I don’t know. I do all my FPL outside in LNM, import it into the sim - nod at the defects it imposes on the world map, but am pleased to find that when loaded into NXi, it accurately looks like LNM.
WIP is what I would say. Perhaps SU6 and SU7 will bring more changes systemically. It does say that on the feedback roadmap for G1000. You may want to ask in the G1000 NXi master thread. Matt is very transparent.
I just hope that the underlying base logic gets an overhaul. Without it, every single third party developer has to either rely on using WT upgraded avionics, or develop their own flight plan system, if they a want correctly implemented nav system. Not to mention the main MSFS flight planning maps will always be incorrect and at times unusable.
I really think this should be a high priority, despite the amount of work it may require.
Maybe the ARCs would be more acceptable if they were calculated for the current aircraft, and its standard rate turn at cruise speed.
At the moment, it seems to be fixed on a curve suitable for a 747 !!
Not even that, a 747 can easily fly the procedure in this thread…
Arcs are not needed at all, regardless of aircraft, nor are they correct. As long as turn anticipation works for fly-by waypoints, which it does, the current implementation is not even required.
100% agree. To me, this seems like a classic case of a programmer designing something they have little or no real world knowledge of, and just imagining what might be “Un fantasme sympa”
It is a Fantasy Idea, better suited to a Fantasy game than a “Flight Simulator”.
Unfortunately, we see this time and time again in the design of MSFS, which is obviously a great disappointment to anyone looking for a realistic Flight Simulator, but highly acceptable for anyone looking for a “Flying game”.
Just voted as I find this extremely annoying as well.
What you can do to workaround this is when flying, switch your AP to use HDG instead to maintain the course you actually want and then activate the leg for the waypoint after the IAF once established. It’s annoying, I know but not horrible if ATC is already vectoring you with headings anyway.
Another thing to try If you’re importing from LNM, chose the export option “Export waypoints for approaches”. Then when in the World Map, chose your departure and arrival airports, chose IFR, and select automatic for all approaches and load the plan. It should load with just the waypoints without defining an approach. The only problem with this is that the GPS won’t recognize it as an actual approach once you’re in the air so you get no GS or localizer unless you load the approach in the GPS after the fact.
On the WT CJ4 World Map, I select my flight from KJFK to KEWR.
The Waypoints look okay.
But when the plan is input into the FMS, a strange set of LEGS appears.
I click the AGNSS waypoint
then click the Discontinuity
then click AGNSS again
then click the top VERDE waypoint
The AP will now flies direct to AGNSS.
Note: The screenshot shows the selected approach as GPS 22R.
I clicked it wrong for this screenshot.
I always select IFR 22R. It displays the same ARC.
If it’s any consolation, it enforces these for VFR flights now. I didn’t even select an approach, it was supposed to be direct, but the sim knows better it seems.
Hi Nijntje, yes the fly back bug is different, however I would guess these are all interconnected and need an overall new Flighplanner approach. I might be wrong though.
I observed the following Flightplanner related problems:
I did not systematically investigate these bugs, but observed them in various scenarious e.g. Default TBM/G3000, WTG3000, FBW A32NX Dev. Version from last Sunday, Default A320 … basically all planes / GPS / FMCs which are based on the underlying MSFS Flightplanner.
In my oppinion they are all somehow interrelated and this is probably why FBW, WT, (Aerosoft CRJ?) decided to completely start newly.
However, I dont want to derail this thread as it was focused so far on the first point.
Njintje you decide as OP if to also include the other observations or keep them separate from this thread.
