FSX - 737 - PM - Waypoints

[ktroemer]

Hi Guys!

I am currently using FSX and a PMDG 737-700 together with PM.
Honestly everything is working fine with my whole setup.
There is only one nasty little bug that it bothering me:

When i fly LNAV/VNAV the plane is always turning into the waypoints. Always short to the waypoints, the plane turns left to get the waypoints. Seems as it wants to reach them flying over them.

I first thought it would be a Yaw Damper issue but it wasnt.
Is there anyone else having this problem and is there a patch available?

And if not...can u recommend a good 737 for the FSX and a good matchng flight model for the PM CDU?

Many thanks and all my best wishes for christmas to you all guys...

Klaus Troemer

[Peter Dowson]

When i fly LNAV/VNAV the plane is always turning into the waypoints. Always short to the waypoints, the plane turns left to get the waypoints. Seems as it wants to reach them flying over them.

I first thought it would be a Yaw Damper issue but it wasnt.
Is there anyone else having this problem and is there a patch available?

Yes, this is a problem several of us have observed and reported. The PM folks say it is fixed in the latest updates, but i've not had a chance to check that yet. I believe it is caused by actually tracking the wrong course when leaving the previous waypoint -- you can see that if you use a 5 or 10 nm range on the ND. The course followed appears to diverge from the correct one at a constant angle until within a few miles of the target waypoint, then curve in to correct itself.

From my experiments i believe the divergence is the difference between the Magnetic Variation in FS9 and that in FSX.

What versions of the PM modules are you using?

Regards

Pete

[paulj]

Don't want to hijack your thread here but can I ask if you needed to do anything special to install the PMDG 737 in FSX?
I've got Project Magenta and Opencockpit's MCP and EFIS and I'm looking for a good model 737 to use.
Do I just install the software the same way as FS9 or did you have to make up a dummy FS9 folder and trick the software into thinking it was installing into FS9, then copy the aircraft files over to FSX?

Thanks

Paul

[blueskydriver]

Paul, to keep this post on subject, I sent you a private message and an email about using PMDG 737 with Project Magenta and FSX.

John

[paulj]

Thank you John,
I never realised that I was giving you so much to describe.
I really appreciate it I have received the email and will have a bit of a readup on it tonight.
Got a couple of grandkids to look after for the next 2 days so will not get a chance to install it until Wednesday at the earliest.:D
You explanation is very comprehensive so I should be able toget this up and running this week.
Once again thank you

Paul

[JonathanRichardson]

Hi

I thought we had this issue more or less sorted. Can you let us know if this is happening with current builds? And if so where you are flying in the world so I can make a test re the mag var. Thank you.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

[abril]

Jonathan, I have the same problem.

My habitual flights are Spain and the routes through the Mediterranean (example LEZL LGZA)

I use the suite of Boeing with the last update.

Greetings

Israel Abril Fernández

[ktroemer]

I use the latest updates and i tried the PMDG and POSKY and the default 737 in FSX.
Always the same problem.

[JonathanRichardson]

Hi

I made some tests, I do not see this problem. LEMG -> EDDS. First section is with no wind / clear. Second is with 25kts almost cross. Tracking appears perfect and no map shift that I can see. Perhaps I miss the point of the problem though? Someone said 'turning in' but the a/c passes over each waypoint perfectly? Please see images, and then please offer a suggestion on how to show me specifically the error so I can recreate. Thank you.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

[JonathanRichardson]

Second part with wind. . .

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

[Peter Dowson]

I made some tests, I do not see this problem. LEMG -> EDDS. First section is with no wind / clear. Second is with 25kts almost cross. Tracking appears perfect and no map shift that I can see. Perhaps I miss the point of the problem though? Someone said 'turning in' but the a/c passes over each waypoint perfectly? Please see images, and then please offer a suggestion on how to show me specifically the error so I can recreate. Thank you.

I think you are looking at this in the same way as I did initially -- I never saw it either until I was shown. Then I started noticing it myself. Try exactly the same but

(a) with a much larger scale on the ND. I think with an 80 mile range the angles aren't large enough to notice much.

(b) with many more closer-spaced waypoints -- I seem to recall, when Ray first showed me the problem, he included pretty much all the waypoints enroute, whether reporting ones or not.

Perhaps, if Ray is looking, he will be able to supply a specific example for you to compare with his results. I don't have time before Christmas -- I'll drop a line to Ray.

[LATER]

Ray's given up on FSX, he's gone back to FS9, so he's not really able to demo this at present. But he points out that the original example he supplied PM support, way back when, would show it well. This is an EGCC-EIDW route with in the main cruise part a number of waypoints all in a straight line. The fact that there's no change of heading at eacvh of these serves to exaggerate the "turning in" to the waypoint at the end of each sohrt leg, and the subsequent reversal of direction to head towards the next waypoint.

Do that with the ND range set to 20 or 40 at most to see it there, or just watch out the window as the horizon tips first one way then the other as you cross each waypoint.

Ray's sending me the actual route he uses so I'll post it here.

