TACANs and VORTACs labelled as DMEs and VORDMEs

Bug Reporting Hub ATC, Traffic & NAVAIDs
, ,
1

Do you have any add-ons in your Community folder? If yes, please remove and retest before posting.
I have one addon, which is the aircraft I am developing. It in no way alters navigational data so that shouldn’t be the problem.

Are you using Developer Mode or made changes in it?
I am using developer mode but have not made any changes.

Brief description of the issue:
FS9GPS returns incorrect VOR type for VORTACs and TACANs. VORTACs (enum 5) are returned as VORDMEs (enum 2) and TACANs (enum 4) are returned as DMEs (enum 3). It is not as simple as offset enums because VORDMEs and DMEs return the expected result.

Provide Screenshot(s)/video(s) of the issue encountered:
Below is a list of a select few navaids that I have noticed to be incorrect, but this applies to all VORTACs and TACANs.

Ident :: Expected Type (Enum) :: Sim Type (Enum)

// California
NZY :: TACAN (4) :: DME (3)
NRS :: TACAN (4) :: DME (3)
NKX :: TACAN (4) :: DME (3)
NFG :: TACAN (4) :: DME (3)
PGY :: VORTAC (5) :: VORDME (2)
MZB :: VORTAC (5) :: VORDME (2)

// Florida
HST :: TACAN (4) :: DME (3)
DHP :: VORTAC (5) :: VORDME (2)

// New Jersey
SAX :: VORTAC (5) :: VORDME (2)

Detail steps to reproduce the issue encountered:
Call FS9GPS batch simvars for nearest navaids or query specific navaids and look at the VORType enum type.

PC specs for those who want to assist (if not entered in your profile)
Ryzen 3700X, RTX 2080 Super, 32GB DDR4 @ 3200mHz

Build Version # when you first started experiencing this issue:
1.17.3.0

Are you on the Steam or Microsoft Store version?
Steam

Did you submit this to Zendesk? If so, what is your ticket #?
#110821

2

Is TACAN fully supported in the current sim in planes that have the necessary equipment? If not, this may be a natural ‘downgrade’ to what’s supported by airliners and GA planes.

1 Like
3

I guess they tried to make it easier for developers by converting TACAN and VORTAC to the equivalent civil systems. If you would be working on DME avionics for a civil aircraft you only have to deal with the DME type, not both the TACAN and DME.

Kind of sucks if you are making a military aircraft though. All of the sudden the TACAN cannot provide bearing anymore, because it is downgraded to a DME only.

4

I feel like that a very overkill solution; to just cut out functionality that you don’t need… Its not like developers have to do that much work anyways, its just adding another type to whatever conditions have to be met for VORs and such.

Now I’m not making a military aircraft so I could totally live without it. The only reason I noticed is that my map only shows three types of VORs and the TACANs are nowhere to be seen. It just sucks that the navdata is modified to be less realistic in return for a slight increase, if at all, in ease of use.

I personally don’t see the reasoning behind it but maybe someone else here can.

5

So did you confirm that TACAN doesn’t work in military aircraft in the sim? Or does it?

6

TACAN has never worked in the FS series. They are outside the range available for avionics sets.

7

MSFS is getting decent traction with military jets. TACANs are crucial navigation equipment into and out of some airports with military jets.

The C17 is capable of TACAN navigation. It can’t do so in MSFS. Departures out of MacDill AFB use the on-field TACAN for navigation.

It’s not even nav equipment that’s considered a violation of the game’s E-rating, it’s just a radio beacon. It should be something that’s implemented; it’s a shame that DCS is the only consumer simulator that actually uses TACANs

8

Some aircraft add-ons don’t currently support TACAN, while others do.