When I create a flight plan it will not load correctly. It is usually missing legs when I look at the VFR Map. This only seems to happen with the 787-10. No mods or anything. I have reinstalled the game, still the issue remains.
Thanks for any help.
1 Like
You usually have to edit the flightplan in the FMC to remove any discontinuities (which show up as gaps), which are quite often there between SID/main part / STAR etc. You missing bits will then join up. Hit âplanâ on the MFD and on the FMC legs page âSTEPâ should appear so you can step through each point in the flightplan.
To remove a discontinuity -
WAYPOINT 1
{DISCONTINUITY}
WAYPOINT 2
just click the soft key to the left of waypoint 2 and then the softkey to the left of the discontinuity to âpasteâ waypoint 2 over it. I do this just about every flight before pushback and itâs quite common in other airliner/ FMCs combos.
2 Likes
Cool, thanks Iâll give that a try. I appreciate the help.
1 Like
Also keep in mind that you often may not get the STAR or APPROACH added in. You add them in using the FMC, and once added, you have to then check the FMC for discontinuities too.
I removed a discontinuity I had in my flightplan, then changed my approach and STAR and then found the discontinuity was back justa head of the STAR so usually a good idea to set it all up in the FMC before departure to make sure the whole flightplan joins together before you push back.
Thanks, I need to learn more about the FMC on this thing. The 320 is a bit easier to fly.
Iâm just curious as to why I cannot set up the IFR flight plain in the world map and have it load properly in the 787.
3 Likes
Itâs probably set up to make it be more realistic. I havenât tried solely the world map to create the flightplan. I use simbrief then import simbrief flightplan into world map then launch the 787 and it does leave discontinuities and omits the final approach too, which I add in later. The pmdg737 is much the same and I think itâs just a question of getting used to FMCs, they all behave this way to one extent or another. Even the Focker F28 which Iâm flying a lot (with no FMC) uses the now default WT GNS530 gps system in it and although there are no discontinuities, it does leave the approach blank leaving you to add it in and activate it.
TBH itâs quite useful as often if you are using in game ATC it will give you a different runway and approach than the planner gives you so you can end up switching runways at the last minute.
All FMCâs are similar in nature though.
For the new WT 787 to prep for takeoff I suggest watching this video-
The FMS part is from 6:40 or so onwards.
2 Likes
Is the only problem you are having is the flight path display on the VFR Map? Or are there other issues? I agree that the A320neo is a bit easier mostly because the AAU2 changes to the 787 made it more complex than it was.
No, in flight path display Iâll see the gaps in the flight plan also.
Thanks for that.
1 Like
OK, I think I see what is going on here. When I create a flight plan in the in game world map the departures and arrivals donât load properly. I did fix the discontinuity where that showed up, but the VFR map (and the FP in the cockpit) has missing portions for the departures and arrivals. When I create a Flight Plan without those (direct) there are no issues. So I have to test it out some more, but I think its an actual bug that I ran into.
Hi, departures (SID) and arrivals (STAR) are IRL never part of a flightplan wich is created sometimes weeks in advance. The departure and arrival change with the weather conditions and are assigned by ATC so they are put in the FMC by the flightcrew as soon as the Sid and STAR are known to them. That is also how itâs done in the Sim.
Happy flying.
1 Like
Thank you. Iâm getting it now. I learned a little more about that this morning. I appreciate the help.
Your comment about using direct routes make sense because it bypasses any SID or STAR implementation. How does what you are seeing compare to the SID and STAR charts? There are charts that deliberately do have missing portions. In the past MSFS would âfill in the blanksâ to avoid confusion. Now MSFS implements these charts as designed (which means the past implementation is now âbrokenâ).
MSFS flight planner does things creating a flight plan that I do not fully understand. I have created flight plans that look goofy or strange on the World Map usually due to wrong transitions (that we canât choose). I often change the SID and STAR to Direct and then choose the SID and STAR again to clean up the routing to use the correct transitions.
It looks as if the SID and STAR are missing in the sim. When I created a flight plan in the world map it looks complete. However, when I get into the cockpit the flight computer is missing any kind of SID or STAR. I played around with the departures and arrivals in the FMC and was able to make a complete flight plan. However, it was a lot of fumbling around because I donât fully understand Sim brief either.
I think Iâm just used to the old way where the planning in the world map made it easy to hop in a go without much, if any at all, input into the FMC.
