rudi0310

There are differences between countries, the following details mainly apply to US National Airspace and FAA rules: If you end up much too high above runway at the end of the approach, or flight path angle needed is very high, it might be a "circling approach" type. While you might be familiar with the "usual" straight-in approaches, there are also many circling approaches in use: The approach is terminated performing a circle-to-land maneuver under VFR conditions, not straight in. As long as there are no restrictions at the approach plate, it is the pilot in command's choice which circling maneuver to fly, choosing the side with lower obstacles or terrain, for example. One possible reason for circling approaches: Terrain profile might be too steep. RNAV (GPS)-D approach at KEGE is such an example. This approach (final heading is 251 deg) ends abt 2700 ft above airport elevation, nominal only 0.5 nm away from threshold. To use rwy 25, aircraft has to perform a complete 360 deg maneuver, for rwy 7 it is 180 deg. Minimum Descend Altitude for both is 9220 ft (all aircraft categories) (Circling minimums are referenced to airport elevation, not Touch Down Zone Elevation like a Decision Altitude). At start of the circling, stay at or above this altitude first. After that, the pilot in command is allowed to start a descend as soon as needed to perform a "normal" landing, at his own decision. Again, the circle-to-land is a VFR type maneuver, requires visual meteorological conditions available. Some other reasons for circling approaches: need to use a different runway due to tailwind, approach serves more than one runway, runway course differs more than 30 deg from final approach course (due to terrain/obstacles for example), descend needed for straight-in after Final Approach Fix exceeds 400 ft/nm. To identify a circling approach as such at the plate: The approach plate shows a "circling" type Minimum Descend Altitude only in this case, no Decision Altitude (Decision Height at older plates). And there is a letter instead of a named runway in the approach name. One example is the "D" at KEGE, see above. As always, there might be differences/exceptions depending on the issue date of the plate (rules changed with time). Of course I do not exclude that the DA-62 might have issues with single approaches. In this context, it is interesting that real aviation in many cases has the same problems like flight simmers. One short example, the following is a quote from public FAA pilot training materials (2017), not a dicsussion between flight simmers: "Charting/Database Inconsistencies: It is important for pilots to remember that many inconsistencies may exist between aeronautical charts and airborne navigation databases. Since there are so many sources of information included in the production of these materials, and the data is manipulated by several different organizations before it is eventually displayed on RNAV equipment, the possibility is high that there will be noticeable differences between the charts and the databases..." Remember, flight simmers use the same data sources... Cheers

Hi, when external power is on, batt voltage raise from 25 to 28 volts and "Amps" raise from zero. Engine-System page. You did not left out anything critical IMO. Rudi

Brightness of the displays is not adjustable. When HDR is switched off, as recommended in the user guide, it is a little darker.

Hi @MatzeH84 first of all many thanks for your valuable contribution to this topic. I am with you in many points. No doubt, a dedicated user forum can have its advantages. No worry, guys. My intention never was and never is to block such a forum in general in any way. Not "the official way", not "behind the scenes". It is the decision of Vertx, if, when and what kind of forum will be raised. But I was personally addressed and accused by a posting, therefore I took the freedom to answer with my personal view, in my property as being an ordinary member here at AVSIM. From being a ordinary customer/forum user to being a forum mod and community evangelist for a simulator publisher, I have had the "joy" and at the same time more "pain" in my life to witness all kinds of "human factors" over a very broad span of view points. You do not get a good working forum "for free". Not at the user's side. Not at the operator's side. Cheers, Rudi EDRY

Dear Haseen, I also use Active Sky here, but for clouds I use Rex Sky Force. Used this for the first part of video part 4 C for example. Strange problem you have. You might try out what happens when you install Active Sky first, in a second step the DA62, so that the DA62 is the last one installed. I suggest the following steps: 1 - uninstall the DA62 2 - install AS, fire up P3D, perform a short test of Active Sky in Live Weather Mode. 3 - install the DA62 4 - test the DA62, but without AS running first. 5 - test the DA62 using AS now Cheers, Rudi

Dear Haseen, the three different possible types are not implemented:in the Vertx G1000: - hold at present position - hold at waypoint - hold at direct-to Cheers, Rudi

Dear Haseen, somewhat simplified: 1 - When map gets stuck, have a look into the DA 62 user guide page 22 (and 21). No need to use GLORR transition. NECIP (initial approach fix in this case) at 3000 ft MSL might be a good choice. 2 - "Vectors (to final)" means, (the ATC advised you) to perform a "direct-to" to the final approach fix LOTKE. For this approach, faf and glide path intercept point (this one you need) are identical. No inital approach or intermediate approach segment in this case. 3 - Allowing/performing descend to 2100 ft might be the solution in your case, and compare with video part 4B. The altitude at the glide path intercept point LOTKE is 2100 ft MSL. If you are too high, you are above glide path. No intercept possible. Might depend on nav data base which solutions are possible and if they work. 4 - Depends on your current position when activating (not selecting) approach if this makes sense. If yes, it should work. If it is a real direct to you might have to cancel direct-to first via menu 5 Two of several solutions how to enable waypoint sequencing of a GPS flight plan and what to look for you can watch (in another context) in video part 4C, start at 16:24 Cheers, Rudi

