Hi gentlemen, I´m not sure, from where the strong wind against us (Navigraph) is coming from and I don´t know Mr. Cameron but here a few words from our side (Navigraph): I have nothing found in my personal mailbox about IXEG or X-Aviation. We are currently looking in the official Navigraph mailbox (https://www.navigraph.com/ContactInformation.aspx), if we have overseen something (which can be happened - for sure, we are humans too). Further, I haven´t found anything here in my mailbox of the forum. We can´t have our eyes everywhere to look for, which developer wants to use which format for which platform. Yesterday, a Navigraph customer had wrote us a PM in our forum and pointed us to this addon (thank you very much for that) - so the communication is possible, if wanted. This posting isn´t very objective and therefore here a list of our (Navigraph) addons, which we can provide & where we have the fully support from the developer: Aerosoft Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321Aerosoft Airbus X Extended v1.10 (and below)Aerosoft Airbus X Extended v1.15 (and above)aeroSystem 737 AvionicsAirSimmerAirSimTech / ASTAirTrack*AivlaSoft EFBAviograsf A340Blackbox Simulation (all products)Captain Sim 757/767/777Carenado (all products)CPS - Concorde Performance SystemDispatch Planner XDreamfleet & Eurowings ProfEADT KLN 90BEaglesoftEFASS - Electronic Flight AssistantFeelthere Embraer Regional Jets v2/Embraer E-Jets v2Flight1 ATR72Flight1 Aviation Technologies G1000 StudentFlight1 Aviation Technologies G1000 Student ProFlight1 BN2 IslanderFlight1 Cheyenne/Fokker/Mustang/Super 80 Professional/C182T/King Air B200Flightsim Commander 9.5.1 (and above)FlightSim SolutionsFS InstructorFS Instructor Panel 200XFSBuild 2.xFSiPanelFS-Navigator 4.xFSTrampFsXPand - FlywareGlobal Air Traffic ControliFLY 737NG 3.2 (and above)iFLY 747-400 2.0 (and above)iFMSIntegrated Simavionics (ISG)JARDesign A320neoJARDesign A330Jeehell A320 FMGSJet45 FMS - FlightDeckSoftJRollon Planes CRJ200JustFlight DC-8 JetlinerLevelD 767Majestic Dash8-Q400MilVizOnlineSim.org SFC YARCOpusFSIPFPX Professional Flight Planner XPMDG (all products)Pointsoft Pro ATC XProject Magenta Airbus/Boeing/RJ-Type Glass Cockpit, GA IFR PanelProject Magenta Airbus/Boeing-Type FMCProject Magenta General Aviation Glass CockpitProject Magenta Instructor StationProject Magenta QuickMap/Moving MapProsim 737PSS Airbus/Boeing/DashQualityWings (all addons)Sim-Avionics - Flightdeck AvionicsSimBriefSimcheck A300B4SimLauncherXSSG Boeing 748i FMCTOPCATTuneVNAV Descent Pro3Universal FMC (UFMC)vasFMC Flight ManagementWilco A320 PIC for FS2002Wilco CRJ Next GenerationWilco/Feelthere 737/777, Legacy, Airbus SeriesWilco/Feelthere CRJWorld Traffic 2.0 (and above)x737FMCX-FMC 2.5 (and above)X-Plane 10.30 (and above)X-Plane GNS430, 777 Worldliner (Ext/Prof), Flightfactor B757 Professional, VMAX B767, X-Crafts Embraer E-175 Ok, now back to the "issues" - again, I don´t know which format IXEG exactly use but it must me an existing one (because you have compared Aerosoft with Navigraph). Someone wrote here, that it exists a syntax difference between Aerosoft and Navigraph. For sure, because Navigraph uses Jeppesen as source and Aerosoft Lido. Jeppesen is a standard database - Lido codes the lines my yourself - but and that´s important to know: The result should be the same and several addons show this - look at the GNS430, look at the 777 Worldliner and there are several other addons (not only in the X-Plane world) - this addons can handle both provider without any issues. All procedures are there - no procedures are missing from the FMS as the poster here mentioned. So, it´s possible to make the addons compatible with both addons ... As I wrote, the coding is different yes but the result should be the same - just as an example: EDDF SID ANEK1D Jeppesen coding: SID,ANEK1D,07C,4CA,0,68.0,2,800,0,0,0,0,0,0DF,DF152,50.070553,8.708008,0, ,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1DF,DF150,50.010247,8.751739,2, ,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,1,220,0,0,0SID,ANEK1D,07R,4CA,0,68.0,2,800,0,0,0,0,0,0DF,DF152,50.070553,8.708008,0, ,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1DF,DF150,50.010247,8.751739,2, ,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,1,220,0,0,0SID,ANEK1D,ALL,5IF,DF150,50.010247,8.751739, ,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,1,220,0,0,0TF,DF157,49.791100,8.672295,0, ,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0TF,ANEKI,49.317272,8.480428,0, ,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0Here the LIDO coding: SID,ANEK1D,07C,4FA,RW07C,50.03261667,8.53463056,0,FFM,251.2,4.1,68,2,800,0,0,0,0,0,0DF,DF152,50.07055278,8.70800833,0, ,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1DF,DF150,50.01024722,8.75173889,0, ,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,1,220,0,0,0TF,DF157,49.79110000,8.67229444,0, ,0.0,0.0,0,0.00,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0TF,ANEKI,49.31727222,8.48042778,0, ,0.0,0.0,0,0.00,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0SID,ANEK1D,07R,4FA,RW07R,50.02754167,8.53417500,0,FFM,247.4,4.3,68,2,800,0,0,0,0,0,0DF,DF152,50.07055278,8.70800833,0, ,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1DF,DF150,50.01024722,8.75173889,0, ,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,1,220,0,0,0TF,DF157,49.79110000,8.67229444,0, ,0.0,0.0,0,0.00,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0TF,ANEKI,49.31727222,8.48042778,0, ,0.0,0.0,0,0.00,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0You see one and the same procedure, two different codings. Now whats the different between Jeppesen and Lido: Lido declare the SID as Runway "only" transitions (that´s the letter "4" in the SID line).Jeppesen split the SID into a runway transition (4) and a common part (5)This is a major difference between both provider. EDDF is only a simple example, but there are more complex example, where you have a runway-transition, common-part and enroute-transition. The result should be the same, because when I select ANEK1D for 07C, the FMS should merge the runway-transition with the common-part (+ when existing and selected the enroute part). Next difference is the FA and CA terminal path in the first lines Lido coded this as fix to an altitude (means from the RWxxx to altitude)Jeppesen coded this as course to an altitude (means from the current position to an altitude)The result, should be the same - or not? Again, I have looked for a very simple example, there are a lot of procedures, which are more complex like this one. All in all, I don´t see any reason, why an addon can´t handle different sources, when the FMS is developed clean and correct, according the specifications. A really good example is the "standard" GNS430 dataset, which will be used on all platforms. The GNS430 dataset is in real the Fokker/Cheyenne dataset and this dataset exists since many years. Currently, we have no reports about any issues with this dataset, so it would be helpful (if issues exist), to report this issues, that we can fix it. Thank you very much - again, we are ready for all, when something is wrong, let us know please. We will try to contact you outside this forum, to see how we can help and how we can provide you ... but please stop the foreclosure, there is no reason to do this.
