I don’t know what to say except I’m really starting to get disappointed. I believe the team is working hard, and I really in love with the sim however they don’t concentrate to fix the most critical issues : Airplane dynamics, and avionics functions.
So did a simple flight from KSGJ to KAGS, in the G1000 Cessna 172, that i was an instructor for 3 years, and was unhappy to find that the RNAV approaches are not fixed yet ?! 3 full patch updates and the plane would not fly an approach on AP ? This is becoming an issue for me.
First issue I noticed is that when you load the approach, the altitude at the FAF and IAF is missing, like the sim does not know the details about the approach fixes and altitudes when it’s loaded.
Second issue I noticed is the GP (Glide Path) on the RNAV is always at the bottom. I tried to descent up to 1000ft above airport elevation 35 miles away and the magenta diamond (GP) was still telling me I need to go lower.
And third after I disconnected the AP and Dive to catch the GP, the VASI was not aligned with the glide path. That shows that this glide path is probably around 0.8 to 1.5 degrees and not around 3 like it supposed to be to intercept at the FAF.
Mt biggest complaint is that we had 3 patches and non of them fixed the basic issue of RNAV approaches or the G1000 issues that all G1000 airplanes suffers from.
So when we going to have all that fix so we can enjoy fly instrument approaches ?
Tha seems to be a specific issue with the RNAV glidepath of that specific airport.
If the pip is always at the bottom and you know you’re at the right altitude, it doesn’t mean that RNAV approaches are screwed in general (they have worked for me after the latest patch in most other airports) but that that specific one is fed bad data. With 37,000 airports it happens.
For instance I found a similar issue at Naha airport in Okinawa even if weirder. The glidepath is actually captured at the correct attitude, but plummets you to 500 feet at a crazy descent angle then stops you right above the water, and then has you land (short) at a super-shallow angle. My passengers have a bad day when I land there unless I do it manually
The only thing you can do is submit a bug report in the Zendesk so that that airport is looked at specifically.
As the devs said several times (including the latest Q&A), with so many airports and multiple approaches per airport there is no way they can all be manually tested internally, so they need bug reports in order to work the kinks where the specific data is incorrect.
It seems like it’s this way for a LOT of the rnav approaches though, this isn’t an issue related to a single airport. I have been trying all day to set up an RNAV approach correctly at JFK and all of them end up just how OP describes.
I don’t know how many there are. I have found only one so far, and I do many approaches.
That being said, again, if the pip is low at the right altitude, it’s not the RNAV system that isn’t working, it’s the glide path that’s set incorrectly.
Complaining in the forums about the system in general won’t have any effect besides giving the devs very vague indications that there are RNAV glide paths that need to be looked at, and with 37,000 airports, good luck to them finding which ones.
If one wants this sim to actually improve, they should pick up the habit after each flight to open a detailed Zendesk with any bugs they have found. That is helpful.
While I agree there’s an incomplete RNAV system, VASI/PAPI lights are not always coincident with instrument glide path - confirmed via NOTAM as you’re aware. Also, I think we need to consider we haven’t yet seen a major patch focusing solely on avionics (the three we’ve seen have been a broad stroke, with the third mainly being the addition of Japan scenery). It wouldn’t surprise me to see a host of avionics improvements in patch 4, but we do still need to consider we are only three patches in, and barely scratching two months on a gigantic project with many teams involved.
I may be a bit biased as an avionics guy, but I agree. It’s currently the weakest point of the sim, followed closely by ATC.
With that being said, I did hear they originally built the sim to be simplistic in terms of avionics, but since launch (and maybe our little voices were heard in alpha), the community’s desire for a robust Garmin simulation has exceeded their expectations. I remember reading they claimed to be currently working with Garmin for a better, more realistic experience.
Only time will tell, but I hope we don’t have to resort to paid a/c for decent avionics.
To me as far as database goes… when you load an approach and don’t see the altitudes for the
Fixes means something is wrong. In a perfect world if you give the FAF an correct altitude
And location the sim should be able to make a geometric 3 degrees glide path just like
Any real world avionics.
The new LittleNavMap 2.6.1 beta can load in the scenery and nav database from MSFS, that’s probably a good way to double check things.
Edit:. Looking at the RNAV approach charts for KAGS, they all have notes that the visual approach path indicators and the RNAV descent are not aligned.
I tried flying the A320nx from SLC to DEN and with VNAV engaged the plane started it’s top of decent half way through the flight and almost crashed into the rocky mountains. The FMS system has no idea how to calculate a proper decent, has no idea where to mark top of decent, doesnt have the correct VNAV altitudes at published weighpoints or speeds for those points and doesn’t calculate Vertical Speed for a smooth, steady, constant decent. I love the sim it’s great but this stuff needs to be ironed out asap. It’s basic functionality for a flight sim.
I’m biased because I’m a Jeppesen guy, and while I personally think the Jeppesen database is more complete than NavBlues’, NavBlue also have a really nice and modernized approach to their databases - Jeppesen can be quite a hassle to deal with sometimes (loading new cycles into the GNS, or updating the JetPlanner software). I am a bit surprised they didn’t partner with Jeppesen, seeing as they’re a Boeing company and have offices in Seattle (HQ in Colorado though). From my experience I presume NavBlue was easier to integrate their data than it was with Jepps.
Your issues seem catalogued well enough to make for some useful bug reports. More useful than the rhetorical question you are asking that no one can answer.
Xplane 11 does a great job of calculating FMS data. Like a phenomenal job. Not sure how long it took them to perfect that though… I would think MS/Asobo have the resources to at least match the FMS functionality of xp11
Instead of filling this topic with mode general complaints about how things are “■■■■”, maybe we could figure out why these specific approaches are messed up, and the OP could file a Zendesk ticket.
I’ve watched videos on youtube of RNAV approaches working in G1000 and G3000 aircraft. The airliners I agree are probably broken but this topic was about the G1000 and the nav data for the approach itself, not the broken airliners.
The RNAV glidepath at LOWI isnt working either. But i rember in EDDM there are working RNAV glidepathes – If i remember correctly.
But even with navigraph beta RNAVs glidepaths still fail.