Best

Pete

[JonathanRichardson]

Hi Pete

Okay, I'll wait. Must be a way to recreate it - I did some further tests just in case but it did not show up.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

[Tony]

Hi all,

This problem/bug ( I called it "swirling" at the time) exist since the early days (not only in FSX).

http://www.mycockpit.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5882&highlight=tony&page=40

Hope Jonathan will be able to acknowledge and have it fixed.

Regards
Tony

[Peter Dowson]

Okay, I'll wait. Must be a way to recreate it - I did some further tests just in case but it did not show up.

Ray uses this test flight (save it as a .PLN file). Once past WAL the aircraft should not deviate from a straight line as it passes each waypoint, yet it does a series of sweeping S curves!

Pete

================================<o:p></o:p>

[flightplan]
AppVersion=9.1.40901
title=EGCC Manchester to EIDW Dublin
description=EGCC, EIDW
type=IFR
routetype=2
cruising_altitude=18000
departure_id=EGCC, N53* 21.23', W2* 16.50', +000257.00
departure_position=1
destination_id=EIDW, N53* 25.28', W6* 16.20', +000242.00
departure_name=Manchester
destination_name=Dublin
waypoint.0=, EGCC, , EGCC, A, N53* 21.23', W2* 16.50', +000257.00,
waypoint.1=EGTT, WAL, , WAL, V, N53* 23.52', W3* 8.07', +000000.00,
waypoint.2=EGTT, MALUD, , MALUD, I, N53* 24.80', W3* 36.50', +000000.00, L975
waypoint.3=EGTT, ROLEX, , ROLEX, I, N53* 25.70', W3* 58.07', +000000.00, L975
waypoint.4=EGTT, LYNAS, , LYNAS, I, N53* 26.55', W4* 20.00', +000000.00, L975
waypoint.5=EGTT, NATKO, , NATKO, I, N53* 27.20', W4* 38.12', +000000.00, L975
waypoint.6=EGTT, DUB41, , DUB41, I, N53* 28.23', W5* 9.85', +000000.00, L975
waypoint.7=EGTT, LIFFY, , LIFFY, I, N53* 28.80', W5* 30.00', +000000.00, L975
waypoint.8=, EIDW, , EIDW, A, N53* 25.28', W6* 16.20', +000242.00,

[JonathanRichardson]

Hi

I can certainly try the plan, but I never saw anything like swirling like describe - it might be something else (possibly). I thought the main issue was only in FSX, a slight offset from the route due to Mag var and that has (is supposed to be) fixed. I certainly can not recreate it in FSX. Not to say it is not still there for some reason - I do not doubt it - would like to see it though...

The only deviation I notice and know about is a slight delay phase at high speed cruise as the CDU switches to the next waypoint depending on angle / steepness of turn (see images) this could be improved upon, but I don't think it should be of any big concern. If it is happening on systems at low speed / low altitude perhaps it points to slow update times of the specific system. Not sure about that.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

[abril]

Jonathan prove with "TRACK MAGNETIC"magnetic in the ND.
In any place of Spain it happens that before arriving at wpt the airplane tries correct course towards that wpt, and it flies over as soon as it, corrects its trajectory until taking the new course towards next wpt, but that yes, when TRACK MAGNETIC is put in the ND. The mode with which you are flying not I have tried it.
Greetings

Israel Abril Fernandez

[Ray Proudfoot]

Hi

I can certainly try the plan, but I never saw anything like swirling like describe - it might be something else (possibly). I thought the main issue was only in FSX, a slight offset from the route due to Mag var and that has (is supposed to be) fixed. I certainly can not recreate it in FSX. Not to say it is not still there for some reason - I do not doubt it - would like to see it though...

Hi Jonathan,

If you can find the time to fly EGCC-EIDW that route always demonstrated the problem very clearly to me. You don't even need to fly the whole route. By the time you reach DUB41 the problem should be very evident.

As Pete said earlier I gave up on FSX and reverted to FS9 and I never see this issue in that sim so it's definitely a FSX-related issue. I will try to find some time over Christmas to test the latest builds in FSX with this route. I'm not up to date because the versions I have don't give me any problems in FS9.


The only deviation I notice and know about is a slight delay phase at high speed cruise as the CDU switches to the next waypoint depending on angle / steepness of turn (see images) this could be improved upon, but I don't think it should be of any big concern. If it is happening on systems at low speed / low altitude perhaps it points to slow update times of the specific system. Not sure about that.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

I see this occasionally but I can eradicate it by editing my plans to remove waypoints that are too close to a previous one where a large heading change is required.

The turning-in problem is quite different and seems more noticeable on a straight-line route with multiple waypoints < 20 miles apart.

Cheers.

[JonathanRichardson]

Hi

You think flying in MAG or TRUE makes a difference to this? I do not see that. I tried both.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

[abril]

Jonatan, not HDG MAG or HDG TRUE, prove wiht TRACK MAGNETIC mode in the ND.
Sorry, my English is very bad.

Israel Abril Fernández.

