Putting in crossing fix

[ken staske 1]

Last night I was on a VATSIM server and was given a "cross 40 s of XJZ" 

I put in XYZ/-40 on top of XYZ and got an invalid something msg.

 

The distance from XYZ was 80 miles, so it was not distance related.

 

I think I did this right, but I may have forgotten the right way.

[KuntaKinte 210]

This feature like so many others is unfortunately not implemented

[Crabby 28]

On 1/29/2022 at 9:25 AM, KuntaKinte said:

This feature like so many others is unfortunately not implemented

Not exactly true. If you enter NAVAID/RADIAL/DISTANCE this will generate a fix, then you can enter the crossing restriction.

 

So it would be XYZ180/40.  This will give you a fix on the 180 degree radial at 40 nm.  Then you can add a crossing restriction.  Remember a radial is not determined by your direction of flight.  You could be flying at 000 and still be on the 180 degree radial, you will be flying TOWARD the navaid.  If you are flying 180 degree radial while heading 180 you will flying AWAY from the fix.  So all you need to know is where the fix is on your flight plan.  For example....

 

Let's say you are flying the the BOWIE5 into KDFW from BORGER and ATC says "Cross 15 miles north of HUNKI at 10000".  You can see on the chart that between SPS and HUNKI you will be on the 115 degree radial from SPS.  So the reciprocal is 180 degrees opposite that (you want to be on the theoretical INBOUND radial to HUNKI). So you enter HUNKI295/15 and add that to the flight plan before HUNKI.  Then you set the crossing to be 10000 as normal.  

[KuntaKinte 210]

I am well aware that there are other ways to accomplish this, but the OP was referring to a specific functionality of the FMS that is not modelled.

[Crabby 28]

9 hours ago, KuntaKinte said:

I am well aware that there are other ways to accomplish this, but the OP was referring to a specific functionality of the FMS that is not modelled.

Well, if you were aware that along track offsets are not modelled, and being the outstanding young person, you want to be, don't you think it would have been more helpful to explain HOW it could have been done, rather than taking an obvious shot at the developer? 

[CRJay 429]

The developer deserves a bit of a kick in the butt to get simple stuff that we use daily in normal operations (the stuff they like to claim they simulate) actually working. A sad smiley and statement that it is currently not is actually a very appropriate reply.

 

Edit: And it would also be helpful if you'd get your own post right, as the format you posted should not work and would generally only create a custom waypoint 180nm along track from XYZ with the custom name '40'. The correct format would be XYZ180/40.

[Crabby 28]

21 hours ago, CRJay said:

The developer deserves a bit of a kick in the butt to get simple stuff that we use daily in normal operations (the stuff they like to claim they simulate) actually working. A sad smiley and statement that it is currently not is actually a very appropriate reply.

 

Edit: And it would also be helpful if you'd get your own post right, as the format you posted should not work and would generally only create a custom waypoint 180nm along track from XYZ with the custom name '40'. The correct format would be XYZ180/40.

Yep, so I put in an extra slash.  You know what I was talking about.  However instead of posting that actually useful critique, you choose to justify yourself as the Aerosoft butt kicker first, my butt kicker second and then finally useful info.  You are a piece.  You would think that as easy as everything is, according to you, you would have developed a mod to fix all this to your vision.  Where is it?

[CRJay 429]

4 hours ago, Crabby said:

You would think that as easy as everything is, according to you, you would have developed a mod to fix all this to your vision.  Where is it?

I feel no need to fix someone else’s mess. Especially if they have taken my money for said mess. 
 

 

[Crabby 28]

53 minutes ago, CRJay said:

I feel no need to fix someone else’s mess. Especially if they have taken my money for said mess. 
 

 

So all you are capable of is complaining. Understandable.

[mikkel 63]

Interesting how little crap that is needed to derail a perfectly fine discussion and all it's participants into the mud.

[Crabby 28]

55 minutes ago, mikkel said:

Interesting how little crap that is needed to derail a perfectly fine discussion and all it's participants into the mud.

Yep, but that is what happens when Kunta and CRJay get involved.  They only care about bashing the developer or people who help, even while being a bit facetious.  They don't care to help as noted by comments like "i paid money for this mess"

[CRJay 429]

18 hours ago, Crabby said:

Yep, but that is what happens when Kunta and CRJay get involved.  They only care about bashing the developer or people who help, even while being a bit facetious.  They don't care to help as noted by comments like "i paid money for this mess"

 

You might want to keep KuntaKinte out of this. I may definitely be a complainer (based on years of disappointment by now with AS and the CRJ), but Kunta has done more for this addon and people on this forum by documenting bugs and problems than you could even hope to do. Focus your comments on me, lol.

[Crabby 28]

1 hour ago, CRJay said:

 

You might want to keep KuntaKinte out of this. I may definitely be a complainer (based on years of disappointment by now with AS and the CRJ), but Kunta has done more for this addon and people on this forum by documenting bugs and problems than you could even hope to do. Focus your comments on me, lol.

Ahh, that is sweet.  Really touching.  I'll go grab a tissue. 

[mikkel 63]

On 1/29/2022 at 4:25 PM, KuntaKinte said:

This feature like so many others is unfortunately not implemented

 

On 2/9/2022 at 7:13 PM, CRJay said:

The developer deserves a bit of a kick in the butt to get simple stuff that we use daily in normal operations (the stuff they like to claim they simulate) actually working. A sad smiley and statement that it is currently not is actually a very appropriate reply.

 

Edit: And it would also be helpful if you'd get your own post right, as the format you posted should not work and would generally only create a custom waypoint 180nm along track from XYZ with the custom name '40'. The correct format would be XYZ180/40.

 

Would you mind adding only three items each that you really feel missing or should be fixed with the CRJ to this post?

 

I really like the feel and visuals of this add-on, but I've yet to complete a flight with it, but very curious why it has a somewhat bad reputation.