1 Like
If you give us the flight plan data where youâve encountered this problem we can try to replicate the issue: From/To - Sid - Appr - Star.- FL.
One point of note and itâs been asked on another thread too is VNAV. I think the current STAR & approach seem to have some bogus ALT constraints in it which probably donât help calculating the VNAV PATH. I flew into LEBL last night on a long approach and every single non constrained waypoint was listed at my cruise ALT of FL370 until you hit the waypoints with and actual constraint where it was fine. Seems bogus. I changed them all manually to what I expected them to be and VNAV worked ok for me then. Itâs probably worth reviewing your flightplan in the FMC to make sure the target alts are as expected along the path. Not on the SU13 beta either so not sure if this type of thing has been fixed or is still there.
I also had one weird flight which started out with LNAV just not working at all. It didnât matter which mode I was in, the aircraft just ploughed on regardless ignoring magenta or even bearing in HDG mode.
Rebooted sim and started again and it was fine. 
Wouldnât care but Iâd spend 30mins loading my aircraft with GSX. Anyone else see any weirdness like this occasionally?
Working as expected.
Each SID or STAR is âshorthandâ instructions to improve safety and save time. They are a map of waypoints, altitudes, and speeds along with any written instructions. Approaches are a similar type of shorthand containing waypoints, altitudes, and other necessary information for landing successfully. When ATC tells a pilot âCleared for the ILS approach runway 30,â ATC could tell the pilot every waypoint and altitude on that approach and the pilot would have to read everything back to ATC.
The reason why you might not see a SID or STAR in the FMC is because the FMC has to âunrollâ the SID or STAR into waypoints or âlegsâ for the FMC to control the autopilot. Depending on the aircraft the SID or STAR usually are shown on the Arrival/Departure screen in most FMCs. If they are missing, the can be added on those screens.
I think this plane has just been damaged
It doesnât respond correctly yo keyboard assigned commands
Another one not to use
There is often confusion about VNAV, SID/STAR information, and ATC. In a perfect MSFS world without any other aircraft, ATC, and regulations, VNAV would work perfectly. The MSFS World simulates real-world regulations as close as possible. ATC does not know about VNAV paths because they arenât on any charts.
MSFS uses real-world navigation information so if it seems there might be some bogus altitude constraints in MSFS they would also be in real-world navigation.
I think you mean you were flying a long arrival, not a long approach as there is a significant difference between them. So you entered an arrival at FL370 and eventually crossed a waypoint with a restriction. So what is bogus? The VNAV if set up properly should have created a vertical path from top-of-descent to the waypoint altitude restriction. And non-constrained altitudes should be displayed on the FMC for each waypoint.
If you told ATC you are flying at FL370, you have to stay at FL370 until ATC gives you a new altitude no matter what the VNAV path is. ATC should have given you descent instructions to the waypoint restriction depending on the type of restriction. (If a waypoint restriction is AT or ABOVE a certain altitude, the restriction doesnât have a ceiling altitude. For example if the restriction is AT or ABOVE FL110, you can fly over it at FL370. The VNAV path would probably keep you at FL370 because you werenât required to descend.) The ATC descent instructions probably wouldnât match the VNAV path which is why ATC often says âPlease expedite your descent toâŠâ altitude meaning donât fly the VNAV path. Just descend as quickly as possible.
There isnât any problem changing waypoint altitudes in the FMC. It is actually a good way to learn and understand exactly what the VNAV is doing especially for the various types of restrictions. FWIW, if I see a waypoint restriction and ATC isnât telling me to descend, I will ask ATC for a lower altitude which the usually approve.
When I first started using VNAV, I was VERY frustrated and thought that VNAV was broken. I was at FL210 flying to a waypoint with a restriction of BELOW FL110. As the aircraft flew closer to the waypoint, the aircraft wasnât descending like I thought. Clearly there is something wrong with the FMC, autopilot, or most likely MSFS. I tried everything I could to start descent without success. I checked the waypoint in the FMC looking for errors. I discovered the waypoint had TWO restrictions, altitude AND speed. The speed restriction was 220 kts and I had been flying about 350 kts. The VNAV was programmed to decrease speed before altitude. When the aircraft slowed to 220 kts, it then started the descent. The VNAV wasnât broken. My expectation was incorrect.
1 Like