This plus the navdata isn’t always the same or as complete. Also to update the TDS GTNXi navdata I need Navigraph. As a VATSIM and PilotEdge user Navigraph is amazing.
For charts, Jeppesen does have additional coverage. For data, the LIDO nav data itself is exceptionally complete and accurate worldwide. We have yet to receive a bug where the source navdata was incorrect, so far.
The LIDO data is now what is in MSFS 2020, as well.
1 Like
I’m concerned that I paid full price for a unfinished product.
5 Likes
Is not access to LIDO navdata restricted in similar way to weather data? 3rd party addons cannot access it properly, hence they don’t use it. Otherwise the new B777 from PMDG built for FS2024 would be using default navdata but it still relies on Navigraph.
Here are two quotes from PMDG forum:
They build in navdata and charts are extremely cumbersome to program for and do not provide the same level of sophistication that we are looking for.
In the last year, PMDG overhauled the internal functions of the FMS and autopilots on all their aircraft. I don’t know the details, but the custom nav database that PMDG uses now, (supplied by Navigraph) is in ARINC 424 format, which is the very same database format used by real airliner FMSs.
The MSFS default Nav database, which is supplied by Lufthansa, is derived from ARINC 424 master files, but is translated to a different form that MSFS default aircraft can use.
It would be a step backwards for PMDG to try to use the default nav database format. That would require undoing all the changes they made to use native ARINC 424 nav data directly.
Full discussion here Charts/Airac - PMDG Simulations
Hopefully you can check this bug report i made last December
No, it is not at all restricted. The full set of navdata as it is loaded into the sim is available for use in all APIs (WASM, SimConnect, and JS) and platforms (XBox and PC).
I disagree strongly with this. The charts API is not closed, and other developers have had no problems adopting it already, such as Ini and PMS.
Additionally, we have added a number of new fields from the ARINC spec into the sim in 2024 specifically to address the concerns of developers like PMDG, such as RNP values, AR flags, enroute altitudes, non-mandatory procedure holds, transition flight levels and altitudes, and a bunch more that were requested in the past. If they have current concerns with the available data fields in MSFS 2024, they have not expressed them to us.
To suggest that ARINC, a flat file format with an extremely complicated spec (500+ pages) which has no database or indexing is less cumbersome to use than the structured and indexed data with APIs from the sim is a very confusing statement. It is, of course, any developer’s prerogative to choose whatever solution they like, but I can’t help but feel these responses cloud the reality of what the sim data can do and create intentional confusion for customers.
We’re more than happy to address additional concerns with the available fields in the sim if these developers let us know what else they need that is presently missing.
3 Likes
Is this still happening in SU2?
Yup! on SU2 right now. Some samples from RPVB, RPVM and RPLL
So Tower freqs are all mixed up with ACC Freqs… The data from the planner page is correct but not on the sim.
1 Like
That is quite strange; the planner uses the same navdata APIs that ATC and the world map do, so if the planner page is reporting it properly, then it is categorized properly in the sim navdata. Maybe a bug in ATC and the world map code itself, we’ll have to forward that along to the teams responsible for those.
4 Likes
Thank you!