News:

Precision Simulator update 10.175 (29 May 2024) is now available.
Navburo update 13 (23 November 2022) is now available.
NG FMC and More is released.

Main Menu

New Approach for Aircraft Add-on Documentation

Started by Zinger, Wed, 1 Dec 2010 09:35

Hardy Heinlin

#20
Just to be sure, I don't know if I've been addressed, too: Should my comment (#4 in the thread) have belittled anyone or any product, then I want to clarify that this is not my intention. Every product, incl. the old PS1, has certainly its disadvantages and advantages. I can only speak for my product and about what kind of problems my product has to deal with. I have no idea what the other products do or can't do. I feel uncomfortable when the Aerowinx forum is used to bash other simulation products. OK, nobody was bashing here, just posting constructive opinions, but usually the water quickly boils up to 100°C in such discussions and my alert lights get on at 50°C :-)


Regards,

|-|ardy

Hardy Heinlin

#21
As for the nav database updates: monthly versus annually.

I doubt that an annual update would lead to significant problems within the scope of a non-real-life environment. If somebody fears that this may lead to taxiway landings, then I'd like to point out that airports usually do not shift their runways on a monthly basis.

In many cases you update all your nav data and software (a rather nuisance job) only because something has changed in a corner of the world where you've never been and you don't currently fly to anyway. Significant are only the higher costs of a monthly subscription (Remember: airline prices, not Navigraph prices).

...

A question: I don't understand why online flyers don't want to get vectors. I thought that's why one flies online.


Cheers,

|-|ardy

John Golin

#22
Just to chime in from the online perspective, there is no requirement or need for people to have current databases.  Any motivation for absolute currency is that of the individual pilot.

ATC will accomodate non current procedures, or as Hardy points out, provide vectors (although you may be delayed slightly).  It's also worth noting the overwhelming majority of procedures can be manually entered into the FMC based on freely available charts - it is not unusual in WorldFlight to have to manually enter a SID (DP) or STAR.

Hardy - I find the online experience is more about the sharing of the environment and the uncertainty that introduces - you are in the sky with other real people, behind another aircraft, talking to the same controller.  It can be a dynamic, uncertain and changing environment that pushes you to master your flying, navigation and systems knowledge. Stick yourself in Matts sim, and you have CRM to deal with as well!

Offline I can plan whatever I like, set the weather, key in the departure and arrival, exact fuel required, and fly it end to end.  This can be great fun, but having to unexpectedly manage speed in cruise and descent to be sequenced, or change course, throw out the arrival and program a new one, change runways etc all without notice are a challenge to be mastered. You listen to what ATC are asking the aircraft in front to do to get a clue to the arrival you will be assigned. You need to be on the ball, briefed for that go-around because the guy in front may be slow to clear the runway... report abeam, intercept xxx radial... report endurance... who knows what the next request will be?

edit: you can't pause on departure if something goes wrong, you can't pause if you are confused at what state the aircraft is in or the automatics are not doing what you expect, and your failure to fly correctly can impact the rest of the traffic - you have to be ahead of the aircraft and fly the plane.
John Golin.
www.simulatorsolutions.com.au

John Golin

Being online was a significant contributor to the loss of WF523...

View the Factual Report
John Golin.
www.simulatorsolutions.com.au

Zinger

#24
Quote from: Hardy HeinlinI doubt that an annual update would lead to significant problems within the scope of a non-real-life environment. If somebody fears that this may lead to taxiway landings, then I'd like to point out that airports usually do not shift their runways on a monthly basis.
In many cases you update all your nav data and software (a rather nuisance job) only because something has changed in a corner of the world where you've never been and you don't currently fly to anyway. Significant are only the higher costs of a monthly subscription (Remember: airline prices, not Navigraph prices).

