I’m a member of the beta test team for the Aerosoft CRJ Pro for both P3D and MSFS. In response to some customer issues reported on our forum, I did some research and found that some European ILS approaches with multiple transitions based off of a single VOR or waypoint are not being correctly distinguished on the DEP/ARR page of the FMS when using the Navigraph database.
Two examples - ELLX ILS 06 has three transitions based off of the DIK VOR - the one to be used depends on the aircraft’s weight category. In the default AIRAC supplied by Aerosoft NavDataPro (based on Lufthansa LIDO master files) , these transitions are each labeled with a unique identifier - specifically DIK. DIK 2D and DIK 2Q, and any one of these can be individually selected.
With the Navigraph AIRAC active, the three transitions are all labelled “DIK” - there is no way to distinguish which is which, and selecting any one of them, selects ALL of them, and appends all three versions of the approach in the FMS, one after another.
A similar situation exists at LSZH, with the ILS34 approach. There are two unique transitions based off of GIPOL and two off of RILAX. With Navigraph, they are both labeled as GIPOL (2 each) and RILAX (2 each), where as in the default Aerosoft database they are distinguished as “GIP” and “GIP34” and “RILAX” and “RIL34”
Thanks Jim, I can confirm that but that´s easy to fix … give me a few days and we will release a second revision for the AS CRJ Pro. Thanks for your examples and also for the report here in the forum! Much appreciated …
I will let this topic open till revision 2 is released … so will inform you here, when it´s done.
Thanks again,
Richard
Thanks for the quick response and (as always) excellent customer service. When the update is released, I will notify our customers who use Navigraph that it is available.
Hi Jim,
are you sure, that his works in the P3D version also? Because when I replace it with the transition-identifier, I got a CTD. In the MSFS version works as expected but not in the P3D.
Also, we have this in our specification (v4.03 for the CRJ) which we had received from Hans Hartmann:
Here you see clear, that it´s only allowed to add the “Initial Approach Fix” and the not the “transition identifier”. What I want to say is, that when this works in MSFS it should be good to have the latest specifications …
Hi Jim,
There must be a difference between these two systems. I have tried it in several ways but P3D doesn´t accept the transition-identifier. I will ask Hans if he can sent us the current technical documentation for MSFS. Also it looks like we must split the P3D and MSFS CRJ now due to this difference.
The P3D FMS should be using the same database processing code as the MSFS version. The aircraft versions I have for both platforms are more advanced in the beta series than the current release versions for either platform. If you release a stand-alone installer for MSFS, I can manually copy the files to P3D and test to see if it causes a crash on my system.
I know there is a bug in the current public version of the MSFS CRJ (version 1.0.0.1), that can cause the sim to freeze if selecting a procedure containing a DME arc segment or any RNP legs. This has already been fixed in the beta, and the fix will be contained in the next public release update.
Hi Jim,
I will re-check it in P3D - thanks for your help! I will also look, if I can get the latest specifications of the CRJ from Hans …
Cheers,
Richard
PS: I will forward you a test-database with the changes as soon as possible
So to add to this… Since the CRJ is not authorized to fly RNP Approaches would there be a way to have the FMS data only supply NON-RNP approaches?
Sorry to jump on this thread but I searched for RNP and got this… Ironically I was just posting in the Aerosoft forum (reply to Jim actually) about if we as Navigraph users might be able to request that an ability to parse them out be offered…
Hi,
with the upcoming AIRAC 2105, we have changed the logic to show the transition-identifier instead the IAF fix. We were in contact with the CRJ developer which confirms now, that this is working in all sim-versions with the latest updates (P3D and MSFS).
So, you can expect the correct transition names beginning with the next cycle.
Cheers,
Richard
PS: Thanks @JRBarrett for the hint … Hans had changed the logic in the procedure files now so, we have it changed also.
