OnCourse Software

egkkman wrote:

Hi,

Whilst it's interesting to hear who flies what and how, along with opinions on how others fly and what, I really just wanted to know if there are plans to add to the SID STAR configuration.

In some cases the Navigraph data is in a tabular format. From my VERY simple planet I wondered if it could be imported to populate the data fields in PF3, perhaps utilising drop downs, as suggested. I am no programmer so I don't know what this entails but, it doesn't sound too difficult, again from Planet Simple. It would be nice if the programme correctly named the SID /STAR but I think this is secondary, for me it's about limiting the data input before each flight.

Those that subscribe to Navigraph could have up to date info., those that do not could have the current setup or data from Navigraph fixed on a certain date.

Anyway, since I have not (yet) purchased PF3, I guess I should keep my opinions to myself. It's just that having tried a number of ATC, weather, flight planning, AI Traffic programmes etc., I would just like to be as sure as possible that when I let the moths free from my wallet I make the best decision possible.


Regards

Dave

Adding Navigraph data to PF3 has as I am sure you have read has already been discussed and it is quite apparent that the idea has a large number of aficionados! And they will most likely keep pressing from time to time. That said it would change the nature of PF3 if it was an integrated part. If Dave were to actively go for it I still favour a module approach which would hook into PF3. PF3 though in its current form is a very satisfactory solution and works very well. And it is always being developed (which is more than can be said for other ATC programmes). At least give your wallet a shake and see if the resident moths stir

vololiberista wrote:

Roman,Your idea sound ok in principle but I don't really have the time to run a dedicated website as such. I have done some videos and perhaps having added commentaries would have been a lot better and more informative. But I am an amateur in that field and it ties down my PC for 8 to 10 hours at a time uploading to YT. I am also very much behind on my pet project of developing a new panel for David Maltby's Super VC10. I am writing the manuel at present now at 50+ pages. I did a test zip file the other day and was shocked when it was almost 1GB in zipped form!!

Roger, but when I build that site (and it may happen as developing Content Management Systems is my business), you'll be the first one to be invited to contribute

Dave, let me add one more point. I've been playing with SIDs and STARS for many years. I listen to live ATC streams, watch Flightradar24, read as much as possible... simply said, it's my core flight-simming interest. There is only one ATC software that enables me to handle standard procedures in a satisfactory way - PF3. Why? There are more reasons, but probably the most important one is that PF3, if correctly used, NEVER throws at you something that you consider wrong, stupid, bad, unacceptable. You have control. AIRAC data integration could very easily break this, as it is technically impossible to make the selection of procedures smart enough.

What vololiberista wrote about LIPZ and ROKIB 6J vs. ROKIB 6S may seem to be just a discussion of how to fly, but it is actually the point. When we know that ROKIB 6J is the correct approach what would you think about an ATC controller that clears you for ROKIB 6S which is, in a given situation, impossible/unacceptable/unrealistic? In that case I would even prefer simple generic ’SP’ readout. I enjoy uncertainty, I love variability, I randomize almost everything in my sim (including PF3), but I do not want to receive anything that I consider inappropriate. It would break the whole immersion for me. That's why I personally see the Navigraph integration more of a threat than an advantage.

Roman

sbsim wrote:

Dave, let me add one more point. I've been playing with SIDs and STARS for many years. I listen to live ATC streams, watch Flightradar24, read as much as possible... simply said, it's my core flight-simming interest. There is only one ATC software that enables me to handle standard procedures in a satisfactory way - PF3. Why? There are more reasons, but probably the most important one is that PF3, if correctly used, NEVER throws at you something that you consider wrong, stupid, bad, unacceptable. You have control. AIRAC data integration could very easily break this, as it is technically impossible to make the selection of procedures smart enough.

What vololiberista wrote about LIPZ and ROKIB 6J vs. ROKIB 6S may seem to be just a discussion of how to fly, but it is actually the point. When we know that ROKIB 6J is the correct approach what would you think about an ATC controller that clears you for ROKIB 6S which is, in a given situation, impossible/unacceptable/unrealistic? In that case I would even prefer simple generic ’SP’ readout. I enjoy uncertainty, I love variability, I randomize almost everything in my sim (including PF3), but I do not want to receive anything that I consider inappropriate. It would break the whole immersion for me. That's why I personally see the Navigraph integration more of a threat than an advantage.

