OnCourse Software

Welcome to our Product Support Forums
It is currently Sun Aug 19, 2018 10:54 pm

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 982
Location: LIMZ
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

I think the program should warn the user and reject that action. Same for other user misakes.
It need be only covered in the user manual. It isn't a mistake as you put it (in fact quite the opposite it is intentional). Nor is it a bug.

I think you misunderstood my comments, I did not mentioned a program bug or mistake, I said "user mistake". So if we set anything that will lead to an unusual or unexpected behavior the program should warn us or even reject that setting, flight plan, etc. This way any user even newbie can have a better experience from day 1.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 8:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 982
Location: LIMZ
Well PF3 already has the option to prompt if wypts are too close. Which you can you turn on or off if you wish. In my fpl it isn't a "user mistake" and it works. Real flightplanning is very much a black art and one does not rely on software that "generates" a fpl. Many simmers are led to believe that becausethey have spent lots of money on a fpl programme that it must somehow be pukka. This is not the case at all. And it is a very steep learning curve to understand how it all works. Likewise ATC. The majority of simmers don't have an RT licence. It comes as a surprise to learn that in many European countries a pilot must pass the RT exam with 100%. Both the UK and Italian CAA's request a review if a pilot fails the RT exam to the point that the pilot training could be stopped by the authority.
What you describe is a "potential" mistake by the user. It really doesn't need PF3 to hold that user's hand. All the user needs to to do is adjust the fpl by adding a wypt or moving a wypt further away. Especially bearing in mind that the majority of fpls generated for sim use are wrong anyway!!

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 1:09 am
Posts: 43
Quote:
Well PF3 already has the option to prompt if wypts are too close. Which you can you turn on or off if you wish. In my fpl it isn't a "user mistake" and it works. Real flightplanning is very much a black art and one does not rely on software that "generates" a fpl. Many simmers are led to believe that becausethey have spent lots of money on a fpl programme that it must somehow be pukka. This is not the case at all. And it is a very steep learning curve to understand how it all works. Likewise ATC. The majority of simmers don't have an RT licence. It comes as a surprise to learn that in many European countries a pilot must pass the RT exam with 100%. Both the UK and Italian CAA's request a review if a pilot fails the RT exam to the point that the pilot training could be stopped by the authority.
What you describe is a "potential" mistake by the user. It really doesn't need PF3 to hold that user's hand. All the user needs to to do is adjust the fpl by adding a wypt or moving a wypt further away. Especially bearing in mind that the majority of fpls generated for sim use are wrong anyway!!
Waypoints too close as I understand in PF3 can have weird results. So, you should fix that. If I pilot and ATC can deal with close waypoints why your software can't?

Vectors to final: if my last waypoint is less than 20 miles I will have problems too. Well in real life is not like that. Wouldn't be better to have a few options in the connect window for choosing a)vectors to final and b) another choosing a percentage of occurrence and leave my original full flight plan. This way PF3 would internally remove the necessary waypoints if it chooses to vector me? If my waypoints are too close deal with it, maybe pf3 should internally check where is the aircraft in relation to these points and then determine which one are we flying to.

In real life we don't have to make 2 different flight plans, one for ATC and one for the MCDU as with PF3 (virtual ATC).

ATC humans are smart enough to deal with all that (close waypints, vectors to final before last waypoint, minimum vectoring altitudes, separations, ..). I think a software can be smart enough to do the same, and I think it will be a good goal for this program.

