active runway. >>A good example is setting the Air Traffic slider to 100%. >If you do that, you're going to cause a lot of stress >on your computer system. A reasonable setting is 60%, tops. >If you use an add-on traffic program, you can greatly >multiply the number of models FSX can handle before it bogs down. >Not True. Your system may not do it but don't tell us that our system cannot do it.Some of us have Computers that can handle all the AI traffic you can throw at it such as my FSX KATL with over 350 parking spots and every single TTool FP available for KATL, KJFK, KDFW, EHAM, etc.>>Arbitrarily, I will pick 20 as the number of default >AI aircraft FSX can handle at 100% at a busy airport. >Using Traffic Program X, maybe that number is boosted >to 200. When that happens, FSX will generate clusters >of aircraft in flight and clusters on the ground. >Aircraft will dive at the runway and climb in >strange patterns. If the aircraft is not seen >as moving fast enough, it will be "disappeared".>Your airport generated clusters of arrival traffic because many FP payware and freeware developers do not use the proper IAS in the compiled aircraft.txt file that generates a traffic bgl. That differs from the departure traffic which uses a backtime code. Many FP's are compiled with a inaccurate fixed IAS of 200 kts which sets many AI planes at the same 108 NM entrance point and time into the Visual AI Zone Sector of a airport. The default FS9/FSX seperation code can only handle 6 arrivals if they enter the exact same place at the exact same time in the Active Visual AI Zone Sector not 50 AI planes. >>So as I see it, the fault lays three ways:>that FSX isn't adaptable enough to fully >handle add-on traffic, that the add-on itself>creates too much traffic for FSX to handle, >and that the user is cranking the program past >useful parameters. >That I do agree with but you refered to AI as some type of 'if you live in the X-Files Universe, that would be realistic.'>>As a Reviewer, I try to crank FSX past its >useful parameters every time I look at >a new product, so I frequently get to see >the limitations of FSX. Average users probably >would not use the extreme settings I use, >and they won't see the problems that I see.>Some of us have to develope code with FSX set to the extremes and then we run FSX at the extreme to test our unseen scenery for the AI /User aircraft behavior. I have already said that many if not all Reviewers only look at the visual parts and not the unseen invisable parts that some of us introduce to a airport. MS does 2 things with a airport. They make it visible and make it work. What good is a highend payware sceney for a airport if it does not work.Your first post in this thread misleads User's. This is the same that happens when Reviewers look at some great looking airport and says 'wow this one is really good'. However when it does not work (nothing to do with loading and displaying) and we the user/buyer ask why, the developers say it is limitations in the design of FS9 or FSX. No, it is the limitation of the designer to recognize his/her inabilities to understand the working process of a airport in FS. Reminder, I am refering to the unseen scenery not the visual scenery.This has being going on for over 6 years.and most Reviews that we read do not help because they always say how good it looks but never say it does not work from a ATC standpoint, AI Traffic/User behavior or GPS Receiver Transition acceptance. Even the latest FSX highend payware scenery do not work properly but they look good and it appears that is all that matters. When they don't work, we do not need to post it is limitations in FS but who designed /developed what. Look at the total picture that pertains to the visual scenery, User and AI Traffic behavior based on Flight Plans, interaction with ATC fuctions because the weather engine plays an important part in the airports ability to work properly, the GPS receiver to see how many Transition Approaches are now corrupt due inpart to improper use of airport AF design utilities used.I may have gone off track here but it appears the finger is always pointed at FS when it comes to AI /User behavior, ATC, Flight Plan usage and interaction using a GPS Receiver rather then who designed and developed what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just ran a half a dozen laps around KSFO in the PMDG 744. Updated to AIRAC cycle 0807 with Dan's (Down) updated SID/STAR package. I tried vectors/transitions/the works with ATC. Nothing ATC provided (SID or STAR) corresponded to the real world data I continually - scrolled - through my ND . . . in a illusive search for what the Heck was going on with ATC. Nothing related to any rea; world waypoint, SID or STAR. Realty only "set in" after LOC capture. I understood the description that a GPS approach is only a transition from a STAR to an IAF. However a STAR IS a transition (from itself) to an IAF. This left a wee question. If this GPS approach was a transition from a STAR waypoint to the IAF waypoint, that's OK. The GPS would be a transition from one of the STAR's waypoints "direct" to one of the approach's waypoints. Fine. That's done all the time. Except in our FS world, it requires the GPS system had All of the STAR's waypoints and the approaches waypoints available. Does it? If so, where? The FAA updates this stuff Every month. It doesn't update every waypoint, but unless the any navigation system is working with current data, any reflection about reality is meaningless. FS Or Real.SIDs/STARs/ et al are all components of the AIRAC data set. Or (put another way) without the AIRAC data set, SIDS and STARS Can Not Exit. If any function of FS relates to a SID or a STAR or an Approach, it came from an AIRAC data set. So, what AIRAC data set shipped with FSX . . . and how can we update that data set? Unless this All has some basis here, we're just floating around under some AI control. And (interestingly) this is what I just experienced at SFO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites