New Beta Cdu release 393a

[michelmvd]

Ok Jonathan, I understand.
But I really have the impression this build is a lot smoother too and network resources are better.
Looking forwards to see the new builds.
Btw what is this setting in amber SET AUTO ? something B738 related?

B. rgds
Michel

[JonathanRichardson]

Hi

Just ignore the SetAuto.

Please also take note of the following re the weights: (I have not added this yet to Notams but as the build seems to being used you should make sure to check this)

We have changed the way the CDU works re the performance page. To make things more realistic you now must enter your ZFW manually into the CDU ZFW LSK. This means that the "Payload=" section of your aircraft.type text file is now ignored if using PM with the CDU. So, in order to arrive at your correct ZFW weight you need to know / do the following.

1/ Know and make a note of your MSFS aircraft Empty Weight in LBS

2/ Make sure that this is entered correctly in the type.txt file of the aircraft you are flying with the CDU. (Enter in LBS.)

[The above stage is a normal requirement and has not changed.]

3/ Ignore the Payload= entry if there - this no longer will be computed.

4/ Make a note of your "total payload" using FS weights menu or the Instructor Station. Make sure you are working in one unit / Kgs or LBS or make your conversions correctly (if required).

5/ Manually add your empty weight figure (1) and your payload figure (2) and the total will be your ZFW. Enter the ZFW figure to the LSK ZFW entry.

The CDU will now compute the GW for you taking into account the current fuel automatically.

The GW should be a total of Fuel + ZFW. Please note figures shown in (XXX) brackets are the actual air model weight, if there is a large difference then you should investigate this. The bracketed figure is put there as a reference. It can be removed via an ini setting.

Please note, other a/c types require different procedures, we use 737 OPS as the reference point, customers may have to make adjustments to comply with this for other a/c types re what is and is not computed automatically.

[michelmvd]

Hello,
Unfortunately it looks that there are still about the same problems with long routes in the new beta build / airoc cycle 0712.
I did today a flight EBOS-GCLP with following routing

EBOS RWY 08 SASKI 2S SASKI UL179 ERING UY76 KOPUL UL610 GILDA UL620 MID UR8 SAM UN621 MARUK UM195 LORKU UN866 BERAD UM30 VES UN872 ESP UZ4 BAROK UN873 SAMAR
SAMAR 2C RWY03L

- when entering UN873 waypoint SAMAR, I was getting a runtime error 9 (script out of range). By entering the waypoint SAMAR DCTn, no problem

- when entering the SAMAR sid - during preflight - route from UZ4 on was gone ... (was on page 3 of RTE).

I reported the errors to support in more detail.

B. Rgds
Michel

[JonathanRichardson]

- when entering UN873 waypoint SAMAR, I was getting a runtime error 9 (script out of range). By entering the waypoint SAMAR DCTn, no problem

HI

Did you enter this via the LEGS pages?

>- when entering the SAMAR sid - during preflight - route from UZ4 on was gone ... (was on page 3 of RTE).

Was the PERF page filled in (i.e. FL) or was it blank at this stage?

>I reported the errors to support in more detail.

Yes, we received that.

Regards
Jonathan




B. Rgds
Michel[/QUOTE]

[michelmvd]

[QUOTE=JonathanRichardson;47043]- when entering UN873 waypoint SAMAR, I was getting a runtime error 9 (script out of range). By entering the waypoint SAMAR DCTn, no problem

HI

Did you enter this via the LEGS pages?

No, via RTE page , left LSK, so then DIRECT SAMAR is coming up

>- when entering the SAMAR sid - during preflight - route from UZ4 on was gone ... (was on page 3 of RTE).

Was the PERF page filled in (i.e. FL) or was it blank at this stage?

- Not yet, I started first in RTE page - then DEP/ARR EBOS, continued to enter routing in RTE by the syntax AWY and afterward limit waypoint.

[JonathanRichardson]

>Did you enter this via the LEGS pages?
>No, via RTE page , left LSK, so then DIRECT SAMAR is coming up

That might be the reason. If you make all entires / changes via legs pages there appear to be no problems so far that result in a complete loss of the route during flight or on ground during pre-flight. Just to be sure, it is really important if selecting a new DEPT or ARRV that the previous ones are ERASED using the option on the DEP/ARV page - otherwise that can at the moment cause problems.

