Please report this as a bug if you haven’t.
Am I missing something obvious to enable the HSI to display glidepath when on an RNAV approach?
I had the same issue and it took a while to sort out why it was happening.
I still do not understand why it should be, but this happens when I use the ‘L’ key to turn all the lights on. When I use all the individual light switches, it does not happen.
Hope this solves it for you (and others).
1 Like
Found out it is not a bug per se’. It is related to my panel.cfg file in custom skins. The problem is that some skins may use the customizable registration number and others may not. Those that do require a panel.cfg file with the external registration entry. Those that don’t require a panel.cfg file with the registration set to transparent. It’s a freaking mess.
So, I had to write a powershell script that peers into any existing panel.cfg for the correct/required entries after Carenado’s latest patch and fixes them if necessary. It’s messy as all get out. With the changes to the tablet, this resulted in having to add the full path to the default panel.cfg all the while still looking for the bad entries in existing panel.cfg files and changing them appropriately.
MS has a mess on its hands with the way every skin uses multiple cfg files just to get a skin to work properly. It’s a carry over from the FSX days that has been added onto for MS2020. Bad design choice IMO. Everytime this happens, either the original author will have to update their skin (most do not) or your skin library becomes severely broken. I spend more time trying to fix things than I do flying the sim.
1 Like
Absolutely on point. Got tired of messing around with all this myself so I now simply delete any reference to a third party panel.cfg file in the aircraft.cfg folder. Yes the livery is not as pretty absent the custom registration numbers but at least everything else, including some highly desired mods, don’t break. I thought I read somewhere there is a way to get custom registrations in without messing around with panel.cfg files but can’t recall where. If that is true, adding custom panel.cfg files should be outlawed as they seem to cause more trouble than the benefits they produce.
Oh interesting! I am pretty sure I did press L, I remember one of the front lights was stuck on and wouldn’t turn off.
Thanks for the info!
1 Like
Oh, I’ve been fighting this one all day. Finally got a script that works, but now I’m faced with trying to find where Carenado has hidden the XML files for the “Gauge_Update.xml” and “WindowsAircrafOptions.xml for their Cessna C182T.” The default panel.cfg file calls these two XMLs but they do not exist in the default panel folder, yet the default aircraft run fine. I’d sure like to know how? I have no path to point the remote panel.cfg file to for these gauges. Are Asobo and Carenado trying to drive customers away? If so, it’s working!
I’ve flown a half-dozen flights post-update: the fuel flow has been dropped by at least 15% at cruise altitude (6,500 or 7,500 feet in my case) confirmed by comparing the old Aircraft Performance file in Little NavMap to the new metrics.
Haven’t checked it yet against the real-world POH.
The manuals they provided for this have some excerpts from what looks like an original POH, so I tested against those yesterday and in-sim fuel flows are also below those values. I don’t know what the fuel flow values were before the update though, I only got this plane a couple days before the update.
FF, as Seven7Tango also mentioned, were at least 15% greater or more prior to this update. You could in fact follow the FF placard below the gauge accurately. Now it is impossible to get to 90. It appears Carenado tweaked the engines in this update but forgot (or didn’t bother) to correspondingly adjust the FF parameters. Greatest differences are near sea level.
None of the (non G1000) Carenado aircraft seem to display vertical information on the HSI for RNAV approaches and it does appears to be a problem with other aircraft as well (the only ones I can remember if the top of my head where RNAV GS data IS shown on stream gauges are the JF Arrows/Warrior, but I’m sure there are others)
Have you read the POH’s for the HSI models and autopilots in question to determine that they should transmit vertical information to the autopilots and the autopilots should be able to receive vertical information to be able use it for appropriate RNAV approaches that have the appropriate information?
It’s my understanding this is not a universal capability, but I’m not an expert on the subject in any way shape or form.
I believe there is some equipment that has at least the option to install said capabilities, and there are RNAV approaches that do have the information. I just don’t know if the equipment modeled has those options.
At the very least if RNAV GS data isn’t displayed to the pilot anywhere how is the pilot supposed to use it if the AP is in-op or check the AP is following it safely ?
From the chart on his knee?
(I realize people forget paper exists… 
)
#justsayin
1 Like
Which of course completely misses the point of a precision guidance system.
???
You didn’t answer my question if the equipment installed supports said “precision guidance” to that level of detail?
The C337 isn’t a modern 737 Cat III aircraft…
I don’t know if it’s supposed to support it in the first place… Most don’t until recently.
Carenado by and large typically installs “legacy” equipment.
Not that I’m saying it doesn’t, I’m just asking the question. I’m not at my sim right now, so can’t check on the model of the equipment and cross-reference to any manuals.
Personally, I tend to fly with charts since that’s how I learned how to fly, though I do use the basic GPS functions available. I’m not all that turned on by these new-fangled gadgets. But, that’s me.
I was curious about the autopilot operation so I purchased and downloaded the 1976 Skymaster 337G POH. The installed autopilot visible in the Corenado emulation is called Cessna 400A Integrated Flight Control system and in my tests the autopilot emulation is quite true to the historic POH. In this vintage autopilot, the only vertical guidance supported is glideslope. But of course the Corenado Skymaster emulation is not totally vintage. There is a Garmin installed in place of the radio stack. In real life this would require a STC and the equipment installer would deliver a supplement to the POH explaining the operation. But such a document does not exist in the world of siming. So we need to test operation ourselves and attempt to reverse engineer the operation of this modern Garmin interacting with the legacy autopilot supplied with the aircraft. If indeed this particular legacy/modern combination could even be approved.
[EDIT] In retest with latest version of 337 and the GTN750 the altitudes in the FPL did not have any effect on the autopilot or FD.
The autopilot is correctly limited to hold function. It is possible to turn off the hold and use the pitch selector to easily control the climb to the altitude assigned the next waypoint.
1 Like
I think you just need an interface for that.
With my VKB A/P box I can control VS of C337 A/P. And with the StreamDeck.
If you want to try for free, use MSFS Mobile Companion App:
https://flightsim.to/file/2828/msfs-mobile-companion-app
Thank you for you input but how do I know what flight model I’m using and how would I change it?