I will repeat what I have already written:
a. I never said that it would create actual problems, on the contrary- I wrote one could fly online without any of this information and get vectored.  
b. I was merely indicating that the rest of the online community by and large, would have updated AIRACS in contrast with PSX/PS1, and that it could dubb our users similar to X-PLANE for the reasons I explained.
c. I understand the cost issue and thanked you for the clarification. I also indicated that for most hobbyists. update cost is an issue.
d. I use one add-on, used both as an FS add-on for the hobbyist, and also sold for professional aviation use. It has Navigraph monthly updates incorporated.


A question: I don't understand why online flyers don't want to get vectors. I thought that's why one flies online.

John Golin explained what online flying adds, in my opinion clearly and very well. About vectoring- first I never said that anyone doesn't like to be vectored. Further, there are two distinctly different situations. The normal situation is where ATC vectors aircraft flying in accordance with published procedures, exactly as in real life, to sequence aircraft and separate where necessary. There is another normal situation, in the US many if not most DP are ATC vector-based, as opposed to Europe and other common route-based SIDs.
The less normal situation is where a minority of online pilots lack updated documentation and sometimes aviation education (they usually go together), file and fly without them. In this case ATC would vector them, but they might be delayed due to workload and others flying preferred routes which have preference. Either way they seem to the rest of the community as either beginners, just playing a game in a network dubbed "as real as it gets", and often viewed as trouble makers for the rest, as they often hold up traffic and not getting appreciated for that.


Cheers,

|-|ardy
Finally, while trying to brainstorm new and at times probably less popular opinion, which is no sign of its merit, I got bitten here and notably by the leaders of this forum, another case was about terrorism. Which makes me wonder if it is of any benefit to bring my ideas here. I can assure you that in time and with open minded approach, you are likely to see I was mostly right.

EDIT: Runways don't often get moved you said. Here is an interesting statistics for you: In Europe where infrastructure is well ahead of many other parts of the world, 50% of road infrastructure is modified, transportation direction modified or reversed, deleted or constructed every year!
Regards, Zinger

Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers

I totally agree. The online environment throws a challenge at you that has very little to do with current charts. For manageability reasons, WorldFlight fixes the onboard material and routes about half a year before the event -- we intentionally are not current. Once in a while we have the WHISKEY ONE BRAVO while ATC calls for the WHISKEY TWO BRAVO. We reply that we don't have the TWO BRAVO and the answer is: never mind, you will get vectored anyway, it's just to darn crowded over here.

For planning, there usually is little difference between the ONE and TWO arrivals. Chances are the version bump was caused by the REDWINE ONE DELTA which approaches from the opposite direction. And it keeps your FMC skills up   :)


Jeroen

Will

Help me understand why there isn't a universal "flight sim" data set of navdata... The data itself are in the public domain, right? And digital transformations are trivially easy; you write your algorithm once, and then every month thereafter the updates go out automatically.  Someone could pay a couple bucks to host this data set on a server somewhere, in a format that all sims could read.  Why hasn't this been done, and why are people still paying licensing fees (etc.) for updates?
Will /Chicago /USA

Zinger

#27
Stefan, the Navigraph founder did that for 3-4 years, then converted it  into a business. It involves substantial time for routine updating, debugging, support and new add-on adaptations. On top of that new formats and ideas and the  graphic effort for new plates and charts
Regards, Zinger

Hardy Heinlin

#28
Quote from: Zinger
Quote from: Hardy HeinlinI doubt that an annual update would lead to significant problems within the scope of a non-real-life environment. If somebody fears that this may lead to taxiway landings, then I'd like to point out that airports usually do not shift their runways on a monthly basis.
In many cases you update all your nav data and software (a rather nuisance job) only because something has changed in a corner of the world where you've never been and you don't currently fly to anyway. Significant are only the higher costs of a monthly subscription (Remember: airline prices, not Navigraph prices).

I will repeat what I have already written:
a. I never said that it would create actual problems, on the contrary- I wrote one could fly online without any of this information and get vectored.  
b. I was merely indicating that the rest of the online community by and large, would have updated AIRACS in contrast with PSX/PS1, and that it could dubb our users similar to X-PLANE for the reasons I explained.
c. I understand the cost issue and thanked you for the clarification. I also indicated that for most hobbyists. update cost is an issue.
d. I use one add-on, used both as an FS add-on for the hobbyist, and also sold for professional aviation use. It has Navigraph monthly updates incorporated.