I like PF3, I just want to keep it improving hopefully in this direction.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:16 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 6:22 pm
Posts: 3418
Quote:
Waypoints too close as I understand in PF3 can have weird results.
'Can' yes, it's a precautionary message.
Quote:
So, you should fix that.
There's nothing to fix, it isn't a bug"
Quote:
If I pilot and ATC can deal with close waypoints why your software can't?
As you say, ATC humans are smart (hopefully). Software is not! It's dumb!! Besides, it's not that the software can't handle waypoints that are too close together it can and it does but, it all depends really who's flying the aircraft if your waypoints are too close together. An experienced RW pilot and probably most sim pilots will handle such things without any problem. Your FMC will also have no issues. But we have to deal with a lot of other users too, some may be novices and for them if waypoints are too close and they are manually handling the aircraft they could, and I say 'could' have problems. Hence the warning.
Quote:
This way PF3 would internally remove the necessary waypoints
No, no, no! We don't want to go down that route. Earlier versions of PFE used to remove wayppoints... well it was PF2000 actually, and that caused no end of issues and disgruntled users. PF3 uses whatever you put into the FP, period!

_________________
Cheers

Dave March

Email: dmarch@oncourse-software.co.uk

Without a log it didn't happen!

Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 982
Location: LIMZ
Quote:
In real life we don't have to make 2 different flight plans, one for ATC and one for the MCDU as with PF3 (virtual ATC).
That is actually quite rare now with PF3. It only applies to akward fpls like the approach to rwy 26 and circle to land approach for rwy 08 at LOWI as an example. And the only reason for that is for the FMC (if you have one) to indicate passing ABSAM and then direct to to INN. That part of the fpl if you will is not required in PF3 as the correct end of the fpl is RTT (as it is in real life). If you recall PMDG did a tutorial flight to LOWI. I believe it was for the 737. That required input of many fixes with altitude constraints. Whereas in reality they are not necessary as part of a flightplan. They are there only for quick reference to check your altitude. Real ATC use real people "allegedly" who know the fine detail of the local area and are fully conversant with every published instruction (and of course not forgetting that you the PIC is also legally required to have the same knowledge!). To get PF3 to the same level as human ATC would require it to know every restriction for every individual piece of controlled airspace all over the world. Plus the dimensions of every single published controlled and uncontrolled area, prohibited areas and purple airspace. That of course would be an ever changing database as well. Imagine the size that PF3 would have to be as a download it would be far beyond the storage capabilities of all but the largest computers. Think of the differences between the VFR regulations of France, and the UK. PF3 would have to know the different regulations for every single ICAO country in order to have a perfect VFR fpl.

Any ATC add-on is therefore going to be a compromise. And the big advantage of PF3 is its flexibility. Thus allowing the user to tweak a bit here and there to get a "best fit" as it were. It takes a time to learn, but most users understand that ATC is a big subject and learn to to use the programme's capabilities. It comes as a hard earned lesson for many simmers to discover that the flight planning programmes availabe for sim use have very basic algorithms and are frequently wrong thus requiring a significant amount of human oversight. But that is half the fun isn't it! (doing what real pilots have to do, i.e. check the fpl for accuracy). Another forte of PF3 is that it doesn't use the Microsoft game cheat that some other ATC add-ons use. That of vectoring in and around high terrain. It can't be done in real life due to line of sight of radar microwaves and VHF radio waves. In fact I don't believe that the other add-ons that do do it take account of MVA in N. America. That is a published "Minimum Vector Altitude" for airport approaches which is always significantly above the highest point of the terrain!!
Quote:
This way PF3 would internally remove the necessary waypoints
I totally agree with Dave on this point. Only the user should have this option.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 5:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 1:09 am
Posts: 43
Quote:
Quote:
In real life we don't have to make 2 different flight plans, one for ATC and one for the MCDU as with PF3 (virtual ATC).
Quote:
Quote:
That is actually quite rare now with PF3
If I want radar vectors on destination I understand according to Dave advise that the last waypoint should be at least 20 miles out otherwise PF3 will start my descend too late or worse. In that case any further waypoints have to be deleted for the pf3 flight plan. I need them though for the MCDU f/p. Many times this is the case and I have to keep 2 different f/p.
.
Quote:
Real ATC use real people "allegedly" who know the fine detail of the local area
I got your point, that would be too hard to do. Maybe a walkaround would be for pf3 to read the terrain information of the airport sorrounding area and vector accordingly at least to avoid CFIT or triggering the EGPWS.
Quote:
flight planning programmes availabe for sim use have very basic algorithms and are frequently wrong thus requiring a significant amount of human oversight. But that is half the fun isn't it! (doing what real pilots have to do, i.e. check the fpl for accuracy).

