Kewr - sid ewr4 rw 04l

[S1a3ti]

With the Navigraph navdata the MFD does not load the SID correctly.

It has the waypoints but it is not showing them correctly.

The first screenshot is without NG.

[NAVData]

Hi,
have you flown the route? Normally these is a display issue on the ND. Coding can be differ and therefore the path looks possible differ - of course, it could also be a interpretation issue in the aircraft of the different leg types because as an example we don´t have the IEZA4 waypoint as in the stock data. This waypoint can be calculated with the data but I don´t know if this will be happened in this situation.

You can see the different interpretation of the data in the different airplanes like FBW A320, the WT787, the ATR or the PMDG. Four different aircraft’s, four different results in the ND … again, the coding itself is correct so far, but there is a lot of tolerance to interpret and to draw the flight path on the ND.

Hope that helps,
Richard

[S1a3ti]

Will try to fly and report back.

[S1a3ti]

Did a test flight. Same conditions - no live weather. With the NG navdata the plane turns right, flies over the airport on HDG 290°.
See screenshot 1.

Without the NG navdata it follows the SID (screenshot 2).

Edit: Tested in the Longitude.

[NAVData]

Hi,
thanks - I have checked the procedure and it looks really, it´s a interpretation issue in the WT logic. You´re using LNM as I see. When you switch between the stock MSFS navdata and our navdata, you see that both procedures are equal

Stock navdata:

You see here the fix/waypoint IEZA4 which we don´t have in our database … also, you see that SID04L/SID04R are splitted - that´s because the FAA data doesn´t offer this in an other way.

… now switching to our data:

You see exactly the same path but two things are differ:

1. this SID is combined for 04L and 04R … so only one SID
2. as I wrote before, we don´t have the IEZA4 waypoint but we have the data to calculate this waypoint and therefore the IEZA/4NM at 60°

LNM shows both version correctly even they are coded in a different way as you see. So, it´s 100% a WT issue, that they interpret the leg paths in different way and therefore the wrong path.

Here, the source data of this procedure for the MSFS:

When you compare the data (yellow), they are exactly what LNM interpret correctly but it seems not the MSFS. Please report this to WT, I can´t see issue here …

My personal feeling is that WT expect a runway as a take-off point - if they don’t have a runway, the next waypoint is farther away and all follow-up calculations are not correct - result is a wrong path.

Thank you,
Richard

[S1a3ti]

Thanks for the explanation. Will report the issue to WT.