[Ray Proudfoot]

Hi

You think flying in MAG or TRUE makes a difference to this? I do not see that. I tried both.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

Hi Jonathan,

I doubt it. My settings in the PM software are no different for FSX than they are for FS9 so I don't see how that could be a factor.

Are you saying you've now tried this test route and were unable to reproduce the problem?

[JonathanRichardson]

Hi Ray

No, I have not done your test route yet, but I am hoping to this evening. It is simply that we made a special routine to combat this mag var error in FSX, and I thought it was solved and don't see it here, but it seems like customers are still having problems which is a bit concerning. . . . . will try your route... I am hoping others did make the updates correctly and are not by mistake running old builds.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

[Ray Proudfoot]

Hi Ray

No, I have not done your test route yet, but I am hoping to this evening. It is simply that we made a special routine to combat this mag var error in FSX, and I thought it was solved and don't see it here, but it seems like customers are still having problems which is a bit concerning. . . . . will try your route... I am hoping others did make the updates correctly and are not by mistake running old builds.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

Hi Jonathan,

I look forward to hearing how things went. On the subject of newer builds I confess to not having updated for a while. Looking through the changes link for the MCP and FMC/CDU I can't see any reference to this bug having been addressed. Which release purported to have fixed it?

[JonathanRichardson]

Hi Ray

I did not see anything unexpected on this first test (see images) but I will re-run it - one flight is not a conclusive test.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

[Ray Proudfoot]

Hi Ray

I did not see anything unexpected on this first test (see images) but I will re-run it - one flight is not a conclusive test.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for the test and the screenshots. They show conclusively to me you're not experiencing this turning-in problem. I've never been able to fly that route in a straight line.

Can you confirm you are running the latest builds available to me?

GC460 26/11/08
MCP434 4/12/08
CDU400 24/8/08

I will try the same flight later this week once we've established you're running with these builds.

If I still get the problem perhaps you can consider what we next need to check is different in our systems. Is there any logging facility available to me?

[JonathanRichardson]

GC460 26/11/08
MCP434 4/12/08
CDU400 24/8/08

Hi Ray

Afirm.

>If I still get the problem perhaps you can consider what we next need to check is different in our systems. Is there any logging facility available to me?[/QUOTE]

Well I hope you don't! In anycase, even though I have not seen this in the sim in FSX recently, I have been looking at testing other things relating to FSX and not this speicifc area, so I have not flown enough of this type of route to say yet 100% the error can't be seen.

Just to be sure, can you also give me a sequence of how you enter the route and select runways / sid/star just to be sure there is not a disconnect somewhere between procedures. I don't think so - but you never know.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

[Ray Proudfoot]

GC460 26/11/08
MCP434 4/12/08
CDU400 24/8/08

Hi Ray

Afirm.

Good. I'll load those versions before my test.


Just to be sure, can you also give me a sequence of how you enter the route and select runways / sid/star just to be sure there is not a disconnect somewhere between procedures. I don't think so - but you never know.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

I 'cheat' when I enter the route. I use the facility provided by Enrico to load the last plan saved in FS. This will also include the SID waypoints. For 23R at EGCC those would include the WAL.1R waypoints.

However, the problems start after WAL so the SID isn't really an issue with this test. I could exclude it, fly direct WAL and then still get the problem.

But that was with older builds so I will try with those above in a day or two and report back. The plan is freely available should others wish to try it and report back. The more the merrier.

Fingers crossed! :)

[JonathanRichardson]

>I 'cheat' when I enter the route. I use the facility provided by Enrico to load the last plan saved in FS. This will also include the SID waypoints. For 23R at EGCC those would include the WAL.1R waypoints.

Hi Ray

Fine I would think, as long as there is no navdata error / change subsequently / miss-match. If plans are saved, and then subsequently navdata changes are made, perhaps this is more the area of concern.

> But that was with older builds so I will try with those above in a day or two and report back. The plan is freely available should others wish to try it and report back. The more the merrier.

When you say avialable, you mean as a download on this website somewhere? As I just did two more tests with no errors, perhaps I should load this plan then and cross check - may be it is okay - but worth checking. It does not explain other customer reports on different routes of course, but I wonder if they are recalling saved routes as well... or simply it os fixed after all (I hope!!)

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

Fingers crossed! :)[/QUOTE]

[abril]

I insist, Mr. Jonathan, tests please flying in TRK MAG mode in the ND.
Route LEZL VIBAS UM985 SOPET UN609 MATEX LEBL, I have flown it infinity of times and from VIBAS and in each WPts of the route the problem ALWAYS takes place that I have described to him in previous post , but flying in TRK MAG

This is only a route example, because the problem appears anywhere of the world that flies.

FS9 works fine.

Thanks

Israel Abril Fernández

[JonathanRichardson]

Hi

I tried MAG/TRU, it makes no difference here - and it should not. I'm afraid I can't fly every single route at this time. Please however, post a screen shot of this error.

You are 100% sure everything is up to date in terms of software builds, FSX, FSUIPC, PM Software? You have no miss-match of data, you tried entering this route manually in case you updated data and a waypoint is no longer there or something? I.e. don't recall a saved route for this type of test as we are trying to figure out if the software has an error (which I don't see) - I'm erring at the moment on another reason for peoples troubles re their updates or route recalls, but I'm still an open book on this one! I'd prefer clear information than just having to try various different routes because this type of chasing an error that might not even be there is sucking up a lot of time right now...

