Please review the Kelowna Z RNAV approach plate for RWY 34.
Navigraph’s latest chart shows the correct names and fixes on the RNAV, but when using the Daher TBM930, the fixes that appear on the Garmin G3000 FMC screen are: (AMBAT-PENDO-R308-R218-R255-R165) or (IKNAP-XUGSA-R205-R277-R349)XUDVO-R245) -XUBOM-R239-R59-R239-R218-R128-RW34, which has latitude/ longitude values that bring the aircraft too close to the various mountain ranges surrounding the airport.
As this is the only RNAV approach available for this RWY, please review the fixes’ latitude/ longitude values in your database and correct if necessary.
Hi Mark,
sorry, but this is a known and confirmed limitation in the new sim - independet if you´re using the stock navdata from NavBlue or our data.
In some situations (depending on the leg-path type) the sim creates auto-waypoints like the Rxxx waypoints now. These waypoints are not included in our data and will be created automatically in the sim. This happens on all aircrafts which uses the sim-logic. Some mods for example the Working Title CJ4, or in the near future the FlyByWire A320X mod (current working on it) have created their own terminal-procedure logic to interpret the data correctly.
Here your example in the WT CJ4 ND:
… and here the legs to this approach:
You see, there is no fictive Rxxx waypoints included. They use our data 1:1 and interpret the terminal-leg path types absolutely correct (or at least, more correct as the default engine in the sim).
Sorry Mark, but we can only provide the data, but we have no influence if they will and how they will interpenetrated correctly. There are some additional confirmed limitation, ie. the rerouting and truncating of waypoints when you select an approach to a STAR, … at least (and in the near future also with the FBW A320) the WT CJ4 is here much more better and a very good reference to look, if the data are correct and if it could be fly more accurate as with the default airplanes in the sim.
Thank you for the explanation. I did notice that the WT CJ4 was now using the its own database (Navigraph’s, I assume) and that it does follow the waypoints correctly, without adding any “R” waypoints or truncating STARs to the approach paths as you stated, above.
It’s a shame that the Navigraph database cannot overwrite the default database used in MSFS2020, as other liveries/ tech mods/ scenery files do when placed in the Community folder. For now, we will have to concede with the limitations imposed by MS/ Asobo.
I’ll keep an eye out on the FBW A320 for news there as well.
No, they don´t use any own databae, Working Title use the same database as the core MSFS2020, therfore it´s compatible with or without our database.
We do exactly that … we disable the stock database and enable our Jeppesen data.
What I mean is the engine/the logic in the sim, how they interpret the data - this is very limited in the sim (and this also confirmed by ASOBO/MS). Working-Title has developed a complete new logic in their CJ4, completely independent of the sim-logic. Therefore their FMC works so much better than the standard/default FMCs/Garmins. That has nothing todo with the data, if you use the stock data or our data - the WT CJ4 works with both dataset much more better than any other default airplane.
Hope that make something clearer …
Cheers,
Richard
