After installing Navigation Data, the APPR of RKPK 18L/R does not have the options of VOR18L/R and RNP18L/R, only the 18L/R option, and the approach route selection is missing. There are charts in Charts, but not in the game. MSFS Data is not installed. Can you fix it?
What I’m saying is that the plane is not in MFC and MCDU. It can’t be selected in the landing program, and this landing approach program can’t exist.
Hi,
I’m not sure which SIM you use, but the approaches are included as VOR A and RNAV B approaches.
Here from MSFS2024, with AIRAC 2506 installed:
According to the standard ARINC 424 rules, this can´t be coded per runway because the AIP (and charts) shows it for 18L/R and not a chart for 18L and one for 18R. Also, the final is a visual segment for both approaches.
So please use the VOR-A or RNAV-B approach - both are included in our data …
Thank you,
Richard
What I’m saying is that the plane is not in MFC and MCDU. It can’t be selected in the landing program, and this landing approach program can’t exist.
I know in the charts app, I can see it. I means in2020, I can’t see it on MFC and MCDU on the plane, but I can see MSFS Data, but I can’t see it with yours, so I hope to fix it.
Hi,
Here is the WorldMap in MSFS2020:
The same as in MSFS2024.
… and here from the stock C172 with the G1000 device:
The approaches are included in our data, so it can´t be a data issue, and I don´t see what we should fix. The VOR-A and RNAV-B approaches are included, and you can test them yourself—possibly an aircraft issue, but not a data issue.
Cheers,
Richard
All the models of my Airbus Boeing have problems, so it can’t be that all aircraft model manufacturers have problems.So I think it’s not an airplane problem, it can only be a data problem, because it’s good to use MSFS Data.After all, the G1000 aviation you are using is the one covered by your downloader.You can’t generalize with bias, can you?
… but I have shown you, that the data are there, right? When you don´t believe it try the same in the C172 with the G1000. You will see the data as I have shown you in the screenshots. Try it by yourself please … the data are included and NOT missing.
Cheers
Richard
PS: and no, the G1000 what I use was the G1000 from the MSFS 2020 stock C172
… here from the stock CJ4:
It depends on the WT framework the aircraft uses (but that’s nothing we have in our hands—we can only offer the data, and we do this). The G1000 and the CJ4 are using the latest WT framework. It’s possible that all other aircraft still use the old one, but the data are included, as you see. Again, I invite you to test it on your own—you will see exactly the same result.
Cheers,
Richard
But neither Airbus nor Boeing models have them. 18L and 18R are both options without approaching programs. Without VOR and RNAV,can’t all manufacturers recognize the data?You said that occasionally I recognize a manufacturer, but this doesn’t work. I don’t approve it. The problem is that there is no problem with using MSFS Data.
Then, please report this to Inibuilds and ASOBO/MS.
Here, what you find in our database for the Inibuild A350 (AIRAC 2506 which you have on your system):
The data are not missing; your aircraft doesn´t support such approaches.
Cheers,
Richard
Well, I will try to report the problem to the aircraft manufacturer, thank you.
Some manufacturers don’t use WT architecture to make airplanes.It seems unfair that you only target this structure.One problem is that the plane can recognize the default data of Microsoft flight simulation.
The solution given by the aircraft manufacturer is：
The solution would be to make a navdata package that provides the approaches:
That is, in the past, there was no corresponding airport to a single runway one by one. In this way, it is enough to bind one by one, so that it can be identified stably.
I want to say that this makes it more convenient for you to do it. It can adapt to all the problem aircraft at once, but I don’t know if you can bind these approach programs to each runway and bundle them together. If possible, I’m very grateful to you. I’m looking forward to the update. What do you think?
I highly recommend using third-party add-ons, which are entirely independent of any stock data or WT framework. Such add-ons are also more study-level, and they support all approaches according to ARINC424, not only a subset of the rules.
All other “solutions” are only workarounds for a specific situation, which is not good. We don´t have the runway idents in the data, so I can´t assign them. It would also not be correct because these two approaches are CTL approaches.
I would use Fenix Airbus, or the PMDG Boeing - both are excellent and support the complete rules.
Cheers,
Richard
A “study-level” Airbus will not show circling approaches, as they do not appear in a real Airbus FMS either. They are therefore intentionally not shown in the FlyByWire aircraft, and probably the same for the others.
But they said that like airlines that often take this route, they will bind the entrance to the runway, which is very convenient for them. There is no real airline concept in the game. They all asked me to find a third-party plug-in. I can’t find it. I don’t know how to do it. What do you want to do?Excuse me, why can I identify Microsoft’s data but not Navdata’s data? Is there any difference between the two?
But in reality, if the airline wants to fly frequently, it may add it by itself, because it can’t be entered manually every time, which is unrealistic.
Yes, they would have approaches coded for each specific runway if they wanted that, as the FMS cannot have an approach that isn’t for a specific runway. I’ve thought before about adding an option to the plane to create a copy of circling approaches for each runway. The problem is we can’t see which runways the circling approach should apply to from the navdata so it would have to do it for all. The real airlines may instead though just have a tailored approach that goes right to the runway rather than a circling approach.
However, the airline can’t completely get rid of the chart planning, otherwise it won’t be messed up. What about ATC? Doesn’t ATC also rely on the chart and route points for regulation and control?
The chart can be seen, but the problem is that it is not in the data. It is a little difficult to define the exact location of the runway by yourself first.The other end of the runway is sure whether the position at the other end plus the length of the runway can reverse the position of the end that needs to be bound to implement the proximity binding logic.Of course, I’m not a professional developer, and I don’t know whether the underlying logic supports this. I just guessed it. Maybe what I said was not right. I’m just talking about my ideas.
I have shown you that the data is included in two different examples. @tracernz explains that, i.e., a CTL approach doesn’t appear in a real Airbus, except when you customize such approaches, which will be made for the airlines (called tailored records).
We offer standard records and not records customized for a specific airline. So, it is not a data issue when the sim aircraft doesn’t support CTL approaches even when they are included, as in this case. Then, it is an implementation issue, or, as Tracernz wrote, a reality limitation.
I guess this topic is answered and solved; the data are not missing, and I will close it. Thank you, @tracernz, for your help. It is appreciated.
Cheers
Richard