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

[abril]

Hi.
FSX is updated. Use the last version registered of FSUIPC . PM update. As data base of navigation use AIRAC last cycle published and downloaded of Navigraph. The route… well, this I am going to behind schedule prove it this, because times volume the flight plan generated by Route Finder (registered version), I generate a flight plan for FSx and I keep the directory where the flights in FSX are stored, introduce soon in FMC (CDU) using option COROUTE.
Greetings.

Israel Abril Fernández

[blueskydriver]

Jonathan and Ray,

I've been following this thread along and I'm just curious to ask this question because of another thread with somewhat of a connection to do with flight models. Klaus started by saying he is using FSX, PMDG 737-700 with PM and having this problem, so Ray you're using FSX, PMDG 737-700 and PM while getting these same problems?

Jonathan you have posted images that show the error not occurring, but are you testing/confirming with FSX, PMDG 737-700 and PM or is the flight model PM's own model? I ask because I think there surely would be a difference between PMDG's model and PM's model...

Thanks so much for your time Jonathan as I am happy to be a proud PM software owner that knows you're a great customer supporter of Project Magenta and the Flight Simulation Hobby.

John

[abril]

Hello again
The mail of JKCombs makes me think if it has something to see in the production of this error the one that is used airplanes that specifically are not designed for FSX. Concretely, in an airplane FS9 the flight model is just as the one of another FSX? it can influence the model of airplane (its behavior and form of flight) in airplanes FS9 used in FSX? I use PMDG sinpaneles and Project Opensky.
Greetings

Israel Abril Fernández

[JonathanRichardson]

>>Jonathan you have posted images that show the error not occurring, but are you testing/confirming with FSX, PMDG 737-700 and PM or is the flight model PM's own model? I ask because I think there surely would be a difference between PMDG's model and PM's model...

Hi

It is a valid question, but I have used various models for these tests. The sim tests are done with our model (no problems) the other tests are done with PMDG and Default 737 - I have done probably 6hrs of tests in this specific area and found no error (so far) it still does not account for why some are seeing the error (unless they are not updating correctly or have miss-matches of data / nav cycles or something even after updating) - my feeling right now is saved route recall - but I have another idea:

There is in some models the facility in the airfile to allow for MAG drift (to enable the FS primary function [some airfiles have this checked some don't]). I just wonder (as it is enabled in the PMDG model) and if the option is selected and enabled for customers in their FSX Realism settings using PMDG (Instruments and Lights -> Enable gyro drift) this is a shot in the dark but this might also cause this error. Obviously I do not allow gyro drift on a 737 as it is designed for GA a/c typical condition. Anyway, I don't think it is that because I think by default this would be off in FSX unless people are turning it on - which would not make sense. Just something that sprung to mind at this stage...

On the pre-saved route file, I have no idea on this forum of where to get these saved routes.... if you have a tip let me know and I will run another test.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta


Thanks so much for your time Jonathan as I am happy to be a proud PM software owner that knows you're a great customer supporter of Project Magenta and the Flight Simulation Hobby.

John[/QUOTE]

[Ray Proudfoot]

Fine I would think, as long as there is no navdata error / change subsequently / miss-match. If plans are saved, and then subsequently navdata changes are made, perhaps this is more the area of concern.

I doubt any of those waypoints in the plan supplied have changed in the last few years. But even if they had and the lat/lon was slightly different shouldn't the aircraft still fly to the point in space stored in the CDU's waypoint? What is happening the last time I flew in FSX is the aircraft is aiming for a point to one side of the it and then veering in at the last minute trying to overfly it.


> But that was with older builds so I will try with those above in a day or two and report back. The plan is freely available should others wish to try it and report back. The more the merrier.

When you say avialable, you mean as a download on this website somewhere?

No, I was referring to the EGCC-EIDW plan Pete uploaded yesterday and which you flew last night. That's the one that others could fly as it's only a short flight. Here's the link to it. http://www.mycockpit.org/forums/showpost.php?p=71395&postcount=14

[Peter Dowson]

I just wonder (as it is enabled in the PMDG model) and if the option is selected and enabled for customers in their FSX Realism settings using PMDG (Instruments and Lights -> Enable gyro drift) this is a shot in the dark but this might also cause this error. Obviously I do not allow gyro drift on a 737 as it is designed for GA a/c typical condition. Anyway, I don't think it is that because I think by default this would be off in FSX unless people are turning it on

Actually, I always have it enabled, it is just one of the "realism" things I automatically check when I set FS up. I always have done, just as I uncheck auto-rudder and everlasting fuel.

I'll certainly uncheck it before I do any further flights, just to see ... but it is strange that the same thing has no bad effect on PM in FS9 (or before, for that matter). I might not have time to try it before my Christmas break, so maybe you could do the reverse -- i.e. enable it and see if that does create the problem?