A question: I don't understand why online flyers don't want to get vectors. I thought that's why one flies online.

John Golin explained what online flying adds, in my opinion clearly and very well. About vectoring- first I never said that anyone doesn't like to be vectored. Further, there are two distinctly different situations. The normal situation is where ATC vectors aircraft flying in accordance with published procedures, exactly as in real life, to sequence aircraft and separate where necessary. There is another normal situation, in the US many if not most DP are ATC vector-based, as opposed to Europe and other common route-based SIDs.
The less normal situation is where a minority of online pilots lack updated documentation and sometimes aviation education (they usually go together), file and fly without them. In this case ATC would vector them, but they might be delayed due to workload and others flying preferred routes which have preference. Either way they seem to the rest of the community as either beginners, just playing a game in a network dubbed "as real as it gets", and often viewed as trouble makers for the rest, as they often hold up traffic and not getting appreciated for that.


Cheers,

|-|ardy
Finally, while trying to brainstorm new and at times probably less popular opinion, which is no sign of its merit, I got bitten here and notably by the leaders of this forum, another case was about terrorism. Which makes me wonder if it is of any benefit to bring my ideas here. I can assure you that in time and with open minded approach, you are likely to see I was mostly right.

EDIT: Runways don't often get moved you said. Here is an interesting statistics for you: In Europe where infrastructure is well ahead of many other parts of the world, 50% of road infrastructure is modified, transportation direction modified or reversed, deleted or constructed every year!


Jeez, Zinger, what have I done to you? I'm completely baffled. There's absolutely no reason for such a defense attitude. You write "I never did ..." --  "I never did ..." -- as if I would attack you. I have understood what you said already yesterday. I know that you never did what you list here. You must be confusing me with somebody else.

Confusing is also the way you quote!

|-|

Michel Vandaele

#29
Hi Hardy,

Quote from: Hardy HeinlinAs for the nav database updates: monthly versus annually.

I doubt that an annual update would lead to significant problems within the scope of a non-real-life environment. If somebody fears that this may lead to taxiway landings, then I'd like to point out that airports usually do not shift their runways on a monthly basis.

In many cases you update all your nav data and software (a rather nuisance job) only because something has changed in a corner of the world where you've never been and you don't currently fly to anyway. Significant are only the higher costs of a monthly subscription (Remember: airline prices, not Navigraph prices).

...

A question: I don't understand why online flyers don't want to get vectors. I thought that's why one flies online.


Cheers,

|-|ardy

Thanks for your opinion.  First your question. I personally have certainly no objections against vectoring when flying online. as this is what is done a lot in the real world too.  Of course the controller has to give realistic vectors  ;) ;)

What the navdata  concerns, with the B744 I'm flying in every part in the world and here in Europe airways data are changing a lot during one year. For exemple I was using FOC (of Danur) as a very realistic flightplanner and once they stopped updating their data, it was mostly not possible anymore to create a real life European route in it, after 6 month's.  Waiting for Topcat's new flightplanner now to have a realistic planner again.  I know very well the problem with NAVDATA.  It's a complete chain.  OR you are updating nothing at all ( no CDU navdata, no charts or no flightplanner) or you do it all together.

Online networks are normally using the real life data, via AIP's websites etc.
Personally I think a half year period would be better, but of course I don't have any idea what kind of financial agreement you have with the company.

Your efforts are so appreciated.

Many thanks
Michel
Michel VANDAELE
Board member  FSCB
EBOS Scenery Designteam
My B744 project
http://users.telenet.be/michel.vandaele/sim1.htm

Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers

Unofficially, there is another approach, of course. For various reasons, PSX itself will not ship with a monthly update service, so be it. But it should be technically possible to hack up a monthly source, such as (subscribed) Navigraph, to be fed into PSX. Aerowinx is not involved at all in this. The main issue is whether Navigraph provides, in any of their products, sufficient information to correctly reproduce the required PSX files.

