NavDataPro versus Navigraph Charts

[pilotwannabe1]

I'm thinking of getting a charts subscription, primarily for use with PSX.  Is one or the other aligned better with the PSX database?  Would you recommend one over the other?

Thanks,
Rushad

[Markus Vitzethum]

Hi Rushad,

from my own experience and from reading many forums... it's a matter of personal preference and experience. Both chart suppliers work and both supply many customers around the world. Personaly, I like the Jeppesen approach plates better, and I prefer the LIDO SID/STAR charts (even over the redesigned to-scale Jeppesen charts).

Note that the PSX database is not supplied by LIDO (Navigraph, at least until they switch to Jeppesen) or Jeppesen, but by a third supplier (Navtech, now part of the Airbus Group).

Note also that in the real world usually your NavData in the FMS box matches (usually) the printed / electronic charts and both are updated regularly. In the best of cases, the FMC navdata and the charts come from the same supplier, so the unnamed electronic waypoints in the FMC match the printed/electronic charts. (as not all waypoints are named).

So, in any case in the flightsim world, you will have discrepancies between the PSX NavData (updated once a year, supplied by Navtech) and your NavDataPro/Navigraph charts (supplied by LIDO or Jeppesen, updated at intervals of your choice, e.g. monthly). Whether that is a nuisance or not is again a matter of your preferences.

I claim that in 99% of cases, the discrepancies do not matter such that your flight is not possible. So, in any case, it is does not really matter what charts you use, IMHO.

Markus

[pilotwannabe1]

Thanks for the detailed response, Markus.  I signed up for a one month subscription from Navigraph to try it out.

Thanks,
Rushad

[cavaricooper]

Rushad-

I've been a satisfied customer of Navigraph for the better part of a decade now. Thrilled with their transfer to Jeppesen and looking forward to the current beta (chart positioning) getting better and better.

FWIW

Carl

[pilotwannabe1]

Thanks Carl.  Have they already move to Jeppesen?  Could not find that on their website.

Also, hoping that some of our add-on gurus can marry the chart positioning setup to PSX, once it is released.

Regards,
Rushad

[cavaricooper]

Yes, and Charts Cloud is in public beta as well...

[pilotwannabe1]

I have logged into Charts Cloud, but the maps say Lido on them, not Jeppesen.  What am I missing?

Thanks,
Rushad

[mgeiss]

You nee to use this URL for the beta phase: https://beta.charts.navigraph.com/

[pilotwannabe1]

Thanks Matthias!  It looks really cool.

Rushad

[Sylle]

Thrilled with their transfer to Jeppesen and looking forward to the current beta (chart positioning) getting better and better.

Funny you are saying that Carl For me it's quite the opposite!!
I think the Lido charts are much more suited for airline flying compared to the Jepps. Of course, if you alse use your charts to simulate flights with smaller GA aircraft or bizjets it's another story

Tegards,
Sylvain

[cavaricooper]

I think it's mostly cultural.... being a tiny bit US-centric I'm just used to Jepps....

Best- C

[Hardy Heinlin]

I think the Lido charts are much more suited for airline flying compared to the Jepps.

I have no opinion on this subject, but as I'm interested in graphic design and other people's opinions and reasonings: Could you give an example of a feature that is more suited for airline flying?


Cheers,

|-|ardy

[DougSnow]

One Hardy - no Cat A or B mins on either Lido, or the Jepp Commercial Airline charts.

[Markus Vitzethum]

I was about to say the same as Doug.

Maybe one more ... as I've said, I particularly like the SID and STAR charts published by LIDO (and their precursors, the charts published by the Atlas corporation). They are a drawn to scale and clearly depict topography (terrain, cities, sea).
Since often more than one procedures (e.g. all procedures departing North) are shown, you often get a better situational awareness.

Why better for airline flying? The LIDO AFC chart is an overview chart which shows only the general direction of each SID and STAR by an arrow labeled with the entry/exit fix and point to/from the fix. Nothing more. Green arrows for exit fixes, orange arrows for entry fixes. One chart gives a complete SID/STAR overview.

Markus

[DougSnow]

The one thing I hated about Lido (My airline used them) is that when there was inop equipment (lights, no glideslope etc), I had to do a deep dive into the manual and manually figure out my new mins.