As far as other possibilities, well, I don't know. The waypoints and magenta lines are correct on the ND, so it is hard t imagine what different data could be used to compute the aircraft heading to be used. If it were a wind-compensating correction going wrong it would be different with different winds, yet it isn't -- it is always the same, or looks to be. This is why I always suspected a mag var difference.

Regards

Pete

[JonathanRichardson]

[QUOTE=Peter Dowson;71454]Actually, I always have it enabled, it is just one of the "realism" things I automatically check when I set FS up. I always have done, just as I uncheck auto-rudder and everlasting fuel.

Hi Pete

Agreed, further tests indicate it makes no difference. Certainly with current builds at least.

>This is why I always suspected a mag var difference.

Yes, you were correct, there certainly was a mag var error in FSX. But (in theory) it has been corrected.

I will check the saved routes when I get them.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

[JonathanRichardson]

>the flight plan generated by Route Finder (registered version), I generate a flight plan for FSx and I keep the directory where the flights in FSX are stored, introduce soon in FMC (CDU) using option COROUTE.

Not sure what the route finder is.. Are you importing it or entering the route manually? I think you must make a manual entry test. I am not sure what the error checking is like of the PM CDU for imports etc - in fact I don't think we have any, so I am have no idea what might happen with an imported flight plan from another planner.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

[JonathanRichardson]

>hat is happening the last time I flew in FSX is the aircraft is aiming for a point to one side of the it and then veering in at the last minute trying to overfly it.

That was due to the MAG var error which is gone, at least however hard I try, I can not create it. But I found something else <g> but we will hopefully sort that before anyone notices - LOL

Re the other point, you are correct, unless there is some graphical error in drawing due to it.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

[Ray Proudfoot]

I updated to the latest versions of the GC, CDU and MCP and tried my EGCC-EIDW flight.

The results are no different to those I experienced a few months ago. Jonathan, I'm totally nonplussed why I get these problems and despite your best efforts you cannot replicate them.

These pictures show the problem better than I can describe it. I'm running the Boeing GC on a network PC and in F6 expanded mode. I can't see that making any difference but it does no harm to mention it.

The plan was one previously saved in the CDU.

[Peter Dowson]

I updated to the latest versions of the GC, CDU and MCP and tried my EGCC-EIDW flight.

The results are no different to those I experienced a few months ago. Jonathan, I'm totally nonplussed why I get these problems and despite your best efforts you cannot replicate them

Just to be sure, did you have Gyro Drift enabled or disabled in Aircraft Realism? I know it shouldn't have an effect, but I'd like to see it proven.

Pete

[Ray Proudfoot]

Just to be sure, did you have Gyro Drift enabled or disabled in Aircraft Realism? I know it shouldn't have an effect, but I'd like to see it proven.

Pete

I remember your discussion on this and I checked. The two GYRO settings in FSX.CFG are: -

GyroEffect=0.41
GyroDrift-False

Is the GyroEffect value ignored if Drift=False?

[JonathanRichardson]

Hi

Hmm - I see it. Did you enter each waypoint manually? And what is the navdata cycle?

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

[JonathanRichardson]

Hi Ray

Just my two pence worth, don't know the answer to the question for Pete - but if you can switch it off completely do it - you don't get gyro drift on a 737, even the mechanical standby HSI won't drift.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

[Ray Proudfoot]

Hi

Hmm - I see it. Did you enter each waypoint manually? And what is the navdata cycle?

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

Hi Jonathan,

I've shut things down for the night. I'll reply in full tomorrow around 1700GMT.

The waypoints were loaded from a saved plan in the CDU. I think the NavData cycle is 2 behind the current release. Either 0810 or 0811.

More tomorrow.

[Ray Proudfoot]

Hi Ray

Just my two pence worth, don't know the answer to the question for Pete - but if you can switch it off completely do it - you don't get gyro drift on a 737, even the mechanical standby HSI won't drift.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

Okay, wilco. Thanks. Better still, give me your FSX entries and I'll use those.

[JonathanRichardson]

>he waypoints were loaded from a saved plan in the CDU.

Hi Ray

If possible could you send it to me via e-mail at some stage so I can load it? Or / and when you have time please try a manual entry of the route - that would be ideal.

>I think the NavData cycle is 2 behind the current release. Either 0810 or 0811.

Should be fine. I have most recent and also some tests with the July 08 data and they all appear the same re result.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta



More tomorrow.[/QUOTE]

[abril]

Ray, you have the same problem that I.
You have reproduced EXACTLY what it happens to me. I observe in addition that the configuration of the ND is TRK MAG (the same that I use). Jonathan has always talked about configuration HDG MAG could this have some incidence in the reproduction of the error?
I introduce the Wpts of form manual, but using VIA… TO (ex. VIBAS, UM985 SOPET…), and the CDU appears the Wpts included between VIBAS and SOPET (BAZAS, YES, ASTRO, VLC). It could influence this in the appearance of the error?
Greetings.