All the previous caveats apply, especially the plain fact that this will need (a lot of) routine maintenance. So I don't volunteer!


Jeroen

Hardy Heinlin

I think that would be a massive copyright infringement, Jeroen.

Matt Sheil

I get 28 day cycles on my real plane and all my aviation software, when you read the updates it could be as simple as an icon change on a chart, it is very rare that a mountain moves or a runway gets closed or moved.
For online flying 12 monthly is fine, in fact possibly also an overkill.
Waypoints and navaids do not change from year to the next, if you know of one, that is annoying you, just edit it, no need for a 28 day cycle, just change the date on your FMC.
I have been running my sim on 2004 data for the last 6 years, no big problem, we get around the World every year without any issues, we  pull the current chart found online and build the approach directly in the CDU.
If you feel you need 12 month updates, I think it is just to make you feel good and up to date, as far as the data is concerned, it does not change that much month to month

Matt Sheil

#33
Here is my last update from Jeppesen chart data for whole of Australia, some of it is just carry over from the month before, I.E was comisioned July 2010 and they still tell us.
Most is just frequency changes or errors made in creating a chart.
The actual data from Garmin that goes in my plane, has way less updates entries that the Jepp charts do.
Now takeaway anything in this data that is not related to the 747 and you would be left with 2 lines of updates....   Frequencies...