Jepp has already done the math - thats worth it in my book. 

Lido charts were prettier, but that was about it.  Jepp wins for content hands down (especially if you have a US pilot mindset). I did a lot of investigations at work - and Lido left off enough details that could change one's interpretation of the approach.

Every time I looked Jepp was a true recitation of the host nation AIPs, but Lido was prettier.

[Sylle]

In addition to what has been said before -
Non-ILS approaches are all depicted as constant descent final approaches (no step down and no level-off at MDA) with a minimum slope of 3degrees.

The one thing I hated about Lido (My airline used them) is that when there was inop equipment (lights, no glideslope etc), I had to do a deep dive into the manual and manually figure out my new mins.

Jepp has already done the math - thats worth it in my book. 

That's a good point for Jepp indeed Doug!

Regards,
Sylvain

[Will]

One point to add to Markus' reply above, is that you gain an extra level of compatibility when using PFPX as your flight planning tool. PFPX can be kept up to date with Navigraph charts, and when PFPX exports a route, it exports the waypoint names and locations. Meaning that if Navigraph and PFPX agree, then you'll see the whole route on your charts, and when exported to PSX, the route will show up in the FMC as shown on the charts. You you get total agreement.

That means, for example, that if a fix moves 1 nm to the north, Navigraph and PFPX will show the new location of the fix after their update cycle, and the PFPX plan will bring the new location of the fix into PSX so the new (correct) location will be shown and flown on the FMC.

Of course, all fixes that are not contained on the PFPX planned route will be located according to the PSX database, which could lead to compatibility issues when flying online with others.

But synched Navigraph + PFPX will ensure that your planned route, your charts, and the FMC route always agree.

[Hardy Heinlin]

Aside from textual differences, are there any graphical features that you guys like better on Lido or Jepp charts? I remember, many years ago, I found the Jepp style more legible because they used specific fonts and styles for specific features, e.g. an arrow pointing at a navaid had a 3D look while an arrow of a route leg was in 2D. Just to name one example. On Lido charts there were many thin lines of the same thickness for different functions. But they changed a few things later on.


|-|ardy

[andrej]

I have to concur with Markus and Will in regards to the PFPX + Navigraph combination. PFPX is a great tool and up-to-date data allows for easier online flying (to be on the same page with others).

I have used Jeppesen charts before (growing up in the U.S. it was the norm ) and hence I have no problems getting used their format. To me it is more organized. The information is where I would expect it (such as frequencies, TL/TAs, etc.).

To me it is less 'noisy', albeit Lido charts provide greater detail (especially approach, START/SIDs).

Frankly speaking, I find it quite silly that people get into heated argument what is better. I think that it is a matter of getting used to new charts.

One thing that I would welcome for both providers is to list maximum type for given gate/parking position.

[EDIT]
More importantly, the feature to link PSX onto charts is coming. I am very excited about that.

[Will]

With an active subscription to Navigraph, you can put their old version (Lido) and the beta version of their new offering (Jeppesen) side by side. And compare. Which I did, with the KSTL QBALL9 arrival.

Here are my thoughts. All are very subjective, of course.

1. My airline flew with Jeppesen charts, so Jeppesen charts seem like home to me. Familiar. Trusted.

2. Jeppesen certainly has its own aesthetic. I find their design very appealing. Their arrows look pointy and sharp, their iconic "north" indicator with the long arrow and the winged globe looks very nice, their VORs look "navigationy." their use of boldface calls one's attention to the right things. Their data blocks are clear and easy to understand.

3. Lido is in color! This is a real plus. It makes for a more interesting and richer visual experience. Ditto with the terrain depictions. It's interesting to see rivers and urban areas depicted on a STAR chart.

4. The color notwithstanding, the Lido charts look more cartographic, and less dynamic-procedural. (Does that make sense?) It seems like Lido is trying to make a map, whilst Jeppesen is trying to illustrate a procedure. To my eyes, Jeppesen says "here is where you need to go, I will show you" whereas Lido says "here is where you are, and here is the world around you."

5. I like how Lido shows the boundaries between ARTCC centers. That information could come in handy some day. It would be even more handy if a frequency were given along with the boundary.

Both seem equally useful, and each is appealing in its own way.