Israel Abril Fernández

[Ray Proudfoot]

Ray, you have the same problem that I.
You have reproduced EXACTLY what it happens to me. I observe in addition that the configuration of the ND is TRK MAG (the same that I use). Jonathan has always talked about configuration HDG MAG could this have some incidence in the reproduction of the error?
I introduce the Wpts of form manual, but using VIA… TO (ex. VIBAS, UM985 SOPET…), and the CDU appears the Wpts included between VIBAS and SOPET (BAZAS, YES, ASTRO, VLC). It could influence this in the appearance of the error?
Greetings.

Israel Abril Fernández

Abril,

Jonathan has already discounted the possibility of the heading type being responsible. In any case I use the same builds for FSX and FS9 so if it was wrong for FSX it should also be wrong for FS9 and it isn't.

How the plan is entered into the CDU could be a factor. I will enter the waypoints / airways manually when I next test this and see if that has any bearing.

I will also send (or upload here) my stored plan from last night's test.

I think it would be helpful to Jonathan to concentrate on one plan at this stage rather than lots of different ones. When you're trying to find a problem the fewer variables you have the better. The EGCC-EIDW is a very simple straight-line route that quickly shows if there's a problem or not.

The extra waypoints created when you enter a jet route are quite normal and I wouldn't expect that to cause the problem. You could always just enter them without a jet route and see if it makes any difference.

The important thing when trying to identify a problem is to change one, and only one, thing at a time.

[JonathanRichardson]

> Jonathan has always talked about configuration HDG MAG could this have some incidence in the reproduction of the error?

Hi

Just to confirm, I understand your point, but I have tested in both HDG TRU and HDG MAG - I just did not post every single combination of tests. I think the problem is elsewhere. The only time I can create a off-track condition is for a very short time after making a very steep (let us say 90degree turn at a waypoint at 305kts) there is a short time where the ND and CDU are updating (about 30seconds) and then the direct track is re-drawn to the next waypoint from the a/c. This is pretty normal for such a sharp / fast turn, and I think acceptable.

Interested to hear any reports re a direct entra point by point route - this I think is the main difference in procedures.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

[Ray Proudfoot]

Hi Jonathan,

I am trying to create a new route for EGCC-EIDW in the CDU but after adding the SID - WAL1R and pressing LSK5L to select the waypoints from the jet route the CDU fails with Run-time error 55. Screenshot attached.

Any idea what is causing this? I remember getting it with other routes in the past and reluctantly have resorted to building plans using other software and then loading them into the CDU. It is very frustrating when this happens.

Here is the plan I used for last night's test. See if you can replicate my problem.

[Ray Proudfoot]

With this test I decided to enter the waypoints manually after first inserting the SID - WAL1R for 23R at EGCC.

As the aircraft aproached WAL it was already to the right of the magenta line and I was despondent. However, as it passed WAL and headed for the first of my manually inserted waypoints it stayed perfectly centred on the line and passed the waypoint without any turning in! Hooray! :D

The same happened for the remaining waypoints as the attached screenshots show.

So this problem is resolved providing you enter the waypoints manually. Perhaps things are also okay for a manually entered plans including jet routes but I wasn't able to do that for EGCC-EIDW.

So Jonathan, you should be able to replicate the problem by flying the route I supplied in my previous message. We might be getting closer to a resolution with a bit of luck.

[JonathanRichardson]

Hi Ray

Will look into the pln and also runtime - may be tomorrow now, but we will see.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

[Peter Dowson]

However, as it passed WAL and headed for the first of my manually inserted waypoints it stayed perfectly centred on the line and passed the waypoint without any turning in! Hooray! :D


Wow! A result!

Jonathan, all my flights are planned externally too, using Jeppesen FliteMap, converted to "sbp" format using my own FStarRC program, and copied by that program automatically into the CDU's Routes folder. So all my routes are "COROUTES" and loaded that way.

Seems that any auto-loaded route suffers this problem, but no completely manually-entered route?

Regards

Pete

[JonathanRichardson]

Hi Pete

I got stuck on another test tonight so could not run this.

At least we are a step closer (I think), next step will be finding out what can be done about it.

Still got to rule out a few more things - I have a little cross checking list here now...

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

[abril]

Hi:
Last night I tested two in routes where if it happened this error, and entering point-to-point wpts the error disappears, therefore, I confirm what has been said by Ray.Si we one by one entered the CDU wpts of the airway, with the exception of first wpts, in which as soon as this error is appraised, it follows it perfectly to the route. Only wpts has a variation of near 90 degrees intercepting them, and without problems.
Greetings.

Israel Abril Fernández

[JonathanRichardson]

Hi Ray

Just have a important question;

The route you provided, was that originally created with the CDU and then saved? Or was it made with a third party program like Pete is using and in someway imported and then saved?

[BTW - I like the route! I've been back and forth to Dublin about fifty times now!! I might adopt it for sim demo use as well, it is a very good length in terms of distance and time for the 737. If you have any more of these short hops let me know. Quite good for analysis as well.]

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

[JonathanRichardson]

Hi Israel

Can you let me know, did you make your original route that had problems with the CDU and then save it and later recall it? i.e. the route was originally made with the CDU? Or did you import the route from other software?