Jeppesen CHART CHANGE NOTICES highlight only significant changes affecting Jeppesen Charts, also regularly updated at
www.jeppesen.com.
IMPORTANT: CHECK FOR NOTAMS AND OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION PRIOR TO FLIGHT.
Australia
ENROUTE CHARTS
GENERAL
AUSTRALIA
All GAAP airspace has changed to Class D.
Commencing with the 3 JUN 10 effective date the CTAF (R) concept for Australia will be retired and replaced by CTAF. This is expected to be
phased in over the next few months. Jeppesen will process CTAF changes on an as revise basis along with more flight critical revision activity.
----------
AUSTRALIA
ATS ROUTES changed:
Leg D14/LT - LT VOR LSALT changed to 3200T. YMHB.
Y153 redesig one-way South-bound SWIFT mil brk - ROKUU NCRP. YBTL, YBMK.
ALICE SPRINGS, NT CTA desig. A circle with 15 NM radius centered on S23 47.6 E133 52.7. Altitudes: 3500' - 4500'. Airspace Class D. YBAS.
Bathurst Island, NT Apt CTAF chgd to 126.5 AU LO-3/6B.
DANGER AREA D-938 desig (NW of Rockhampton (RK) VOR). An irregular shaped area approx 35 NM N-S and 30 NM E-W. Altitudes: GND - Base
of CTA. Time of operations: By NOTAM.
AU LO-4/4B.
DANGER AREA D-939 desig as follows: An irregular shaped area extending approx 75 NM North to 10 NM South of the Rockhampton (RK) VOR
and 45 NM East to 85 NM West of the Rockhampton (RK) VOR. Altitudes: GND - Base of CTA. Time of operations: By NOTAM.
AU LO-4/4B, AU LO-5/8B.
DANGER AREA YM(D)-128 revoked NE of Perth (PH) VOR. YPPH 10-1.
Garden Point, NT Apt CTAF chgd to 126.5. AU LO-3/6B.
Halls Creek, WA (HLC) NDB freq chgd to 245. AU LO-3/6C.
Port Lincoln, SA Apt CTAF chgd to 128.0. AU LO-4/2C.
Snake Bay, NT Apt CTAF chgd to 126.5. AU LO-3/6B.
Tumby Bay, SA Apt CTAF chgd to 128.0. AU LO-4/2C.
TERMINAL CHARTS
GENERAL
AUSTRALIA
Standard Take-Off Minimum Visibility.
Australia issued Class 1 Permanent NOTAM G0100/10 which changes the Standard take-off minimum visibility for certain 2, 3 & 4 Engine
aircraft. The change, which takes effect immediately, affects operations at airports throughout the country.
On Jeppesen charts, Take-Off minimums are located on the Airport chart. The affected minimum visibility is depicted under the heading
"TAKE-OFF STANDARD" and applies to 2, 3 & 4 Engine aircraft that are NOT single pilot without auto-feathering, and/or aircraft ABOVE 5700 kg
and NOT capable of an engine-out climb gradient of 1.9%. (Note: This minimum also requires RL and either CL or RCLM.)
The affected minimum visibility of 500m has been permanently raised to 550m.
This change will be applied to Jeppesen charts starting with the largest international high traffic airports first, then on a continuing basis.
Priority will be given to airports which accommodate large aircraft operations. Operators of2, 3 and 4 Engine aircraft are advised to check the
affect of this change on their operations and to make note of the change as it applies to their affected airport charts, until revised.
----------
TERMINAL
Avalon, Australia, Approach Control frequency 133.55 added. Eff 18 Nov 10.
Ballarat, Australia, All Charts Add: AFRU + PAL 127.75 Eff 18 Nov 10.
Ballina, Australia, (Ballina-Byron Gateway), Add AWIS 134.8. Eff 18 Nov 10.
Barcaldine, Australia, Rwy 14/32 length 3609' (1100m).
Bellevue, Australia, Change PAPI to PAPI-L Rwy 01/19
Bundaberg, Australia, (10-2) Sector A GPS Arrival recommended altitude at 2.9 NM to NDB 820' added. (10-2A) Sector B GPS Arrival
recommended altitude at 3.0 NM to NDB 830' changed to 820'. Eff 18 Nov 10.
Cairns, Australia, (Cairns Intl), (10-9A) RNAV-Z (GNSS) RWY 15 alternate minimums revised to read -
COPYRIGHT JEPPESEN SANDERSON, INC., 2010. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Cat A & B - 2110' (4.4), Cat C - 2210' (6.0), Cat D 2210' (7.0)
(11-1) ILS or LOC Rwy 15
Add Note: Max IAS 180KT from 1000' on final until tracking 015 degrees in missed approach.
Add Note: A380 pilots must use LOC MDA in lieu of ILS DA.
(11-2) LOC-Z Rwy 33 (CAT C & D)
Change recommended altitude D5.0 at 850' to D5.2 at 910'. Eff 18 Nov 10.
Cooktown, Australia, MSA sector bearing 310° changed to 306°. Eff 18 Nov 10.
Darwin, Australia, (10-9B) Parking - Delete stand 1 between 1E and 2. Eff 18 Nov 10.
East Sale, Australia, (East Sale (Military)), (10-2) Sector A DME or GPS Arrival recommended altitude at 10.0 NM to NDB 3095' changed to
3090', 9.0 NM to NDB 2775' changed to 2770', 5.0 NM to NDB 1505' changed to 1500', 4.0 NM to NDB 1185' changed to 1180'.
Eff 18 Nov 10.
Gayndah, Australia, Entire caution note removed from all charts. Eff 18 Nov 10.
Gladstone, Australia, (10-2C) Sector D GPS Arrival recommended altitude at 7.0 NM to VOR 3755' changed to 3760', 2.0 NM to VOR 2165'
changed to 2160', 1.0 NM to VOR 1850' changed to 1840'. Eff 18 Nov 10.
Julia Creek, Australia, PAL frequency 120.6 changed to PAL 126.7
Kalgoorlie, Australia, (Kalgoorlie/Boulder), (10-2) DME or GPS Arrival CTAF-R changed to CTAF. Pilot activated lighting on 120.6 changed to
126.6. Eff 18 Nov 10.
Kowanyama, Australia, (10-2) Sector A GPS Arrival, (10-2A) Sector B GPS Arrival circling restriction beyond 3 NM changed to 2 NM. (10-2A)
Sector B GPS Arrival recommended altitude at 2.7 NM to NDB 900' changed to 920'. Eff 18 Nov 10.
Lismore, Australia, CTAF-R changed to CTAF. Eff 18 Nov 10.
Maningrida, Australia, CTAF-R 127.5 changed to CTAF (AFRU+PAL) 127.5. Pilot activated lighting on 120.6 removed. Eff 18 Nov 10.
Merimbula, Australia, AWIS available on 133.65. Eff 18 Nov 10.
Mount Magnet, Australia, PAL 120.6 Added
Mt Isa, Australia, (10-2) DME or GPS Arrival CTAF-R changed to CTAF. Eff 18 Nov 10.
Mt. Keith, Australia, (10-9) Airport - Add note: AFRU not available on ground. Eff 18 Nov 10.
(10-9) Turn nodes added to rwy 11/29.
Newcastle, Australia, (Williamtown Military), All Procedures add
Brisbane Center (FIA) 125.7 Eff 18 Nov 10.
Brisbane Center (FIA) available on 125.7. Eff 18 Nov 10.
Nhill, Australia, (16-1) NDB proc chgd to NDB-A.
Port Hedland, Australia, (Port Hedland Intl), Add Rwy Lighting 18/36 RL.
Add note 1 to Rwy 18/36 RL. Eff 18 Nov 10.
Portland, Australia, AFRU+PAL 126.7 changed to 127.95
Toowoomba, Australia, (16-1) NDB proc chgd to NDB-A.
Warrnambool, Australia, (10-2) GPS Arrival CTAF 126.0 changed to CTAF (AFRU+PAL) 126.0. Pilot controlled lighting on 119.6 removed. Eff 18
Nov 10.
Woomera, Australia, (10-2) GPS Arrival CTAF-R (AFRU) 118.3 changed to CTAF (AFRU+PAL) 118.3. Pilot activated lighting on 119.65 removed.
Eff 18 Nov 10.
Wynyard, Australia, (10-9) Note- CAUTION: Rwy 23 departures in strong Southwest winds expect downdrafts and moderate to severe
turbulence. added.
Yorke Is, Australia, (12-1) RNAV (GNSS) Rwy 30 - Straight in mumums NA all categories. Remove all references to the descent angle and TCH.
Eff 18 Nov 10.

