Leaderboard

This is a lengthy post, explaining our VNAV situation, or at the least, how we arrived where we are today, and where we're going from here. This is a tale of how being too ambitious and trying to be all things to all people bit us and our customers. In the beginning was nav data in XML format....whether other formats were avail in the beginning, I don't know, I only know this was my beginning because I inherited the FMS work and this was the dataset that landed on my plate. It was from Navigraph. The first thing I did when I started was to open up a few XML files to get the lay of the land. I noted several differing "types" of data like so: and decided I needed to know every single type in the dataset so I could design algorithms around it. So I wrote a program to go through all the files and log each unique occurence of a data type, i.e. "Star" "Sid". "Sid_Transition", "Approach", etc. After I had that list (because I couldn't find any spec), I set about programming the FMS....for a few years. All was pretty well. THEN....somewhere towards the end, we loaded up the same XML format dataset...but this time by Aerosoft, thinking "hey, lets support both providers, since there are plenty users of each". ...and for a while things were good; however, we started seeing some issues related to the fact that Aerosoft had additional XML types that Navigraph didn't have...and for which I didn't have code to handle. So I started throwing up 'band-aids' to get the Aerosoft dataset integrated....which would lead to some anomalies for Navigraph users...OK...a few more band-aids ought to do it. And this went back and forth until I had all 10 fingers plugging up holes in the dike. But turns out I needed a few more fingers....OR a more robust dike (hint...that's where this is going). Over time, we'd see bug reports for navigraph users that aerosoft users weren't seeing and vice-versa. Without exception though, the most obvious problem spot was in "decent FMS entries", i.e. STARS, Star transitions, etc. Entering these procedures were frought with all sorts of bugs and gizmo crashes. For online users who frequently enter these procedures in the air, as they approach their destinations, this simply was a deal killer. So...fast forward to today when I'm revisiting the FMS code from a much higher level and seeing that these band-aids just didn't cover the wounds well enough. So..case in point. Here is how Aerosoft and Navigraph each represent STARs with runway transitions, specifically KBOS. Aerosoft uses a data type "RwyTransition" to denote a runway transition waypoint, whereas Navigraph does not. This is where things went south originally when we tried to support Aerosoft users late in our development process. Now when a user enteres a STAR, and no arrival runway has been selected, then you'd expect to load those waypoints in the STAR that are not unique to runways, i.e. "common points". If you're using NAVIGRAPH, you will note that each XML "block" is associated with a runway. So if no runway is selected, we have no way of knowing which block of code to load for navigraph users. If you're using Aerosoft, then I can load the STAR waypoints only (and not the transition waypoints)....except all my code was written for the navigraph formats....and trying to make this work "last second" ended up causing more code confusion and debugging difficult. If I had a bigger picture of all these types from day 1, I would have written better structured algorithms. The good news, is I can see it better now and CAN write better structures; however, better than both these XML formats is the XP1100 dataset that we plan to migrate to in the future. But there is still more good news. Looking at the code with clearer eyes and hindsight, I can see a few trouble spots that I can fix that should make this whole VNAV decent business improve significantly. Indeed one or two poor lines of code can bring down the house and does for a few instantces of entering STARS / Transitions. We are going to add a new message to the CDU, which is NOT realistic, but required in our opinion to avoid confusion. If you select a STAR that is associated with a runway, or has runway transitions, we will display a message "RWY SELECTION REQD". While Aerosoft has the necessary common points separated so as to load those without a runway selection, recall my code was not orginally written for it, and so for the moment, I am not going to create a fork to handle it just yet. Knowing we are switching to XP1100 navdata format, I'll have to gauge the effort of accomodating Aerosoft's transition points differently than the Navigraph data vs the effort of just focusing on the XP1100 integration. It could be, that accomodating Aerosoft's transition points is not so difficult...and in this case, a user could select a STAR and STAR transition without having an approach selected; however, Navigraph folks, we simply need to know the arrival runway before we can load up these "runway transition" STAR types. For STARS that are NOT associated with a specific runway, but serve all runways, this arrival runway selection is NOT required before STAR selection. Many times users don't notice that the STAR they are selecting are unique to a runway (and subject to the case described here) and so in the course of their simming would see inconsistent behavior with STAR selection as they flew differing flights around the globe. This "RWY SELECTION REQD" message will let them know. And finally....my code handling STAR transitions for these "runway transition" STARS was completely borked (by a poor band-aid), messing up the waypoint table and rendering any VNAV calcualtions / representation completely useless. This is why some folks see good VNAV behavior and others do not. It is dependent on which route your are flying, which STAR type you select and whether or not you selected a transition. I believe this CDU message will fix a lot in the interim, but ultimately the swap to XP1100 nav data format, with its consistency and basis in ARINC 429, will be our final and most durable solution. Aside from the issue described here, the other glaring issue is the waypoint altitude restrictions. We will be attacking those soon enough and with clearer eyes, I expect to get this cleaned up also. -TomK

so the 1.31 update has gone out, with the objective being to stabilize our "get back to where we left off with the new toolchain, but conformant to XPlane 11.5" update. Assuming we don't have really big show-stoppers, it is now time to start moving foward rather than just get stable. We have a few things we'll be working on simultaneosly from this point on. With an eye on X-Plane 12, we'll be working on swapping our sounds to the FMOD sound engine. This is a compatibility move, moreso than changing the way our sounds are played because we quite like our sounds. In addition, we'll be working on incorporating particle effects in spots. On the 3D front, the 3D changes will begin with the galleys, cabin and cabin doors and after that wing flex. On the FMS side, first up will be the remaining user-created waypoints, (PB/PB, ATD, LL), then probably VNAV work, including PROGRESS page predictions.. A better VNAV algorithm will make programming holds a bit more predictable and so HOLDS will be after our VNAV work. Once all that is working reasonably well, then we'll look at porting our navdata over to the XP1100 navdata format....which will probably be after the XP12 release and be a pretty heavy FMS rewrite. Thanks for the support and patience, its time to starting improving things again. -TomK

Thanks for the info Tom, one major issue with the current VNAV profile happens when we have restrictions with below and above altitudes for one fix. It seems to be taking the higher restriction and simply convert it into an above one, ending of course in a very steep descent to catch up. I am sure you are already aware of it. While it forces me to precisely check my fpl against the charts and raises my situation awareness, most users I talk to are not aware and they tend to get frustrated after a while. hope it makes sense cheers Oscar

certainly Regards Log.txt

Hi Jan, Looks like I'm having better success by updating Gizmo to the beta, so far so good with no changes to any other plugins.

You are welcome, James! I am happy that we got it appearing! Hopefully, with some tweaking you will find a good compromise

So I have recreated it....and will take a stab at it. This one rears its ugly head from time to time and I'd love to get it fixed (as would everyone else I'm sure!) -tkyler

working on it, not perfect yet

Testing the bird right now. Everything seems to work very well. I'll be testing smart copilot this afternoon. I do have a hotas warthog but I do prefer fliying with to oculus remote controllers. That's how I like it. I even have an IRL 737 pilot who fly x plane with an Xbox controller. It's all preferences.

Just did a quick flight on 1.3.1 on 11.5.10 beta. Very very nice and all the controls I used were working nicely. Thank you so much for the entire team. What a good job you have achieved. Highly recommend!

This is awesome news! Thank you Litjan, Manuel and Matheson to make this happen. Been waiting for the VR support from more than 2 years and now is happening. Many thanks!!!