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

[JonathanRichardson]

Hi

I finished the testing now. I certainly see this error when using Ray's pre-saved route with current nav cycle and current builds.

It appears from this at least, any route that was saved either prior to the major mag var update to the CDU software and / or a navdata cycle change will induce this error (I do not know why it does not happen in FS9 I'm afraid).

I do not use / have third party planners - so I can not comment on whether they will still cause errors if used now. If you save a route via the normal CDU route function, (I do not get a runtime error here [so far]) then the subsequent recalled route flys without errors (at least as far as I can see from a couple of short tests).

I think the conclusion is; you have to rebuild and re-save your current routes for ops in FSX now that the software had various changes made. Navdata cycle may also be a factor in this. For third party planners / imports etc - I honestly can't comment on.

As to whether this needs re-looking at / Enrico to make code changes is really just going to be a matter of time to see how things pan out. The problem does seem associated to pre-saved routes (I think) prior to the CDU update.

I hope this helps to clear things up a bit in this area, perhaps provides a way forward. If anyone has differing results, please let me know -

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

[Ray Proudfoot]

Hi Ray

Just have a important question;

The route you provided, was that originally created with the CDU and then saved? Or was it made with a third party program like Pete is using and in someway imported and then saved?

[BTW - I like the route! I've been back and forth to Dublin about fifty times now!! I might adopt it for sim demo use as well, it is a very good length in terms of distance and time for the 737. If you have any more of these short hops let me know. Quite good for analysis as well.]

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

Hi Jonathan,

Yesterday was the office Christmas party. I'm back to normal now. :D

As to how that route was created I would only be guessing. It was created on 25/6/2007 and could have been created via FS Navigator, exported to a FS style plan and then loaded using the 'last saved FS plan' option on the CDU and then saved in the CDU.

As things stand there are four ways to get a plan into the CDU...

1) Entered directly using a SID and waypoints via jet routes. I'm having trouble with run-time 55 errors with this option.

2) Manually entered waypoints with or without a SID. (that was my successful test the other day).

3) Created externally and saved as a FS PLN. This is then imported using option on the CDU to use the last saved FS plan.

4) Created externally and saved as a CFP file. This is how Pete D does it.

You should be able to create plans of types 1-3 and see how they are handled. I will try to create a plan exclusively using the CDU if I can avoid the r/t 55 problem.

If you want another short hop flight then EGCC-EGLL is also very suitable. Pete Dowson uses EGCC-EIDW for his tests too. Glad you like it. :D

[JonathanRichardson]

Hi Ray

I can't really comment on the route imports from third party planners or even the FS plans because there could easily be data miss-match occuring which will cause the CDU to fail or simply not function correctly as we have seen re the general route following. I do not know what the solution is for this, I doubt I can generate much interest in getting one because as far as I know, we maintain you should build and save the route using the CDU if you want to be 100% sure of it. This is the way I see the CDU used in the pro sector and the way I do it. I don't want to be negative, but I just feel any other way is always going to be prone to problems... it is a pity because of course I see the advantage of using a planner, especially what Pete uses, but that is the way things currently are I think.

The airway function should of course work, if you could give me a procedure I can try that again (it was okay here) so perhaps there is a sequencing error - we make one step different or something. In which case as soon as I have a clear way to recreate I will sort it out re the error.

Please let me know your thoughts -

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

[Ray Proudfoot]

Hi Jonathan,


I can't really comment on the route imports from third party planners or even the FS plans because there could easily be data miss-match occuring which will cause the CDU to fail or simply not function correctly as we have seen re the general route following.

But the option to load the last plan saved in FS exists and we know that works okay in FS9. I think it's only fair to FSX users that some investigation is undertaken to determine why that route is not flown as well as in FS9. Could it be down to the small differences in mag var? How long would it take to investigate and make recommendations based on your findings? Is this something only Enrico can do or do you have access to the source code too?


I do not know what the solution is for this, I doubt I can generate much interest in getting one because as far as I know, we maintain you should build and save the route using the CDU if you want to be 100% sure of it. This is the way I see the CDU used in the pro sector and the way I do it. I don't want to be negative, but I just feel any other way is always going to be prone to problems... it is a pity because of course I see the advantage of using a planner, especially what Pete uses, but that is the way things currently are I think.

I agree that plans should be created using the CDU but if the file format used by the CDU can be determined then external software should be able to create plans equally as accurate. Clearly there are small differences which is why Pete also has this problem with his plans. We've already made progress on identifying what type of plans the CDU doesn't like but not why it doesn't like them. Would it take Enrico long to work out why? He can be provided with examples by Pete.


The airway function should of course work, if you could give me a procedure I can try that again (it was okay here) so perhaps there is a sequencing error - we make one step different or something. In which case as soon as I have a clear way to recreate I will sort it out re the error.

Did the EGCC-EIDW plan I gave you earlier work okay when you entered it manually? Just to check this you should enter EGCC/Rwy 23R as the departure point and then choose the WAL1R SID.

If you then press the LSK to display the available airways from WAL it caused the CDU to crash with error 55 - file already open. There are several jet routes available from WAL so it has to work.