>Was the PERF page filled in (i.e. FL) or was it blank at this stage?
- Not yet, I started first in RTE page - then DEP/ARR EBOS, continued to enter routing in RTE by the syntax AWY and afterward limit waypoint.[/QUOTE]

Very good. Keep to that procedure, as it is the correct way. If the Perf is entered prior (as many seem to be doing) it seems to mess things up a bit especially if the FL is entered prior to the RTE / SID / STAR and legs pages cleaned up. I always clean the whole route up first, and then enter the FL - currently using this procedure there appears to be a very big improvement. If you drift from it, it can cause some problems.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson

[michelmvd]

[QUOTE=JonathanRichardson;47052]>Did you enter this via the LEGS pages?

>That might be the reason. If you make all entires / changes via legs pages there appear >to be no problems so far that result in a complete loss of the route during flight or on >ground during pre-flight.

hmmm, its a common procedure to enter routes by entering AWY number ( UA345) and then the limit waypoint in the routepage, otherwise you have to enter all waypoints one by one in the legg page, which is not a normal procedure certainly not for a long haul route

Jonathan do I understand to right, but a this moment, we have to enter waypoint by waypoint in the legg page??

>Was the PERF page filled in (i.e. FL) or was it blank at this stage?
>- Not yet, I started first in RTE page - then DEP/ARR EBOS, continued to enter routing >in RTE by the syntax AWY and afterward limit waypoint.

>Very good. Keep to that procedure, as it is the correct way. If the Perf is entered prior (as many seem to be doing) it seems to mess things up a bit especially if the FL is entered >prior to the RTE / SID / STAR and legs pages cleaned up. I always clean the whole route >up first, and then enter the FL - currently using this procedure there appears to be a >very big improvement. If you drift from it, it can cause some problems.

I always try to do it as in real life So I follow the pre-flight flow correctly.


Thanks for help
Michel

[JonathanRichardson]

>hmmm, its a common procedure to enter routes by entering AWY number ( UA345) and then the limit waypoint in the routepage, otherwise you have to enter all waypoints one by one in the legg page, which is not a normal procedure certainly not for a long haul route

Yes I know. You only need one data set error though and it will collapse. That is another problem.

We have to take this in steps, if everything works okay via the legs pages and very basic route planning, then we move onto other areas. Something major changed in the CDU, it is like pulling the foundations out from underneath a building. This is not like old times, easy quick fixes to problems. The navdata has changed, and then also the way the route line generation is programmed has changed. So, the whole method of generating routes and computing everything. You can build routes in the legs pages, save them and recall them. See if when changing sid/star it ever makes the whole route dissappear. If that happens we need to know the sequence. Then we move into the other areas.

>I always try to do it as in real life So I follow the pre-flight flow correctly.

Good. But this is a internal beta build we are looking at. So, it is for trouble shooting and to try and find a combination that causes the "basic" line drawing to fail. If we have got to the stage where nothing can confuse the CDU with normal basic entry ops. Then we move into the other areas... does this make sense? If everyone reports no problems with basic planning / LNAV. Then we have made progress. If we mix other things into the soup at this stage it will not be helpful I think.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson



Thanks for help
Michel[/QUOTE]

[michelmvd]

Good. But this is a internal beta build we are looking at. So, it is for trouble shooting and to try and find a combination that causes the "basic" line drawing to fail. If we have got to the stage where nothing can confuse the CDU with normal basic entry ops. Then we move into the other areas... does this make sense? If everyone reports no problems with basic planning / LNAV. Then we have made progress. If we mix other things into the soup at this stage it will not be helpful I think.

Yes Jonathan, I 100% agree with you. Step by step and checking every time the results. Otherwise you never know, what is causing the problems I think.
Will do new tests in the following days, with entry methods you are describing and see how it works or fail.

If other members like to check the route feel free to do so : (EBOS/GCLP)

EBOS RWY 08 SASKI 2S SASKI UL179 ERING UY76 KOPUL UL610 GILDA UL620 MID UR8 SAM UN621 MARUK UM195 LORKU UN866 BERAD UM30 VES UN872 ESP UZ4 BAROK UN873 SAMAR
SAMAR 2C RWY03L

I still have the impression that nevertheless the errors, the general CDU operation is far more smoother and accurate.

See you
Michel

[Jan Pemöller]

Hi Michel,

could you pls send the waypoints for the LEGS page ?

Regards
Jan