Dear Haseen, good to know. Thanks from my side for testing this. Cheers Rudi

Dear Haseen, your questions have no relationship to Little Navmap anymore (there is also a LNM subsection here at AVSIM). "We" try to collect any questions regarding the Vertx DA 62 in this thread you might post your questions there. Or one of the mods might merge the threads. To include the ILS RWY 11 approach at VGSY only there is no simple way AFAIK. I use the nav data from https://www.fsaerodata.com/ and had a quick look, this approach is included, but I did not fly it, not sure if it works, if the data of "airport itself" "differ" from the nav data base, which might have caused the "parallel shift" you observed at VGHS, or if there are other issues. I moved from P3D default nav data to FSAerodata, and I do not know which scenery addons you have installed, to recommend an airport makes no sense IMO. Aero sors you use does not update approaches/procedures AFAIK. The P3D default data are from 2005, all major airports wordlwide have had ILS approaches to that date. Notably in Europe, US, Canada. EDDF, KJFK, KSFO, KLAX, KSEA, KATL... In the approach page of the Vertx G1000, you can change airport while on ground and have a look this way which approaches/transitions a particular airport has. Cheers Rudi

Dear Haseen, it seems you do all right. The B200 seems to use a Navigraph nav data base, is completely different, comparison makes no sense. basically, you can watch part 4B and choose an ILS approach instead of DGPS LPV. It also demonstrates VNAV again, no need to engage this to fly an ILS. Note: CDI mode will change from GPS to LOC without pilot's action needed. GS has to be armed by the pilot as you already did. Rudi

@jalbino59 I tried it several times by P3D shutdown (and several times reload a/c only), no problems here. Would be interesting what user "everyone" says... You might try to "reset ini files", user guide page 23.

You might try the following: After changing/retracting flaps, do nothing for 10 seconds, notably not reload the aircaft, not load another one, not shut down P3D. Does this help?

@ha5mvo your answer starts very friendly first, but then it drifts away into a lot of partly somewhat unfair accuses/assumptions into a lot of directions which have nothing to do with my posting, which still seems to apply. 1 - Let me point out that I have absolutely no problem when "simple" questions are asked. Many infos regarding the DA62 are widely spread over many postings and many threads. The DA 62 is a complex aircraft, and IFR/approaches are new to many. A lot of docs, overwhelming. I understand that it can be difficult to find an info or even get an overview, get things sorted out. I am glad when I can help, regardless if the same questions arise again and again. 2 - I do not "brush off" questions with a "RTFM answer". Do not declare this as the "RTFM" polemic usual in some communities. If I decide to post an answer, point to the user guide or to my videos as the optimal solution is my decision and has nothing to do with any kind of arrogance, taunt or criticism what, when and why someone asked. When I point to the Vertx user guide, my intention also is, that more and more users find out that this one is really very helpful, easy to understand, in a nutshell. A real guide, dedicated to the user. To open the user guide from an empty desktop takes 4 mouse clicks, less than 10 seconds. Type ctrl + f, "CTD", enter, 5 seconds. You find yourself at page 21. The CTD topic has a length of one and a half page, starts at page 21. Much better than if I would try to formulate all that in my own words. Why should I do this extra work? If the user does not understand what is written in the user guide or elsewhere, or has not gained an overview across several documents, or if a request can answered in a nutshell and this saves the questioner a lot of search, this is a completely different task. I am sorry that the CTD info did not help in your case, but it would have been nice to have gotten this feedback earlier, not several days and accuses regarding "lack of support" later and after I had to ask twice. Again, I expect a minimum of kindness, feedback and cooperation. I see no duty at my side to offer support, in your case definitely not anymore. See also here: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/548863-vertxsim-da62-and-little-nav-map-p3d-v44/?do=findComment&comment=3960230 Regarding support forums, my two cents (the PMDG section at AVSIM you mentioned is a very bad example, technically has absolutely no relationship with the common publisher's support forums): 1 - I do not want to register and to create a user account for every item I buy in my hopefully long life: In most cases as a non-customer, even in many cases as a customer, for write access, often even for read access, to the support forum of a publisher I have to register and to create a new user account, assign a new passwort, have to keep my records up to date. 2 - In many cases access is only granted after purchase. Even then access may be restricted to the product I own, no chance to have a look into the other forum sections. What about people who are interested, but do not own yet? How many users got interested in the Vertx DA62 as the result of the "enthusiastic" discussions here at AVSIM? 3 - In one "support forum" I have access complete threads "disappear" completely after a few days (get moved into a closed admin/mod section)! Thread list is always clean, not much problems/issues. A big bluff. Unacceptable information hiding in my eyes. And absolutely no help if someone has an issue and searches for informations. 4 - there are some publisher's forums which exhibit more or less censorship of any kind. This is definitely not the case at a public forum like AVSIM. I do not want to discuss here why many publisher set it up this way, in many aspects/cases this might be centered at the interests of the publisher, not the customers. Do not consider this as any kind of pre-judgement or pre-rating regarding a possibly upcoming Vertx forum of any kind. Therefore I prefer public forums in general. The lack of a "Vertx support forum" is not a "gap" in my eyes. I see absolutely no reason why AVSIM should not be the right place for "open discussions", nobody has ever hindered that here AFAIK, like in some publisher's forums. Even in such forums threads disappear from the front page after some time and the search function might have to be used. Regarding email support as an alternative, this is a decision of Vertx and the Vertx customer requesting support. No statements from my side.

You did not do more than counting the pages of the user manual, but you know exactly that it is "insufficient"? 1000+ pages of docs are not acceptable for you, because they come frome the real thing, not Vertx, how strange is that? You ask, get answers, but do not try it out, or at least respond? You do not say "thank you" after others invest their private time and answer? What do you expect? That somebody searches the info for you, copy and paste and post one and a half page regarding CTD? Friendly people get friendly answers... Or are you just looking for a fight? No forum in the world can help you I guess, regardless of its name or where it is hosted. My personal impression so far. And personal view.

Haseen, ok, it seems you config ILS manually, setting ILS freq, course and CDI mode by hand. Does white "LOC" status message turn into green? To be sure, localizer gets captured, and aircraft turns to a course of 144 deg? Not aligned with the runway centerline, "far left" means how much? Rudi