Roman

When we know that ROKIB 6J is the correct approachSID


PF3 also allows me to fly the correct approach into Innsbruck too. From Italy I use the BRENO 2A STAR which takes me all the way to Rattenburg even though the landing rwy is 08. For that I should really use the BRENO 2B. But then I don't get to fly the circle to land. That would be a case where the user would have to override the STAR asigned by Navigraph. Innsbruck suffers from the dreaded Foehn winds which I believe can be modelled by one weather engine. So the chance of a runway change is very high. In this weather situation the pilot would most likely be given BRENO2A by ATC, as a runway change from 08 to 25 is almost as far as having to divert. You would have to fly all the way from Kühtai to Rattenberg and back!! 70nm!!!!!

sbsim wrote:

vololiberista wrote:

Roman,Your idea sound ok in principle but I don't really have the time to run a dedicated website as such. I have done some videos and perhaps having added commentaries would have been a lot better and more informative. But I am an amateur in that field and it ties down my PC for 8 to 10 hours at a time uploading to YT. I am also very much behind on my pet project of developing a new panel for David Maltby's Super VC10. I am writing the manuel at present now at 50+ pages. I did a test zip file the other day and was shocked when it was almost 1GB in zipped form!!

Roger, but when I build that site (and it may happen as developing Content Management Systems is my business), you'll be the first one to be invited to contribute

I'd be happy to contribute.

vololiberista wrote:

When we know that ROKIB 6J is the correct approachSID

This was a test...

Hi Roman,

Thanks for your reply.

I don't disagree with what you say, I too am looking for realism in an ATC programme. I would like to avoid filling in information manually each time I wish to do flight. If using a drop down is the answer then great.

"as it is technically impossible to make the selection of procedures smart enough. "

Again I agree. I am not suggesting the selection of the SID/STAR is left to PF3.

If the up to date data from Navigraph was used and kept in a database the SID / STAR could be selected from a drop down, this is all that's needed. The other information could be made to automatically populate the 'Alt Comp' and 'MAp ALt' fields. It just seems cumbersome to fill the MAP, crossing altitudes etc. at the start of each flight.

I believe I'm right in saying that PF3 doesn't care which route is taken from airport to the first waypoint, provided one reaches the first waypoint at the cleared altitude, which I happen to think is a good way to handle the various routings possible.

I will download the trial version in a week or so and give it a try. Perhaps my fears will be washed away.

Regards

Dave

Here is a little test for anyone who uses Navigraph type information to generate their fpls either using a flight planner or "another" ATC programme and those who just put info into their FMCs.The idea is to compare PF3 as it is with Navigraph.
LIPZ-->ROKIB-->GIKEB-->EKPEB-->BRENO-->LOWI
In this fpl I have deliberately left out SIDs and STARs. The intention is to fly the circle to land approach for rwy08 at Innsbruck. So leave your weather settings to default. That will ensure that rwy 08 is the landing rwy and 04R is the departure rwy. Set cruise to FL240. If your a/c cannot get to FL240 by ROKIB then set it lower but not lower than FL200. On PF3's SID STAR page for LIPZ set transition altitude to 6,000 and on the page for LOWI set transition altitude to 11,000 and FAF to 9,500. Make sure that the SIDs Active and STARs Active boxes are checked. Don't use the "randomiser" for this obviously!

Q1. What SID are you given? -- It should be ROKIB 6J. If you are given ROKIB 6S can you change it? If not why not? The reasons for not using ROKIB 6S are discussed earlier in this thread.

Q2. Technically speaking when arriving from Italy one has to take the BRENO 2B STAR to land on rwy 08. But this doesn't allow for the circle to land approach. So in order to do the circle to land approach you need BRENO 2A which routes you to Rattenberg. Are you given that option? The whole point of the circle to land procedure is to account for the Foehn winds which will cause rwy changes. So with this STAR you are well placed if there is indeed a rwy change. If you fly the BRENO 2B STAR and there is a rwy change you have a 70nm diversion from Kühtai to Rattenberg and back!! So that's why at certain times of the day real ATC will give you BRENO 2A.

BRENO 2A requires a step descent to FL140 and then to FL120 at RTT but you must leave RTT at 9,500 QNH. PF3 will do this correctly if you set RTT twice in your fpl. First entry as 12,000 and second entry as 9,500. Place "H" against the second entry. I have holds currently set to 50% probability.

For the purists amongst you update your scenery and afcad for LIPZ if not already done as Venezia is just a blob in default scenery and LIPZ rwy 04L-22R is effectively disused and in fact designated as a taxiway in the current charts. So even though it looks like a rwy you don't need nor will you get permission to cross.
My videos boring though they may be, starting with this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHhYduG53Ps give you an idea of how this fpl should operate and how PF3 gives the correct instructions all the way!

Oh and if anyone wants to try the Missed approach procedure from Absam back to Absam keeping within a turning circle of 1,700metres then that the real difficulty in comparison to the circle to land!

Well you lost me after 'Here is a little test '

I've come to the conclusion it's a lot easier to write computer programs than it is to plan a flight even for a simulator!!

dmarch wrote:

Well you lost me after 'Here is a little test '

I've come to the conclusion it's a lot easier to write computer programs than it is to plan a flight even for a simulator!!

If you're talking about about writing in XML then I would disagree But otherwise yes. Flightplanning isn't quite the same as looking at a road map and saying "let's go from A to B".
The "little test" is really just to see if it is in reality easier to plan a route like LIPZ-->LOWI the PF3 way or the navigraph way.