Jump to content

Bad_T

Members
  • Content Count

    273
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

202 Excellent

About Bad_T

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

836 profile views
  1. @Andreas Stangenes i might be wrong but i really think it matters. If you have navigraph navdata some default BGLS are not used anymore and the data is read from the navigraph's supplied BGL in which the VOR range is changed (even if both are H VOR). I'm also not sure if terrain is really taken into account for the VOR range in the sim. I can catch the Kathmandu VOR (sourrounded by high mountains) from 190+ NM with the default BGL while flying very low in the northern India plains (near VEGY). If i activate the Navigraph data i can still catch it but i need to be at around 130 NM. According to @PIC007 post above, this should be more accurante if real life VOR have that kind of range. @Claudius_ When you look at the data in LNM it uses the data read in the file little_navmap_navigraph.sqlite that you have probably installed via the navigraph app. That file is absolutely not read by the sim, the sim uses only the BGL, so if you see a difference it's because the BGL does not contain the same data as the SQLITE file. If you have not installed the MSFS navdata then it's normal, if you have installed the MSFS navigraph navdata (navigraph-navdata folder in your community folder) then it's a bit more annoying because the data should match, but we noticed earlier that for some VOR it doesn't (see example above, the YAY VOR has a range of 250 NM in the Navigraph sqlite file but only 125 in the Navigraph supplied BGL). oh well it's a bit too complicated for me to explain this clearly because i'm not a real specialist, and i'm not even sure if i'm 100% correct with my assumptions 🙊 😜
  2. I don't think it's a limitation, i just think it's how they decided to compile the BGL and they could fix by simply putting a different range in it if 125 is incorrect, i don't know exactly what the real range is in the real world. My understanding is that the default BGL has a range of 195NM, the navigraph BGL (it replaces the default one if you have navigraph installed) has 125 NM, and LNM shows 250 NM because it uses the navigraph navdata database made only for LNM that has a different value than the BGL provided by Navigraph. If you want to go over 125NM, you can test MLG VOR near LEMG, i think it goes as far as 130NM with Navigraph installed, not that much bigger but you should see that there is no 'hard limit' at 125. Or just disable temporarly navigraph navdata and you'll probably notice that most of them go all the way to 195NM.
  3. i just tested YAY with the tool from fsdeveloper using the navigraph BGL, this is the info inside the BGL <Vor lat="51.393919587135315" lon="-56.08374997973442" alt="133.0F" type="LOW" frequency="113.700" magvar="21" range="231559.2M" region="CY" ident="YAY" name="SAINT ANTHONY" nav="TRUE" dmeOnly="FALSE" dme="TRUE"> <Dme lat="51.393919587135315" lon="-56.08374997973442" alt="133.0F" range="231559.2M" /> </Vor> the sim sees only the BGL and 231559 meters is exactly 125 NM .. so that's why you are getting this. If you completely disable navigraph navadata (both BGL data and LMM data) you'll probably get a 195 NM in the sim and in LNM, but navigraph seems to introduce that difference, not sure why.
  4. Hello, When you say range is 250 according to the BGL, how did you check that, did you use some specific tool showing what's really inside the BGL (i think there are some in the FSDeveloper forum) ? I say this because If you use LittleNavMap with Navigraph Navdata to check the VOR range, the data shown there does not always match with what is really inside the BGL and so you think it will be 250 (because it's what you see in LNM) but the sim will see only 125 because 125 is in the BGL. Do you have maybe an example of VOR for which you have a doubt ?
  5. yep you're right, i should have, but i can't edit the first post anymore 😁
  6. yes @SierraHotel thank you, those videos are great and if i do like in the videos everything is fine. This particular thread was about a little issue capturing the LOC when the approach is not loaded into the FMS, one of the developer aknowledged in one of the earlier reply that it was maybe a little bug and he will look into it. When i posted this topic, i didnt know and i was wondering if i was maybe doing something wrong, but now with that reply i guess it's probably just a litlle tiny bug that will be fixed soon. 🍻
  7. Hello @Bernard Ducret, thanks for your input, no i don't think it's related, my problem seem to be very specific to the cj4 when no approach is loaded in the FMS and it will be checked by the cool developpers. by default, the ILS alignment at TFFF should be fine (see pic below), it's maybe your addon causing the problem (i don't have it so i can't test), have you tried the same approach with the addon disabled ?
  8. oh "cool" @cwburnett 😜 🙊 .. no rush though, it's was more to make sure i was using it correctly because it's fantastic !! 😍 --- no worry @rka thanks for trying to help !
  9. Certainly appreciated but don't waste too much time on this though 🍻
  10. thanks again @manageablebits for taking the time to do that, it seems from your screen that you have loaded the approach in the FMS, if i do that it works for me too. I was trying without approach loaded in the FMS. I will do some more test, i'll certainly post back here if when i find what i did wrong.
  11. many thanks @cwburnett and @MattNischan, it's probably not a bug, i will give it a few more tries i'm pretty sure i do something very basic wrong because other seem to succeed with that, i think i tried intercepting the LOC path more with the HDG mode in following tries after the screenshot but i will do another 50 tries and watch another batch of videos 😁 many thanks WT teams for your amazing mods !
  12. can you maybe post a screenshot of what you see @manageablebits ? you said you a GS lock just by putting the correct frequency and clicking on APPR but with nothing in the approach in the FMS ? That's what i'm trying to do but i just can't achieve that (but i'm sure it's very simple 🙊). Thank you
  13. Thank you very much for your reply @rka. Unfortunately I still can't do it properly (i guess i'm just doing it really wrong), not sure what switch you were pointing at but i tried changing to NAV mode or switching through the 'nav src' in the pfd menu but still it never catches the LOC/GS ... In the tutorial i checked there's always a flightplan and, with that, it works fine also on my end, but when i have no flightplan it can't make it work, but yeah certainly 'user-error' a little switch somewhere, i will do some more tries.
  14. i just tried the fantastic workingtitle cj4 mode for the first time (wow i'm late 🙊). i have a little question about APPR mode, there's probably something i do wrong, with all specialists in this forum i try to ask here before loosing too much time trying to solve/understand it by myself (very sorry if it's obvious, i did some search but couldn't really find a definitive answer). As you can see in the screen below, i'm about 10NM from the airport with APPR mode armed and at that moment still below the glidescope. Everything seems ok to me, the problem is that LOC will never be captured (it should be already because i'm less than 10 NM from the airport) and the plane will never descend because obviously if LOC is not active GS will not be active either. I'm at TFFF (ILS10, 109.90), well below the GS. if i do the exact same procedure with the default cj4 or other default planes everything works fine (LOC/GS is captured). Note : if i do a full flight and the approach is loaded in the FMS everything works fine (LOC/GS are captured), but what if i just want to fly without setting up the FMS (let's my FMS is out of service 😶), shouldn't that work too ? (maybe not 🙈). Thank you 🍻
  15. hello @MarcG yes it's possible but i think you should only go that way if you are very confident on how the tool works. Try also with a single addon first so you can see if it works for you, then if ok you can start moving other addons as you see fit. There are some indications on page 27 in this thread , it tells you how to manage addons in the official folder with the tool with an example --> https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/586454-another-tool-to-organize-your-msfs-addons-easily/?do=findComment&comment=4445883 At the top of the following page (28) you can also see a pic by @Denwagg showing some of his addons managed this way. The thing to be aware of is that if you do that and the link is not active, the content manager will tell you the mod is missing and that it needs to be redownloaded, this is normal but it's important that you understand why. Let me know if it's not clear enough and if you need more help with that 🍻
×
×
  • Create New...