FSB build and RC4

[Guest NIC0]

Well, it stands there that you will not be busted if your not flying exactly at your assigned altitude/speed/heading.But guess what? I do get "busted"... My FMC flightplan heading is approx. 204.5 degrees. RC wants me to fly at 205 degrees..I sure got a strict controller...

[Dean_EGTC 57]

Hi Fabrizio,I have just flown this using LDS & RC4. Firstly, let me assure you there is nothing wrong with either product. I can attest to this because I am on both beta teams.As pointed out by Ron, the problem appears to lay with either the navigational data exported by FSB or your FS9 data.I made this short video to show you what you should be seeing. The clicks are me opening map windows which of course are not recorded by Fraps :)http://www.dmcity.com/downloads/LDS_MLT.wmv

[jd 57]

thanks dean

[simbio 56]

Thank you very much for this video but have you flown my flight plan, I can see it works perfect like I would in my sistem :-( .For your suggestion it's seems that I have to reinstall all what a bad news :-vuur .Just to know tell me if FSB flight plan overlap perfecly on FS9 map because Ernie write me this on his forum and I really get confused.In any case another future for RC4 instead of angle deviation should be WPT crossing like if it was a VOR circle where you can change the value because there is also WPT wich they are: fly by and other fly over.Anyway thank's FabrizioThe minutes differ because Fsbuild is using Degs/Mins/Secs, and FS9 is using fractional minutes.There will be a small difference, but it will be less than 1/5 mile in most cases.Its something that is on the to-do list for the 2.3 update.But even with the conversion to fractional minutes, because seconds is less precise (1/60) than fractional minutes (1/100) there will always be some difference in what Fsbuild exports and what is in FS9's database has minutes wise.

[ronzie 21]

Your longitudinal track looks good this time.This is probably not relevant and I'm not a LDS 767 user but do fly a PMDG 737NG. If that altimeter in the upper right in all three screenies just behind you flight recorded map is active, please note your altimeter pressure needs to be set at 1017mb/29.92in above the transition altitude for LFML as expressed in the controller page. Your altimeter shows 1007mn at 13,000 and 23,000 - can't see your screenie right now.You should be getting a voice reminder (unless it was removed in 4.2) saying altimeter check as you climb at or above or descend below transition altitude. This is just something else you need to look at in general. In descent if you had a crossing restriction and your altimeter was not set correctly you might get delay vectors until you cross the indicated waypoint at the correct altitude.From the airport info I have:ALTIMETER SETTINGThe transition altitude in PROVENCE TMA is 5,000ft.The transition level in PROVENCE TMA will be calculated by PROVENCEAPP.Your controller page will show these.

[ronzie 21]

I'm using FSB 2.22. If you have updated your AIRAC files from mavdat.at be aware that the first release of 0608 was incorrect and there is now a second version.I am not having this problem you describe using FSB 2.22 (update link is on their support forum) and PMDG 737NG 600 thru 900 (800/900 fixes some panel bugs in 600/700).I do notice that homing VORs while following the RNAV (LNAV without MCP VOR/LOC active) track does deviate a small amount showing a discrepancy. However this should not matter for RNAV tracking as long as the same coordinates are exported by FSB to your .rte FMC format and .pln FS9 format. RC uses trig to calculate your advised heading among waypoint coordinates.If I bring up the FMC LEGS page the mag heading to that first waypoint matches within one degree of the heading advised in the RC window until I'm really close to the waypoint but still well within tolerance and RC should accept that deviation (default is 15 degrees aircraft heading, not course).One other thing to check which may affect certain items as I recall is in your realism settings to insure everything is set for mag heading, not true course for instruments. I've never used true but I wonder if this is affecting your aircraft heading reporting to RC. In some areas mag deviation can be very large. This is just an idea, not a solution, since I have not tested it.Another thing to check is if you are off your RNAV planned course and RC gives you a heading correction from your present position in LEGS page 1 of the FMC LLSK the first waypoint twice and then EXE to provide a direct to course from PPOS. RC goes by your aircraft heading, not track, and turning to return to your planned track as shown on the ND is not correct if this is not done. RC in its heading correction has established a new path to the next waypoint from your PPOS.These are just things to look over and consider.I'll attempt both flights in this thread in a couple of days with FSUIPC 3.70. I am still on RC 4.01 but I'll try to update to 4.2 before this so I'll be on the same page with you.

[Dean_EGTC 57]

Fabrizio,Yes, I flew your flightplan from start to finish. If the difference is indeed only 1/5ml then it might be something you're doing wrong with LDS. What I can see from your screenshot is you're overspeeding. This certainly won't help in crossing and tracking waypoints accurately.What I would suggest is fly the route with just LDS. Concentrate on correct flight procedures. Set a cruise of FL190. When you are happy that the AC is behaving as it should then try it with RC4.Do you have FS Navigator? If so, try building the route with this then exporting that to FS2004 and using the .PLN this creates for RC4 use.

[simbio 56]

Thank's for reply, I have flown already several time but this time I was concentrate to create the correct screenshot to publish in the forum that explain the big mistake on fly this bird. I do normally fly the LDS in vatsim and I am quite confident with it, for what is write here it's seems that I don't get credit for WPT, because I don't respect speed and vertical navigation, but I thought RC4 would more pay attention for lateral navigation to crossing WPT.I will try with other add-on like PMDG and feelthere to sse if it's the same.Thnk's for the support.Fabrizio

[jd 57]

progressing a checkpoint has nothing to do with speed or altitude. simply, you have to be less than 2 miles from the checkpoint on departure procedures, and less than 5 miles from the checkpoint enroute.jd

[ronzie 21]

When I brought up altude - altimeter setting I was just bringing up general technique not specific to waypoint progression at departure or enroute. It was just something I caught in the screenie that should require attention and be understood.The track on the map looks good, unlike the first trip that showed a parallel track to the intended course. The VOR was crossed within limits. I assume that is a capture of the track on the FS flight analysis map? I've never used it. Since the FS track at the VOR and the nav display at the VOR crossing agree, then it seems at the VOR all plan coordinates are in sync.I'll input the plan into 2.22 tomorrow and see what coordinates I get. I'll also check the AIRAC version.I do understand all RC needs to progress the waypoint is to cross the coordinates as stated in the FS plan for the waypoint whether or not correct.I'll fly at least the start of it after updating 4.01 to 4.2 so we are in the same environment.

[simbio 56]

Thank you Ronzie and JD for your time.I will my self test other aircraft to check all discrepancy.

[simbio 56]

I menage to test other add-on I defenately tink is a leveld issue, I try the 744 PMDG and the 737 PIC no problem at all.I believe it's the LDS FMC way on reading Lat long wich differ from FS9 Flight plan but it's only my case because other people like betatester have no issue about this problem.Anyway thank's for the help and looking forward for the next release.Fabrizio

[ronzie 21]

One more thing to look at.I installed RC 4.2 and flew your plan with the PMDG 737NG-700 and had the same issue of MTL not progressing. At the point before MTL there were a number of ATC commands requiring an acknowledgement. I noticed on your screenshot that ATC was waiting for an acknowledgement (7). RC 4.2 handles audio a different way that makes menu response slugglish.If there is an outstanding ack command a waypoint as you cross it may not be credited as ATC is awaiting your response. I have not tried it but you could consider to add the keystroke option to hand communications to the copilot when the ATC comms get busy. This should avoid the need to ack the ATC communications which could be holding things up.This plan is very short so things can get busy manipulating the aircraft with a string of closely spaced ATC communications. Using a different aircraft might have made things easier. Keeping the preceding suggestion in mind (see the manual about toggling copilot response on and off) coninue flying the LDS with RC. There may have been other issues but I'm just noting my experience and thoughts for problem resolution for now.The developers have been made aware of this for the future.

[simbio 56]

I will certanly take in consideration the copilot job.Thank you for your help .RegardsFabrizio