Jump to content

Obvious reasons why I wouldn't have had a TOD marker, snowflake on descent, etc.?


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, jerseytom said:

So can we say this is a bug then? Chart I referenced earlier shows a hard speed and altitude constraint. It appears to come in that way to the FMS when picking the STAR. But it seems to only be recognized as such when you type over it, even with the exact same information.

If this is what is happening then yeah it is a bug.

 

1. You setup the FMS (do you import or enter manually? I assume import)

2. You fly the flight and no TOD or snowflake.

3. You start again

4. You setup the FMS (do you import or enter manually? I assume import)

5. You reenter an already existing constraint with the same values.

6. You fly the flight and the TOD or snowflake works?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a similar issue, I posted it here with pictures, but I will continue here

 

https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/161606-tod-not-on-every-flight/

 

So without entering the special point which is a simple bearing/distance from the runway, I was able to get a TOD just once last night, repeating the exact same sequence in the FMS, so 1 out of 20 flights.

 

Departure VTSM / Arrival VTSH / Enroute APOBI , RELIP

DEP/ARR, runway 35 and 13, VNAV cruise alt 18000

 

On longer flight with SID and STAR, I don't have any issue. I really need to try what will happen with extra waypoint and/or distance 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This happens on pmdgs 737ngxu on rnav approaches... The constraints will appear as 5000A for example, but if you don't change that to an absolute constraint (5000) then the vertical path won't be created. So in my mind it's not a bug, but a function of the FMS. Admittedly I don't know for sure, but as I'm used to it, I just check my legs page when I've created my flight plan to ensure I have absolute constraints in my STAR/approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Crog said:

This happens on pmdgs 737ngxu on rnav approaches... The constraints will appear as 5000A for example, but if you don't change that to an absolute constraint (5000) then the vertical path won't be created.

 

But this isn't an above/below issue. As I showed in a screenshot on the previous page, the waypoint already comes in with an absolute constraint - 210/6000 - and is displayed as such. It just doesn't seem to take effect unless you type over it with the exact same information.

 

56 minutes ago, Thx1137 said:

do you import or enter manually? I assume import

 

I have done all of this as manual setup to avoid any question of file parsing. But yes, same route, and appears that the descent profile only appears if you type over a constraint with the exact same information that it's already showing.

 

I'll have to run through it all again tonight to double confirm. Unfortunately have the work day between now and then :)

 

Now if only we could get a developer to pop in with their 2 cents...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Crog said:

This happens on pmdgs 737ngxu on rnav approaches... The constraints will appear as 5000A for example, but if you don't change that to an absolute constraint (5000) then the vertical path won't be created. So in my mind it's not a bug, but a function of the FMS. 

 

Where do you see a constraint here :

 

Please login to display this image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, jerseytom said:

I'll have to run through it all again tonight to double confirm.

It is hard to see TOD until we get close sometimes so I'm not 100% sure, but. But I'm going to YPKS, it has no STAR. and I couldn't see a TOD. I re-entered /FL140 in one of the waypoints that said FL140 and I could find the TOD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bendead said:

 

Where do you see a constraint here :

 

They could all be constraints. I can't tell. This is the problem with the FMS not being coded to change the font size for actual constraints (like it would in the real plane). In the real plane, if you were to type FL180 and enter it over any one of those waypoints then it would still show "FL180" but it would be in a larger font. Also any actual constraints that are part of a SID or STAR would also be displayed in the larger font. So this means that in the real plane, if the altitude is NOT displayed in the larger font, then it is NOT a constraint and is instead just showing you the altitude the FMS calculates you will be at over that way point. Does that make sense? I hope I'm explaining this clearly.

 

If I saw this exact screen in the actual airplane my first thought would be that you've set your cruise altitude to FL180 which is why they all show FL180 in small font. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bendead said:

 

Where do you see a constraint here :

 

 

Your arrival airport doesn't have any STAR/approach data (checked in Navigraph) so you haven't set your runway elevation...therefore there will be no vertical path.

 

By putting in the airfield elevation and deleting the vectors waypoint this is what I see (which will give vertical guidance)

 

 

Please login to display this image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Crog said:

 

Your arrival airport doesn't have any STAR/approach data (checked in Navigraph) so you haven't set your runway elevation...therefore there will be no vertical path.

 

By putting in the airfield elevation and deleting the vectors waypoint this is what I see (which will give vertical guidance)

 

 

Please login to display this image.

 

I will try again tonight, also with the bearing distance waypoint.

 

But why is the CRJ FMS does not set airfield elevation when the WT CJ4 does?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The WT CJ4 is an entirely different product by an entirely different team so I'm not sure how it's relevant here. I'm sure it's great, but to me the only relevant thing here is whether or not the Aerosoft implementation works as intended in relation to the genuine article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jerseytom said:

The WT CJ4 is an entirely different product by an entirely different team so I'm not sure how it's relevant here. I'm sure it's great, but to me the only relevant thing here is whether or not the Aerosoft implementation works as intended in relation to the genuine article.

 

Avionic is very similar, so I am just wondering if on the real thing, it's working, if so then it's just a feature to fix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Crog said:

 

Your arrival airport doesn't have any STAR/approach data (checked in Navigraph) so you haven't set your runway elevation...therefore there will be no vertical path.

 

By putting in the airfield elevation and deleting the vectors waypoint this is what I see (which will give vertical guidance)

 

 

Please login to display this image.

 

I did like you said, first VNAV to 18000, then /00012 for the airfield altitude, /12 won't work

 

And it's giving me that :

 

Please login to display this image.

 

I will try the other way around

 

Edit ,so I did :

- Select ARR runway, add elevation to RW13, VNAV FL180, erase vector and discontinuity 

- Select ARR runway, VNAV FL180, add elevation to RW13, erase vector and discontinuity 

- Select ARR runway, add elevation to RW13, erase vector and discontinuity, VNAV FL180

 

Still the same issue

 

Edit 2:

Selecting DIMN airport to land, approach data is present on the CRJ database, but still the same issue...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To circle back to this, I have done the same flight over again (KSAV/10 DCT JROSS DCT FLLGG STOCR3 KCLT/36R). Entered the JROSS and FLLGG directs, and then picked the STOCR3 STAR to 36R all through the FMS. Confirmed all discontinuities fixed. Confirmed cruise alt set FL250. You will not get a TOD marker nor advisory descent profile.

 

However, if you do all of that exactly the same, but then overwrite a constraint on the STAR with information it already has, the TOD marker and descent profile works.

 

In this case specifically, I use the GATEE waypoint - which has a constraint of 6000' and 210 knots labeled on the approach plate. All I do is replace the existing 210/6000 constraint with 210/6000 - the same values - and execute the "change." Flying that route will now have TOD marker and snowflake, blue ball, all that good stuff.

 

Just summarizing this for visibility and hoping we can get it on developer radar to confirm whether this is intended functionality or a bug. Not sure if this is something @Hans Hartmann would be familiar with or who the best point of contact would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use