Completely agree on this :)


Quote:
Another forte of PF3 is that it doesn't use the Microsoft game cheat that some other ATC add-ons use. That of vectoring in and around high terrain. It can't be done in real life due to line of sight of radar microwaves and VHF radio waves. In fact I don't believe that the other add-ons that do do it take account of MVA in N. America. That is a published "Minimum Vector Altitude" for airport approaches which is always significantly above the highest point of the terrain!!
I see your point and agree. But still I think is good to have this capability just to avoid being vectored CFIT. Maybe as a last resource in case you haven't set a STAR or minimum safe final app min altitude.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 5:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 1:09 am
Posts: 43
Quote:
Quote:
Waypoints too close as I understand in PF3 can have weird results.
'Can' yes, it's a precautionary message.
Quote:
So, you should fix that.
There's nothing to fix, it isn't a bug"
Quote:
If I pilot and ATC can deal with close waypoints why your software can't?
As you say, ATC humans are smart (hopefully). Software is not! It's dumb!! Besides, it's not that the software can't handle waypoints that are too close together it can and it does but, it all depends really who's flying the aircraft if your waypoints are too close together. An experienced RW pilot and probably most sim pilots will handle such things without any problem. Your FMC will also have no issues. But we have to deal with a lot of other users too, some may be novices and for them if waypoints are too close and they are manually handling the aircraft they could, and I say 'could' have problems. Hence the warning.
Quote:
This way PF3 would internally remove the necessary waypoints
No, no, no! We don't want to go down that route. Earlier versions of PFE used to remove wayppoints... well it was PF2000 actually, and that caused no end of issues and disgruntled users. PF3 uses whatever you put into the FP, period!
Thanks Dave
Rgrds.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 982
Location: LIMZ
Quote:
I see your point and agree. But still I think is good to have this capability just to avoid being vectored CFIT. Maybe as a last resource in case you haven't set a STAR or minimum safe final app min altitude.
All you have to do is to ensure that the approach phase of your fpl does not go any lower than the FAF (which will never be lower than the lowest MSA) which you can enter in the SID/STAR page after entering the four letter ICAO code. PF3 will not descend you any lower than that. When you look at approach plates for airfields surrounded by high terrain you will always see lots of instructions as regards altitudes and speeds. They are there because it is the PIC's responsibility to avoid a CFIT not ATC's actually!! So build those restrictions into your fpl. That's as real as it gets I'm afraid! I know that flying into an airfield surrounded by terrain in the sim will result only in having to make a cup of tea after killing yourself and all the passengers if you CFIT. But you might find it a tad safer and much more interesting to look-up the relevant charts. It's not difficult and it's real life.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:48 am
Posts: 64
Quote:
Quote:
I see your point and agree. But still I think is good to have this capability just to avoid being vectored CFIT. Maybe as a last resource in case you haven't set a STAR or minimum safe final app min altitude.
All you have to do is to ensure that the approach phase of your fpl does not go any lower than the FAF (which will never be lower than the lowest MSA) which you can enter in the SID/STAR page after entering the four letter ICAO code.
On a LIMW chart tho the FAF is at 11400 and the lowest msa is 13800 ?


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:12 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 6:22 pm
Posts: 3418
This thread is 12 months old. If you have a problem please start a new topic. You can reference this thread if necessary of course.

Sent from my mobile using Tapatalk


_________________
Cheers

Dave March

Email: dmarch@oncourse-software.co.uk

Without a log it didn't happen!

Image


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited