Mismatch with the MSFS Flight Planner

[Rafman72]

I created a flight plan using the MSFS Flight Planner and saved to the web for someone else to use (multiplayer session), he loaded up and it was as it should be (he does not have Navigraph). I loaded it up (I obviously have a Navigraph subscription) to find that some elements are not in my flight plan. If you look at the attached images specifically as an example, leaving ENBL (RWY25) missing from the EFB is FL502, FL505 and before ENAL missing is the VFR reporting point KJARD, so our Flight plans were different when loaded into the EFB, as I understand it VRPs have the Prefix VP in Navigraph, so KJARD is not a ref point in Navigraph…but is using the Flight planner? Hope this makes some sense

@CapVideo

I usually do initial flight-planning in SimBrief, then import it into Navigraph to verify STARs, approach transitions, etc. I then import the FP saved thru Navigraph into the MSFS flight Planner after starting the sim. Once in the aircraft, no matter which nav system was being used (g1000, g3000, other, etc.) the approach and transitions I selected in Navigraph were in the FP exactly as I had chosen. Now, that’s usually not the case.

Lately, the flight planner ignores the original Navigraph approach transition and inserts its own? Now, this hasn’t caused any big issues, but its rather frustrating to have to reset the approach transitions for every flight! It happened again today. I chose the transition and IAF that would work best for the flight plan in Navigrapgh, only to have the flight planner over-ride it and choose an inappropriate transition. I edited the approach in the nav system and changed the transition back to the original one. Isn’t Navigraph supposed to over-ride or insert its procedures into the flight planner, not the opposite?

[NAVData]

There are two different data providers: Lido and Jeppesen. Each data provider uses their own waypoint rules, which are incompatible.

In other words, you should decide which one you want to use. Flightplan “sharing” directly in the MSFS should not be the issue, but you should not expect the same between two providers and two different applications.

Cheers
Richard

[CapVideo]

I’ve experienced this issue for years (importing complete FPs from Navigraph including all transitions, etc. into MSFS2020 only to have the MSFS flight planner change the transition, etc.). In many cases MSFS has the approaches in their DB but with a single transition, so it only outputs that transition no matter what I choose in Navigraph.

This surprised me - I figured that AIRAC Cycle updates would take care of this but they don’t. On the rare occasion MSFS has the approach with multiple transition choices the FP is identical, but most of the time I have to edit the approach in the appropriate FMS.

[NAVData]

Two different cases: The WorldMap flightplanner in MSFS2020 follows other rules/logic and is buggy (as you have written). The new EFB and the external Flightplanning tool are completely new and work very well.

But here we have another “issue”, different data provider behind. The source format is the same for each provider, but not the content and/or the rules, name conventions, and/or how procedures will be coded. It is equal to the situation when you create a flightplan with cycle X and you want to use the same flightplan with cycle Y. It could be work, but there is no guarantee due to the changes between the two cycles. The same is when you use different data provider, as in this case.

In other words: It´s an expected mismatch …

Cheers,
Richard

[Rafman72]

Thank you for the explanation, spent a bit of time thinking I had got things wrong, so pleased (as it is) that there is a definitive answer to this…

Regards

KB