I've only returned to FSX to help with this problem. FS9 is my preferred sim at present and doesn't suffer with this turning-in problem. I think your many FSX users would appreciate an investigation into whether this problem can be fixed.

Maybe a survey would help showing how many people fly which sim and how they get their plans into the CDU? That would show you the size of the problem and whether a fix is realistic.

What I fail to understand is if a series of waypoints is manually entered in the CDU and the same waypoints are selected in external software and supplied to the CDU why would it process the two sets differently. I would hope your curiosity would get the better of you and you would want to know why. ;)

Cheers.

[JonathanRichardson]

Hi Ray

The runtime error we must look at, thanks for pointing that out.

You don't have any of these errors in FS9 when using the same route, and same airway? Do you do anything different? I wonder if it is something to do with the airway now regardless of FS9 or FSX.

All the other questions / answers I think too much to go through re what we can or will not allocate time for - the aim was only to see if magvar had been fixed, which it has. The error is possibly coming from something else which no doubt still needs further consideration and of course with respect to the external planners of course. One step at a time though...

Regards
Jonathan

[Ray Proudfoot]

Hi Ray

The runtime error we must look at, thanks for pointing that out.

You don't have any of these errors in FS9 when using the same route, and same airway? Do you do anything different? I wonder if it is something to do with the airway now regardless of FS9 or FSX.

I do get them whether I use FS9 or FSX. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. That's why I now plan everything using FSNavigator, export it as a FS plan, save it again in FS9 and then load that PLN using the CDU facility. I grew frustrated at the run-time errors but didn't report them as I assumed they were related to possible bad data in Navigraph's AIRAC files. Perhaps that is not the case?

I'll find some more for you and create a new message thread as it's a different problem to what we're discussing here.


All the other questions / answers I think too much to go through re what we can or will not allocate time for - the aim was only to see if magvar had been fixed, which it has. The error is possibly coming from something else which no doubt still needs further consideration and of course with respect to the external planners of course. One step at a time though...

Okay, I'm happy for you to consider your options on that one. At least people have a workaround for now.

Thinking more about the run-time 55 problem could it be caused by me pressing the LSK a second time? The first time I press it I would expect the available jet routes to show almost immediately but they don't. So when I press the key a second time it's perhaps trying to open a file that's already open - hence the error. But why aren't the jet routes being displayed with the intitial press?

[JonathanRichardson]

>That's why I now plan everything using FSNavigator, export it as a FS plan, save it again in FS9 and then load that PLN using the CDU facility.

Hi Ray

I would personally never trust anything like that process myself. But I understand the reason why due to the runtime error.

>I grew frustrated at the run-time errors but didn't report them as I assumed they were related to possible bad data in Navigraph's AIRAC files. Perhaps that is not the case?

Best is always to report them, a runtime error with sequence to create can be sorted quickly normally.

>Okay, I'm happy for you to consider your options on that one. At least people have a workaround for now.

The runtime error must be corrected once we see it. But the normal programming of CDU routes is not a workaround. It in general works. At this stage I would not advise thrid party planners myself. Actually I never saw the offtrack errors in FS9 or FSX even prior to the mag var change.... but it seems the one thing Enrico and I do not do is use any plan created by something else.... have to look into this more when there is time.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta

[Ray Proudfoot]

>That's why I now plan everything using FSNavigator, export it as a FS plan, save it again in FS9 and then load that PLN using the CDU facility.

Hi Ray

I would personally never trust anything like that process myself. But I understand the reason why due to the runtime error.

It was a case of needs must. I would much prefer to do it as the pros do.


>I grew frustrated at the run-time errors but didn't report them as I assumed they were related to possible bad data in Navigraph's AIRAC files. Perhaps that is not the case?

Best is always to report them, a runtime error with sequence to create can be sorted quickly normally.

I've raised this in the CDU sub-section.


The runtime error must be corrected once we see it.

I've given another example of the error in the new thread.


But the normal programming of CDU routes is not a workaround. It in general works. At this stage I would not advise thrid party planners myself. Actually I never saw the offtrack errors in FS9 or FSX even prior to the mag var change.... but it seems the one thing Enrico and I do not do is use any plan created by something else.... have to look into this more when there is time.

By workaround I meant the manual insertion of waypoints rather than using jet routes which is problematical (for me at least).

I'm sure many including Pete would like a solution to the extenally created plans problem.

[JonathanRichardson]

It was a case of needs must. I would much prefer to do it as the pros do.

Hi Ray

I can not create this error - there appears to be no problem, I am certain given how many flight I do per week in here, I would have seen it already. But I wanted to check to be sure. I think you have some file access restriction or something on your system.

>I've raised this in the CDU sub-section.

As you know we don't monitor the forum usually, certainly I would never have time to work my way through all these threads and sub threads - it is terribly time consuming and not a good way for us.

> I've given another example of the error in the new thread.

I will check it this once - just to be sure!

>I'm sure many including Pete would like a solution to the extenally created plans problem.

I am sure.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson
Project Magenta