The RNAV glidepath right now does not extend vertically beyond the designated intercept point… which is incorrect and makes it impossible to intercept the glidepath “from below” as all pilots are taught…
Example RNAV 01L at KTPA. You should be able to aproach at 2000-2600 feet AGL and intercept the glidepath. However, the glideslope indicator is pegged to the bottom, unless you approach at 1300 feet AGL, in which case it is centered for the entire fllight…
This was reported to Zendesk earlier, but I wanted to give it some visibility.
Please vote for this topic if you would like to see it fixed
RNAV does not work as expected in the C172 because WAAS is not simulated in the Garmin 1000. So no vertical guidance. That’s my conclusion after several test flights. Would be pleased to be proved wrong.
Haven’t tried any RNAV using the G1000 yet. Hopefully this is one of the issues they will address in the upcoming update (or at least a near future update after). A fully functioning G1000 would go a long way to making this sim feel complete
No vertical guidance? Why the visible glideslope indicator, pegged at the bottom?
And why the active glideslope indicator, which centers if you descend far enough… and which the autopilot will then follow in APR mode? There IS vertical guidance, but it does not work correctly.
is also ILS and also VOR app (hit with terain only of course) problem in case you don’t have correct altimeter/QNH set as local pressure! That is what I’ve already somewhere else described. Simply if your altimeter is set with wrong pressure, you can be in situtaion that catch your glide indicator at different altitude due pressure. I can recommend to all simple test to check correct functionality, logically. We are on sim so we need logically weather set clear with complex standard pressure - 29.92 or 1013 hPa. Then try all RNAV/ILS approaches and check with charts if your catched glide path is ok with altitude at defined point, at OM f.ex. or FAF. Then if you’ll find errors you can say definitelly that this is problem within FS data
Then simply we started vote for something not have sence because it’s working. Pls everytime study problematic and do tests because we see here on Forum so much topics that have no reason to vote becuase are only missunderstanded as not knowledge f.ex. or simply not discovered solution very easy.
Sry, I understand that you have no good knowledge about problematic, read again my post and think about that… On other side I did not find till this time problem with this (of course flights what I did from FS release).
Update: looking to first post of this topic is also strange to me talking about AGL in this case. This is not ok in my opinion because how you can measure in C172 this altitude? I see in this case probably more missunderstanded things. MSL is everytime expected here.
> Why the visible glideslope indicator, pegged at the bottom?
Yes, mine too. My theory is that the G1000 is programmed as if there’s vertical guidance.
And why the active glideslope indicator, which centers if you descend far enough… and which the autopilot will then follow in APR mode?
In the C172? This I did not see. (Although not clear what “descend far enough” means. If you have taken over manually, then you are not testing for vertical guidance, no?) The “GS” indication in the annunciator always remained white (not green), indicating it was not triggered. (I was flying at 2K alt.)
Will test again after installing the new patch. Let’s hope this issue goes away.
After the latest patch the glideslope indicator is inaccurate, in the TBM anyway.
The aircraft tries to match the green indicator point but can never do so. The green ‘dot’ is always 2 units above the median where it should be on ILS approach.
Unfortunately, this problem was not fixed in the second patch.
And no, this has nothing to do with incorrect baro pressure or AGL vs MSL.
As soon as I activate an RNAV approach, the glideslope indicator appears (should only happen when on final) and it is pegged at the bottom… unless I reduce the altitude to the intercept point (typically around 1300 feet AGL). The GS indicator then moves up and roughly centers. None of this is correct…
OK, for the TBM, tell me where you fly this RNAV approach and at which altitude. Just a reminder, this is a discussion about the RNAV glidepath… I would love to see an example of where this works!
OK, that illustrates the problem very well.
If I activate and fly that approach at 2500 feet, the GS indicator is alive the entire time, in a centered position, until I pass the FAF at FBA29, then it jumps up a little bit and starts going down.
What should happen, it that the GS indicator does not appear until the IAF at IBA29 and at that point it should be at the top of the scale, so that I can intercept the glidepath from below. Even if I fly at 3000 feet, it would still be above me and I could intercept it and be guided down to FBA29 in APR mode.
Having the GS indicator visible and centered during the approach, well before the IAF or FAF, is simply incorrect.
The glidepath indication in this SIM is fixed in the middle of the HSI and gives you descent from the intercept point. This is definately wrong. As said above it should be intercepted from below ideally like an ILS. If you are indeed below it the glide slope indication will come down from the top of the HSI as you run into it. The exception is if you fly from an IF point where it says for instance 2000 feet it will be in the middle of the HSI if you fly at 2000 feet until you reach decent point.
I understand that problematic can be drastically hard to understand but have joy with sim and make tests with close to airport departures/arrival/approaches can be direction to knowledge. On other side glide path is everytime in my side of approaches what I did. on other places can be problem, I understand. You don’t need clear your post because is ok and constructive in my opinion but is your choice of course, no problem.
so we need logically weather set clear with complex standard pressure - 29.92 or 1013 hPa. Then try all RNAV/ILS approaches and check with charts if your catched glide path is ok with altitude at defined point, at OM f.ex. or FAF. Then if you’ll find errors you can say definitelly that this is problem within FS data