Suddenly, out of nowhere, I am having navdata problems in MSFS. BATC (beta) can’t find certain procedures and FSHud asks for approaches I can’t see in my G3000 (Vision Jet). Seems stuff is missing or wrong.
Is there a way to troubleshoot the navdata? I already uninstalled and reinstalled the latest AIRAC but I keep in running into the same problems.
Hi,
I´m not sure what dataset BATC use or if they use the stock data from the MSFS. Therefore I can´t speak for BATC. FSHud uses a own database and I can trace it when I have a few examples, if the approaches are include or not.
So, please give me a few example, that I can try to reproduce it in FSHud and in the G3000.
Thank you,
Richard
Found out what the problem is! Seems I ran into two different problems at once. Had bad luck choosing my airports. 
Problem 1
SimBrief (sometimes?) plans a SID which isn’t a SID.
Example: LIMF/36 N0273F280 SRN6M SRN L615 ADOSA L612 ALBET ALBE2E LIPZ/04R
SRN6M looks like a SID, it is named as one, but it actually is the transition of the SID SIRL6A. This causes (for instance) BATC to end with an error because it (obviously) can’t find the SRN6M SID… simply because it doesn’t exist!
If you check the SIDs of LIMF you will see a LOT of them end with a transition that is named as a SID.
Is this a bug in SimBrief? That is mistakes transitions (which are named as a SID) with an actual SID? I do think SB should plan the actual SID, not the transition.
Another example: LIMF/36 N0275F300 CAN5L CANNE Z651 KELIP KELI3G LSZH/14
CAN5L isn’t a SID but also a transition for the SIRL6A SID.
Problem 2
Changed runway numbers.
Example: LIMF/36 N0275F300 KUK7P KUKEV L50 BANKO DCT VALOR DCT MOLUS DCT SOSAL Z61 FRI FRI2R LSGC/05
LSGC doesn’t have a runway 05 in the sim: it’s 06 in the sim. And hence programs like BATC can’t deal with this. (I think this problem is a flaw in MSFS that may be harder to solve…)
EDIT BATC uses what’s in the sim so in this case Navigraph navdata.
Some more problems: EIDW runway 10L does not exist and STAR OSGA2R for runway 10R is not available. I am getting more and more of these issues…
Yep, thats the limitation when you use the navdata directly from the sim. You are 100% depend on their logic how the MSFS handles such issues.
The data are all included in our dataset but the MSFS and their logic behind don’t use it and supress the data. Look for a 3rd party EIDW scenery where all runways are existing and you will see, that all procedures are available. That has nothing todo with us, it’s the MSFS logic and the dependency to it.
Therefore our recommendation is to use externam data for that, like the Fenix, also the new TDS GNTXi, MaddogX, PMDG, …
Sorry, thats not really a navdata issue. The data are still existing in your dataset what you have on your system.
Cheers
Richard
Okay, I understand that but that’s only about the runways not being correct. My other problem is that SimBrief uses STAR transitions in its plans instead of the STAR itself. See my example in my first post.
Why does SB use transitions instead of the STAR itself?
This is very easy to answer:
A global definition of a transition is a “the path to the airway-entry”. In other words, in best case the procedure ends where you enter an airway. Now, when we look on the CAN5L departure out of LIMF, this departure starts at TOP but TOP can also be reached by TOP8B or 9A and TOP is also an entry of an airway. So, there is no need for a transition because TOP8B/9A ends at the airway-entry point TOP.
But, when you don´t want to use any of these airways where TOP starts, you must enter an additional SID from TOP to the next airway-entry point - to CANNE because as an example you want to fly to north.
As a comparision, look at LIMC the FARA6A departure. This departure has also transition but real transition because the FARA6A ends at FARAK and FARAK doesn´t sit on an airway, so here you NEED a further transtion to come to an airway - so you must select the ROBAS5U, the VAKON5M or the OSKOR5M transition to reach an airway entry point.
Thats the reason why the CAN5L is designed as SID and not as transition.
Cheers
Richard
This topic was automatically closed 2 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.