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

Dear Haseen, thanks for the feedback. I can not say anything regarding "Sors", sorry, using FSAerodata here. I did not check that at VGHS so far using FSAerodata. From what you post, I do not know for sure if you armed really the approach or if you have set up ILS manually. To name only one question arising here regarding your query. Most time I try to answer such questions it ends up in that I perform several test flights regarding the flight plan in question and at other airports/under different conditions to compare. All in all most time work for several hours. This represents my understanding on how to process such queries. I produced these videos, 110+ hours of work. And took care of the AVSIM community during pre-release, during the "release night" and after release. And perform beta tests. All in all a "24/7" task. I try to help were I can, but have to limit that in time from now, regarding the actual conditions. There are other tasks I have to take care for also. I ask the AVSIM community for understanding. I am a beta tester on a volunteer base. Regards, Rudi, South West Germany

Haseen, you can watch a demo how to use LNM flight plans in my video "part 4A", after the intro. Standard path for flight plans is within the documents folder, Prepar3D V4 files. I learned that there are AVSIM users who disabled display of signatures, therefore:

There is a user guide you should walk through, access via the DA62 config tool you installed. Answers a lot of questions.There is also contact info for support included, page 50. Also a lot of info you find in my 7 videos:

Navigraph is already usable, by usage of FSAerodata https://www.fsaerodata.com/ Give it a try, those who already subscribed Navigraph pay about 9 $ for 3 months. Best of both worlds, because when using Navigraph alone, you often would miss 30% of the airports, see my video part 2 (see my signature), go to 24:40. With FSAerodata you can "use Navigraph" for most aircraft using standard GPSs and many other aircraft, without the need to install new AIRACS seperately for every aircraft.

Navigraph is already usable, by usage of FSAerodata https://www.fsaerodata.com/ Give it a try, those who already subscribed Navigraph pay about 9 $ for 3 months. Best of both worlds, because when using Navigraph alone, you often would miss 30% of the airports, see my video part 2 (see my signature), go to 24:40. GTN750's database is outdated, a lot of the newer GPS LPV approaches, which add/replace ILS at many airports, are missing. A2A's rain effects are advertised since (November or) December as "Now with multi-engine support". https://a2asimulations.com/product/a2a-rain-effect-for-p3dv4/

Mike, a fundamental note regarding G1000 popups, were most user actions have to be performed. To get a popup which is halfway crisp you would need abt 1000 pixel in width. It covers too much of my 1920 screen IMO, might also be too much for a 2560 screen you use. Popups makes sense for small gauges like standard GPSs or even a MCDU/FMS. But not necessarily for a G1000 with a big high resolution screen and buttons/knobs left/bottom/right, wich also have to be shown. You easily can try that out. Have a look at the pre-defined cockpit view - G1000 PFD. Or create a second view to simulate a popup and try out how big it has to be. Rudi

Dear Baz, you mentioned you use FSAerodata 1901? There must be something corrupt in your nav data base or your data have its origin in an airport addon. I checked this with the actual AIP Germany, the actual Jeppesen charts, my P3D installation (FSAerodata AIRAC 1901, checked by Little Navmap). And compared these sources with your screenshots, found several differences to my data. 1 - You write initial approach fix is AGB, but your screenshots show ALB (this might be Allersberg VOR, not operational anymore). In my case (charts, DA62 etc) there is no feeder (transition) ALB or AGB available, there is a total of 8 transitions (plus "vectors" which starts at faf OSNUB), two of them start at VORs, NUB and ERL There is no waypoint or VOR ALB or AGB. 2 - The final approach fix is OSNUB. Not FI28 as shown in your screenshot. 3 - Your screenshot shows a waypoint FI28 in the final approach (declared as final approach fix). There is no such a waypoint. After the real faf OSNUB the next "waypoint" is the runway (In the DA62 it is marked as RW28 mop and marks the runway threshold and its altitude: threshold crossing height 50 ft plus airport alt 1046 ft = 1096 ft). 4 - The designator of the approach is EDDN-ILS 28-Z in my DA62, which matches the charts. In your screenshots it is named EDDN-ILS 28. 5 - Your distance from faf (FI28) to RW28 is 3.7 nm. Altitude difference (4000 ft "above" -> 1096 ft) is 2904 ft; to descent within 3.7 nm. I do not have to calculate that to see that this is wrong. But did for fun: flight path angle is 7.3597 degrees... I stop that now, giong to bed. Rudi

@Petermuc3 @Bazza744 @Rossco might be better Sean has a look into that than me.

@haseen 3 - see DA62 user guide page 40. Regards, Rudi

Yes, you are welcome! Not so far away, only about 400nm, search for EDRY. The DA62 needs about 2.5h I guess. Dear Baz, must something been wrong. I sent you a PM this morning, you did not read yet, I did not get a msg from you. Must be a year 2019-problem 😮 Have installed FSAerodata today. FAA 2017 regarding LPV: "The FAA plans to publish 300 WAAS approach procedures per year" "From a pilot’s viewpoint, an LPV approach looks and flies like an ILS, but the WAAS approach is more stable than that of an ILS" Cheers, Rudi