tkyler

Quick update: We are deep into the VNAV rewrite. Not just poking around and tweaking....we're cutting out huge swaths of inefficient code....and I have to say, its going really well so far. I believe this will make the VNAV calculations an order of magnitude easier to perform.....and if there are any issues during testing, at least I don't believe it will be "whack-a-mole" where one bug creates another. We'll keep you posted. We are working on this regularly at this juncture. -tkyler

we may have to move this one "up the chain" to Laminar. I know I haven't touched this particular object and even on my end the "triangles" just appeared at some point. That being said, it is probably something we can fix on our end...this is typical of Laminar tightening up their graphics code that exposes some weakness that wasn't exposed before... It is only on this one object on my end. We'll dig into it for sure. -TomK

Holds / VNAV are in our current sights. What kind of progress we make remains to be seen, but we are actively focusing on it now. -tkyler

I really couldn't say. Are you using "Dataref Tool" as your inspector? I will say I recall some "absentee datarefs" when I tried it, that I couldn't explain (and could plainly see with DRE)...which is why I went back to DRE for dataref work. I use DRE for dataref feedback and DRT for working with commands. DRE supports the pipe symbol for "OR", which makes it useful enough for me to isolate whatever datarefs I need. -TomK

perhaps VS mode wasn't activated? Were you trying it while sitting on the ground? Works on this end.

rgr, I was responding to your question about how to actuate VVI above. For the levers, we have the following datarefs to reflect throttle lever angle when in autothrottle: ixeg/733/engine/eng1_thro_angle / ixeg/733/engine/eng2_thro_angle ...FWIW, we also have for the reversers: ixeg/733/engine/eng1_rev_angle / ixeg/733/engine/eng2_rev_angle Regarding the default 737...as one who used to work for Laminar developing aircraft, they keep their customization to a minimum and develop their models to use the default datarefs. If some significant functionality were to be missing...we'd just go tell Austin and he'd customize stuff and give us new datarefs....but now that I'm "on the outside", we don't quite have that luxury and so have to go custom and abandon default datarefs when they don't suite our purpose. ....and finally, the dataref for the VS annunciator is: ixeg/733/MCP/mcp_vs_dial_ann Hope this helps. -TomK

VVI wheel dataref actuator is: ixeg/733/MCP/mcp_vs_target_act Regarding autothrottle servo, we don't currently have a dataref for that, but we should be able to add one. I'll have to get with Jan to go over the current functionality and see how we can weave it in. -TomK

Actually I've been rethinking the 'complete rewrite'....but I should mention there there are two significant rewrites planned. 1). the VNAV algorithms and 2) the XP1100 Navdata integration. Originally, the idea was the XP1100 navdata is of a format that would make LNAV route building a bit less painful (being only one format instead of 2, i.e. Navigraph and Aerosoft)....and a reliable lateral route is required for a successful vnav calculation.....hence combining both heavy rewrite tasks into one activity; however, we've seen enough success with the recent LNAV route building....that we feel it will serve as a sound basis for moving forward with the VNAV rewrite now. So we are moving forward with the VNAV work, and will get to the XP1100 navadata some time in the future. Both Navigraph and Aerosoft formats are not going anywhere, even into X-Plane 12. Our internal format for handling route calculations is independent of any datasource...so when we do get around to working with the XP1100 data exclusively, we'll still be coercing that data into our own internal format. -tkyler

Also, a clarification between depicting the published restrictions vs. honoring those in our VNAV calculations is warranted. Previously, we did not even show the restrictions correctly on the LEGS page....and that is a separate issue from a VNAV calculation where you have to assess those restrictions with other paramaters and ultimately calculate the altitude for a waypoint. As Jan says, the VNAV rewrite we're doing will address the issue. -tkyler

There is no power button on the copilot side Avitab. Since the avitab screen is shared between both, and 99%+ of users fly from the pilot side, we didn't want a copilot actuation of a power button to shut down the pilots side (in the case of a shared cockpit). Are you encountering the same issue with the power button on the pilot side Avitab? -tkyler

