another time trajectories on nd

good morning to all,

i have experienced this problem many times,
so i decide to make a serious investigation about.


the problem is the incorect draw of trajectory in
the ND in certain circumstance, i give you the step to reproduce.


first consider this short flight, (the flight is only a flight test)
form LIML to LIMJ (Milano Linate airport to LIMJ Genova airport)

Airac cycle is the latest one provided by navigraph (1902)
i use this tool: www.fsaerodata.com in prepared v4 in order to correct
navigation data (airport, waypoint, navaids, ils ...and so on)
after installation of this update i have rebuild navigation data
in jeehell of course


this is the flight plan

take off from rwy 36, sid ABSE5A.
direct to waypoint IXITO, direct to waypoint GIKUT
then intercept ILS 28 Genova airport

in the picture below you can see the wheight and balance
codition of the aircratf, obtained uploading
using the function provided in the initB page of
the mcdu.
http://www.mycockpit.org/forums/atta...id=12940&stc=1


as you can see, no problem with the trajectory drawn on the ND
in the SID

http://www.mycockpit.org/forums/atta...id=12941&stc=1


no problem with trajectory on IXITO ang GIKUT


in the next picture you can see a "strange" trajectory
in the final leg intercepting the first point of the ILS
form GIKUT to CI36Z and FI36Z

http://www.mycockpit.org/forums/atta...id=12942&stc=1

I tried with others airport and others ils,
with different angle intercepting the ILS course.
in my opinion the problem is the angle.

I have noticed that the problem does not occur if
if the interception angle of the ils is smaller.


Someone can help me ? someone has encountered the same problem ?
every suggestion will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you
CLaudio

Hello,
sorry nobody is able to reproduce this report?
Thanks in advance the problem for me is blocking.
If anybody cant' reproduce there is only one answer: i make somethings wrong but
no idea what
Claudio

Claudio, for me it´s not clear what exactly is your issue. I´ve attached your screenshot of the ND and marked the two areas of it where I think you see an issue.
If you mean the Area marked with an A, that´s not an issue. This is how it looks in the original aircraft too if the track angle between two waypoints is smaller than the aircraft can turn safely (max. bank angle). This happens normally If the waypoint is an "Overfly"-Waypoint. What u see there is, that the aircraft is told to overfly the WP CI36Z an then turn onto next WP which ends up in a bow to catch the next WP FI36Z. If CI36Z would be allowed to be a "fly-by"-WP then it would calculate the start turning a little bit before the WP.
Overfly WP are usually marked in the MCDU-FPLN with a little triangle, but not necessarily, because it could be that GPS-WP like those in your example or which are part of an approach procedure can be mandatory overfly-WP.

Attached you can find a page out of the original MCDU-manual from Thales who is the manufacturer for the avionic in an Airbus A320. There you can see that the "bow" is drawed even there.


If you mean instead the area "B", which shows a little sidestep of the track this is not an issue as well. This happens normaly because the graphical track is calculated live every milliseconds based on the actual parameters of the Flightmanagementcomputer. It disappears usually once you come closer to the WP and turns to normal appearing.

reg.
Bernd

thank you for your response,
flying with other bus i have never noticed this behavior with same legs (for example in xplane with a320 flight factor)
this is the reason why I interpreted it as an anomaly and it did not occur to me to check the original manual.
In this case it means that jeehell is simply more realistic.
my apologies and I thank you for the time you dedicated to me.

i have closed my report
https://www.christophpaulus.com/bugr...ew.php?id=1535
in the bug tracker too

Best Regards
Claudio

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClaudioCosta

thank you for your response,
flying with other bus i have never noticed this behavior with same legs (for example in xplane with a320 flight factor)
this is the reason why I interpreted it as an anomaly and it did not occur to me to check the original manual.
In this case it means that jeehell is simply more realistic.
my apologies and I thank you for the time you dedicated to me.

i have closed my report
https://www.christophpaulus.com/bugr...ew.php?id=1535
in the bug tracker too

Best Regards
Claudio

---

Claudio, you don´t have to apologize to bring up this "issue". This is for what these forums are existing. At least there are many others who just surf thru the many of informations you can get here, and they have same questions in their mind but not willing to ask this in a thread. Even they get their answers.

A very wise man said one day: "Stupid questions simply never exist. The Answers can be a complete different thing!"

Always happy landings and reg.
Bernd

Hi

SOme of these drawings are sometimes "issues", sometimes "issues which happen on the real acft as well" and sometimes normal (like OVFY waypoints).
Next version will worrect many bugs on route drawings, maybe those will be solved.

regards
JL

first: thanks you JL for your wonderful and monumental work !
have you idea about release date ?
Claudio

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeehell

Hi

SOme of these drawings are sometimes "issues", sometimes "issues which happen on the real acft as well" and sometimes normal (like OVFY waypoints).
Next version will worrect many bugs on route drawings, maybe those will be solved.

regards
JL

---

Jean-Luc, I was really worried about you because you have not commented for so long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClaudioCosta

thank you for your response,

In this case it means that jeehell is simply more realistic.

---

This is the best part of Claudio´s comment and should taste like honey...:grin:

And, YES, INDEED IT IS !

reg.
Bernd