6 hours ago, Antipodeslonghaul said:

Ah, I remember having some good times flying some air to air combat missions (PC! not real) back in the day. I wouldn't mind getting a military flight sim, but I guess nowadays I'd still be more into boring flight planning and long haul transport scenarios, maybe flying BK containers and frozen Whopper patties half way around the world.

Yeah, I get you entirely. And many times I’m all about civilian flying. 🤙

In re DCS, the truth is I spend at least as much time just flying around as I do on the pew pew. The addons are just that satisfyingly well crafted  

for e.g., the Tomcat is relatively uncomplicated from a systems standpoint, but hoo boy - getting it back onto an aircraft carrier in proper form takes a lot of practice (especially at night)! It’s easy to fly, but hard to fly WELL 😁👍

Edited November 4, 2025Nov 4 by UrgentSiesta

8 hours ago, LRBS said:

Based on what you're mentioning, it seems to be an arbitrary decision on ASOBO's part regarding the signal

I'm not understanding how you're coming to that conclusion.

The range value is set directly in the navdata. If any third party sim navdata provider wants a particular ILS DME or LOC to have a range of 75NM, they just need to set that range value to 75NM. It's that basic, and it isn't arbitrary at all, nor does it have anything to do with Asobo, since the sim doesn't at all mess with or modulate that value in any way.

1 hour ago, MattNischan said:

I'm not understanding how you're coming to that conclusion.

The range value is set directly in the navdata. If any third party sim navdata provider wants a particular ILS DME or LOC to have a range of 75NM, they just need to set that range value to 75NM. It's that basic, and it isn't arbitrary at all, nor does it have anything to do with Asobo, since the sim doesn't at all mess with or modulate that value in any way.

Perhaps it's a misunderstanding on my part, people here say that you are working with ASOBO, and when you mentioned "the stance we've taken is that you will receive the ILS by the time it is guaranteed that you should, based on the data in the AIRAC, which will then also by definition correspond to any published procedures." And the second wrong assumption will be that the NAVIGRAPH statement is something else? So you can understand why I came to that conclusion. I was just hoping that it could be fixed somehow.

 

1 hour ago, LRBS said:

Perhaps it's a misunderstanding on my part, 

Bingo.

2 hours ago, LRBS said:

So you can understand why I came to that conclusion.

It isn't really clear to me I'm afraid, no. Let me attempt to try to communicate this once more, perhaps I'm not being clear enough:

• There is no specific data source for true-to-life ILS range at all in AIRAC data. Therefore, there is not a publicly available place for simulators to source this information to set true-to-life, navaid specific ranges
• As such the default MSFS navdata uses some default ranges which should cover all or very nearly all published FAF scenarios
• Third-party sim navdata providers may have additional data sources outside of the worldwide AIRAC that they are using to get specific ranges of ILS navaids
• The sim provides a range field for ILS navaids that can be used to set the range of the navaid, which some third-party sim navdata providers use to set these ranges
• The sim uses this range number directly as the signal range. E.G. if this field is set to 75NM, then the LOC and DME will be available at 75NM. There is no other modification of this range inside the simulator or by any of the simulator programming teams responsible for this area (WT, Asobo)
• As such, if one is using third-party navdata that utilizes this range field and finds that a particular ILS navaid is not being received at the correct range, then the third-party navdata provider must update this range field to the correct value for that specific navaid

Hopefully that helps clear up how this all works for both you and for other folks reading along.

29 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

It isn't really clear to me I'm afraid, no. Let me attempt to try to communicate this once more, perhaps I'm not being clear enough:

• There is no specific data source for true-to-life ILS range at all in AIRAC data. Therefore, there is not a publicly available place for simulators to source this information to set true-to-life, navaid specific ranges
• As such the default MSFS navdata uses some default ranges which should cover all or very nearly all published FAF scenarios
• Third-party sim navdata providers may have additional data sources outside of the worldwide AIRAC that they are using to get specific ranges of ILS navaids
• The sim provides a range field for ILS navaids that can be used to set the range of the navaid, which some third-party sim navdata providers use to set these ranges
• The sim uses this range number directly as the signal range. E.G. if this field is set to 75NM, then the LOC and DME will be available at 75NM. There is no other modification of this range inside the simulator or by any of the simulator programming teams responsible for this area (WT, Asobo)
• As such, if one is using third-party navdata that utilizes this range field and finds that a particular ILS navaid is not being received at the correct range, then the third-party navdata provider must update this range field to the correct value for that specific navaid

Hopefully that helps clear up how this all works for both you and for other folks reading along.

Thank you for the clear clarification! 