Thx Tim....we've seen one code break already and I'm already looking into that fix. I am quite driven to make this very reliable and accurate and user tests/inputs such as yours are. a great help. I'm committed to hunting these down as soon as they're found! -TomK

In order to build the thing in 3D, I created some drawings of my own that I could probably develop a bit further for you (and corroborate with Rob Archer) and send you a DXF or DWG. It may take a week or two as I'm traveling about for the next 10 days. Alternatively, I can get you a really high rez orthographic rendering of both our panel layouts when you can probably scale the dimensions off of somehow knowing a reference dim. That I could get to you pretty quick. -tkyler

Another weekly update. The rather rigorous testing of route editing over the last week had brough forth a few more issues, not unexpected during such a substantial rewrite though... but without a doubt, there are substantially less issues with route editing. Jan's last round of route testing, he was unable to get a gizmo crash when changing procedures aggressively and could swap any procedure at any time. Our goal here is for folks to not be scared of to push any buttons on the procedures page during descent / approach for fear of a gizmo crash, and be confident they'll get the route they expect. So, for example, you can select a STAR and transition.....and fly that without knowing your arrival... and then select your arrival later and it'll just get "added" to your routing. I know I say this every time, we have not begun the VNAV rewrite though....so we can't say how the VNAV predictions will turn out just yet. We have a very small list of issues to wrap up, which I will be trying to tend to this weekend so we can get this patch out asap. After, I will examine the waypoint restrictions and then finally analyze the VNAV and set upon improving that feature. -tkyler

Ok..another week gone by. 60 more hours of rewrite on the FMS route editing and guess what, we're still easily 95% of the way done Seriously, we are into the more hardcore route editing features now, the really fringe type of data entry patterns...changing your mind "mid transition" selection for example, or selecting a STAR, then approach, going to other pages, then coming back to select another STAR, then TRANS, then swap to a runway with an extension, then shortcut points, etc. Testing earlier in the week had us redesign some other algorithms and we figured we should just power through the work now so it gets done right and we can move on to VNAV without worrying about fragile route editing. With the algorithm structure in place, what remains is simply comprehensive testing/debugging of those algorithms via diverse route entry patterns until the route builds as expected in all cases, for both Navigraph and Aersoft datasets. As soon as that happens, we'll get the patch out. We're working on it daily. -tkyler

how repeatable is the event. Does it happen at exactly the same time? or about the same time? etc. Also, if you can repeat it and then post the X-Plane log file (Log.txt in the X-Plane root folder) that would be a good data point also. -tkyler

Hello all. What started out as a 'quick bug fix" for our annoying gizmo '470' error has, over the last 80 hours in one week..... turned into a very significant rewrite of our route procedures editing code. I was hoping to have it done by this weekend, but we are not quite ready. We are easily 95% of the way though and will continue to push to get this rather significant FMS update out asap. Depending on the routes you enter, some may not notice much difference, but for others, the difference will be quite noticable with the "routes editing as expected". Of course there is no way we can try all the routes that all the user can. In one 14 hour day, I may enter 100 test routes, all at the same airport, so feedback after release will be much welcome. We have refactored our editing code to be much more maintainable and 'debuggable'. That being said, we are pushing the CDU entries pretty hard at lots of locations and will continue to do so right up until release. I MUST re-iterate...this is LNAV editing code, not the VNAV. VNAV calculations are built upon the LNAV route and so this is a major foundational step towards improving the VNAV. I suspect many routes will improve though with this update. After this route editing effort is stabilized, I will go over the waypoint restrictions and then the VNAV. Holds will come after. -tkyler