Matt Sheil

Here you go complete USA Navaid update for last cycle


United States
COPYRIGHT JEPPESEN SANDERSON, INC., 2010. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Revision Date: 12 NOV 2010
Jeppesen NavData CHANGE NOTICES highlight only significant changes affecting Jeppesen navigation data that may be currently stored in your
aircraft navigation system database.
IMPORTANT: CHECK FOR NOTAMS AND OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION PRIOR TO FLIGHT.
FOR NavData BASE
21 Oct 10 THRU 17 Nov 10 CYCLE 1011
18 Nov 10 THRU 15 Dec 10 CYCLE 1012
United States
NAVAID
BURKE LAKEFRONT NDB Burke Lakefront NDB (BKL) Decomissioned
ENROUTE
CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL APT CLASS B AIRSPACE lateral limits revised. Western-most sector extended out to 30 nm, altitudes: 4000 - 10000'.
Two triangular shaped sectors approx 5 - 10 nm Northeast and Northwest of ORD VOR, altitudes: 2500' - 10000'. Sector desig 25 - 30 nm East
of ORD, altitudes: 4000' - 10000'.
V307 FENBE NCRP (N41 33.0 W096 09.9) desig.
OVR VOR - FENBE Int 312°/132° 30 NM
FENBE Int - MITZY Int 312°/132° 4 NM.
TERMINAL
CALIFORNIA
KEDW, Edwards AFB
Edwards, VOR/DME or TACAN Rwy 22L : Procedure unusable untill 18 Nov 2010.
FLORIDA
KTPA, Tampa Intl
Tampa, Valid until 21 OCT 2010, GANDY3 Departure, PAIRS transition should be SABEE.
NEBRASKA
KTQE, Tekamah
COPYRIGHT JEPPESEN SANDERSON, INC., 2010. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Tekamah, RNAV (GPS) Rwy 32: FENBE transition unusable.
NEW YORK
KDKK, Chautauqua Co/Dunkirk
Dunkirk, Missed approach Climb to 1500', then climbing RIGHT turn to 3800' direct TRUNT and hold.
OHIO
KFFO, Wright-Patterson AFB
Dayton, RNAV GPS Rwy 05R: missed approach climb to altitude 3000, should be 3100'.
SOUTH CAROLINA
KNBC, Beaufort MCAS
Beaufort, RNAV (GPS) Rwy 23 LPV approach type (minimums) unusable due to bad WAAS block from source provider until 16 Dec 10

Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers

#35
Quote from: Hardy HeinlinI think that would be a massive copyright infringement, Jeroen.
I wonder whether it is. Assuming that private persons individually purchase a Navigraph subscription, they have the license to use the data on a private nonprofessional sim setup. If they individually run a privately written program to mess around with the data and keep the result private, I wonder whether this is massively different from converting a purchased iTunes song to .WAV file format.

But luckily I am no lawyer   8)

John Golin

#36
Without getting too bogged down;

When you purchase the data, you purchase a cycle, so you can download the data for as many addons as you like for that cycle.  This might lend one to believe if they personally adapt it to PSX, they are doing no harm.

HOWEVER - the EULA expressly prohibits this.

Quote4. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS
4.1 Licensee may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software. Licensee covenants that it will
not sell, license, lease, lend or in any other way dispossess itself of Software delivered to Licensee. Licensee is
prohibited from adapting, modifying, revising, improving, upgrading, enhancing and creating derivative works
of the Software for any purpose including error correction or any other type of maintenance.

Note the 'Software' is earlier defined to include the Nav Update.

Pretty standard with any data these days...
John Golin.
www.simulatorsolutions.com.au

Michel Vandaele

#37
Hi All,
It is indeed true that a lot of the world wide data update are minor changes. I also experience little changes into waypoints and airways in a lot of parts in the world.
But Europe is very different.  Sometimes half-monthly their are big changes of airways and waypoints in the European area.  Specially France is updating a lot.  In Europe these days, most airways are waypoints related not attachted to a VOR of NDB, so it is very easy to change them frequently. With FABEC under its way, we may expect major changes in the FIR's of the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, France  etc.  SID/STARS are also changing a lot.

Navigraph is indeed providing the NAVDATA updates for all its addon's at a single price.  1 cycle update = 20 credits  /  13 cycles = 200 credits
200 credit =  €20.   Which can be also used for update of Aeronautical charts and approach plates.  So you can download the NAVDATA for Project Magenta for exemple and also for PMDG (all aircraft)  etc.

As the importance of updating your navdata is very much related how far you like to go in your simworld, I'm wondering if it would not be possible to provide the customers with a choice, as Navigraph is doing now or Danur (FOC) did in the past (still doing it for the weatherupdates).  Just let them have a choice between un monthly update, a 2 or 6 month update, or a yearly update.  What they like to spend for the sim is up to them.

See you
B. Regards
Michel
Michel VANDAELE
Board member  FSCB
EBOS Scenery Designteam
My B744 project
http://users.telenet.be/michel.vandaele/sim1.htm

Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers

#38
Ok, so the situation is this:

1. Affordable Navigraph data may not be reverse engineered.
2. Navigraph cannot provide data to Aerowinx (due to legal restrictions).
3. Aerowinx had to purchase data from a professional source and cannot afford monthly cycles.

Case closed: no monthly cycle for PSX, end of story. No need to complain: the lawyers decided for you.


Jeroen

Hardy Heinlin

Correct.


Theoretically it's possible to update it more often than annually. But since this is mainly a financial criterium it will first of all depend on the success of PSX. Before PSX is not established in the market I can't make any promises.


|-|