Until MSFS 2024 improves 'ground friction' what you can do if you didn't think of it yourself already is create some artificial ground friction by pushing the yoke/stick forward as you're landing.  Dialing in perfect controller settings is the most important piece but again if you're needing more ground friction this works very well.  It's needed immediately upon landing when inertial forces are maxed then can back off quickly as steering stabilizes.

I’m the one that wrote the topic quoted on the navigraph forums. In FS2024 there is now the ability to define the service volume of radio aids- navigraph set the localizer out to 50NM. this is okay I guess, but in reality you can pick up the localizer (and an almost SOLID glodeslope) around 100nm out, while the aircraft is still on the arrival. It is fairly commonplace to be cleared for the ILS approach while still on the STAR, with the expectation you’ll switch to LOC tracking at some point while also honoring the step downs (almost always, hitting APCH and tracking the GS will be fine).

 

 

13 minutes ago, bjratchf said:

I’m the one that wrote the topic quoted on the navigraph forums. In FS2024 there is now the ability to define the service volume of radio aids- navigraph set the localizer out to 50NM. this is okay I guess, but in reality you can pick up the localizer (and an almost SOLID glodeslope) around 100nm out, while the aircraft is still on the arrival. It is fairly commonplace to be cleared for the ILS approach while still on the STAR, with the expectation you’ll switch to LOC tracking at some point while also honoring the step downs (almost always, hitting APCH and tracking the GS will be fine).

 

 

I guess this is where the warning on some charts comes from to be aware of false captures. If those beams can be received that far out you will certainly have overlap.

Edited February 2Feb 2 by Farlis

8 minutes ago, bjratchf said:

I’m the one that wrote the topic quoted on the navigraph forums. In FS2024 there is now the ability to define the service volume of radio aids- navigraph set the localizer out to 50NM. this is okay I guess, but in reality you can pick up the localizer (and an almost SOLID glodeslope) around 100nm out, while the aircraft is still on the arrival. It is fairly commonplace to be cleared for the ILS approach while still on the STAR, with the expectation you’ll switch to LOC tracking at some point while also honoring the step downs (almost always, hitting APCH and tracking the GS will be fine).

 

 

Which airport would be clearing you 100 miles away? 

Graphics great, flight model......., weather........., rest of it.........

 

I spent a week on the other sim and had zero issues. Plug in, fly. I went to the other one because there is just nothing but issues with this one.

 

Came back after a week, voila !  

 

Back to issue after issue. I don't think there has been a flight in the previous 20 where i have got in and there hasn't been an issue with SOMETHING !

 

This isn't meant to be an us vs them thing, i just needed to rant because this is becoming SO frustrating.

 

Rant over, happy flying everyone.

5 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

Which airport would be clearing you 100 miles away? 

Maybe not 100nm, but KLAX. You'll get cleared for the ILS approach well advance of CRCUS or SEAVU, and LNAV it until you're confident with the beams- I usually "loc" them in around 40nm? Way before KOBEE. If you wait (too late) to select approach in the 757/767, the FMS will give you an excursion and you'll impede on traffic on the south side. 

This is in the real world, not sim (I have contacted sayintentions however to see if they can tweak their ATC to behave this way).  I think navigraph are trying to get it right though.

3 hours ago, bjratchf said:

Maybe not 100nm, but KLAX. You'll get cleared for the ILS approach well advance of CRCUS or SEAVU, and LNAV it until you're confident with the beams- I usually "loc" them in around 40nm? Way before KOBEE. If you wait (too late) to select approach in the 757/767, the FMS will give you an excursion and you'll impede on traffic on the south side. 

This is in the real world, not sim (I have contacted sayintentions however to see if they can tweak their ATC to behave this way).  I think navigraph are trying to get it right though.

Just wondering why ATC clear you 40 miles while gs intercept at 1900 ft 5ish miles away? Aren't you still sequencing in between other traffic? What is typical spacing?

5 hours ago, pan pan pan said:

Graphics great, flight model......., weather........., rest of it.........

 

I spent a week on the other sim and had zero issues. Plug in, fly. I went to the other one because there is just nothing but issues with this one.

 

Came back after a week, voila !  

 

Back to issue after issue. I don't think there has been a flight in the previous 20 where i have got in and there hasn't been an issue with SOMETHING !

 

This isn't meant to be an us vs them thing, i just needed to rant because this is becoming SO frustrating.

 

Rant over, happy flying everyone.

This just reads like hyperbole. Can you get specific? What are these problems? You say it is not an us vs them attempt but it sure sounds like it when you're being so vague.

Horray for #1 the silent immersion killer but now I realise it's not me !   How to fix? In settings or control sensitivity ?