Many procedures are "mated" to runways. On the Beoing 737 NG, if you select a runway that is not mated to a currently selected SID, you will get a message "RUNWAY N/A FOR SID:" The FMC will then make that runway the selection, delete your SID waypoints and filter the SIDs list for you to select a 'matching' SID. Conversely if you select a procedure that is not mated to the currently selected runway, the message then reads: "DEP N/A FOR RUNWAY" ...and the FMS again selected the SID, dumps any previous procedures and filters the runway list for you to select a mating runway, We now simulate this behavior, as opposed to the "RUNWAY REQUIRED" message. This situation can still exist with XP1100 data, depending on the procedures; however, it will be less common. -tkyler

Jan is right, we have not touched the AP or VNAV code at all since 1.21, so if something is worse, we need to know exactly what it is that "makes it worse". Debugging is quite tough business, not so much the fix, but the amount of diligence it takes to quantify what the issue is and put it into words. Good VNAV starts with good routes to make calculations from, and that is where we currently are as of this instant, fixing the STAR / APP route building code as these procedures are selected...since they are clearly resulting in 'funny routes' where VNAV calculations make no sense. That '470' bug is a pain for all of us and I'm super sorry about that one, but its fixed for the upcoming update and we are also now trying as many route editing combinations as we reasonbly can to test the robustness of entries. We will have an update in relatively short order with several fixes for sure and I for one, will be interested in seeing how the FMS handles "in air edits on descent" for all the situations folks will try that we did not get to. VNAV complaints are heavily biased toward the descent calcs and revisiting my code, its not hard to see why....which is a good thing...as it paints a clearer path for repairing the code. We are now working on FMS code and VNAV with priority, so any patience / feedback as these updates come out will be appreciated and help us improve. Bug reports regarding VNAV after this next update will be quite valuable as we are focused on that work at this time. -tkyler

Thx, specific experiences / routes vs expectations regarding these altitude restriction issues are very good data points for me. Thx for the input. -tkyler

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 digging a little deeper, I now recall why I had that line of code in there...and why we need to switch over to the XP1100. nav data format. The problem is the XML format we use does not represent "common" portions of STARs such as is found at KBOS. In this particular example above, the STAR serves 'all' runways, indeed that is the exact word the XML format uses for this star..."ALL". BUT at an airport like KBOS, a STAR will serve a bunch of runways and perhaps only the first few points of the STAR may be common before it diverges to specific runways. So if a runway was NOT selected, but a STAR was, then you would at least expect the common points to load; however, the XML format associates waypoints with runway identifiers in this case...and without a selected runway, I don't know which XML block to load. There is an extremely cumbersome workaround of trying to extract the common points, but it is not worth the effort IMO, and switching to a more realistic data format is the prudent solution....putting a giant band-aid on what we have is not the way to go. SO....what this means is when you select this type of STAR, that is associated with specific runways (as opposed to ALL runways), then we will pop a CDU message saying, SELECT RWY FIRST". When you do this, then you can select a STAR and it will load the STAR associated with the runway selected...inlcuding the "common points". Then, as mentioned above, you can select a new runway after you know which one you'll get, but at the least we'll avoid these gizmo erros ruining the flight. We avoided this message earlier because it simply wasn't like the real FMS, but neither is the nav data format and so its finally time to compromise. Unsure if we'll get this into the next patch...as we want ample time to test it. Certainly entering the runway first now before selecting stars is a good protection. -tkyler

Not necessarily. If you dig into your fmc_data > SidStar folder inside the IXEG folder and pull out the ENGM.xml and EDDU.xml files and post them here, I can try to reproduce this with your exact dataset. It is definitely worth trying to reproduce for me as I would not expect that bypass calculation. -tkyler

For the life of me, I have a line of code that says, "if the arrival runway is selected, append the star transition points". I remove that condition and everything snaps into place on this particular procedure (still a tweak to RTE page required though). I can't recall what kind of situation made me put that in all those years ago (though I'm sure some other user will find it). Transitions were particularly challenging given the XML dataset I originally started with, that I do remember...and one provider had runway transitions and another didn't. Things seem to have leveled out over the years, but this old code remained. I can only wonder how this may clean up other calculations on the descent side of things.

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