Nav data for PSX: A new solution

[thecrazedlog]

My thoughts:

- I don't like the idea of a community based navdata db. I don't feel its the right solution here: I suspect it'll just die after a while and its a critical part of the sim. It is a very niche thing and open source requires a lot of dedication over a long time. I love FOSS and the concept, I'm just not convinced it'll work here.

- Navdata have got the market cornered (not in a bad way, I mean that they've got the problem solved). So my immediate thought is how can we overcome the problems with using their stuff?

I really like the idea of Pro vs non Pro. I don't think the overhead of managing this is going to be anywhere near as bad as we think: A simple licence key'll fix this. You've got a pro licence key? The navdata importer thing doesn't work. You've got a normal licence key? The navdata importer will work.

I have no problem with my licence being "downgraded" to a "non-pro" if all that's going to change is the navdata importer. I would even be happy to pay a little bit for Hardy to do the work: Say $50 USD or something (just throwing numbers around here). He's being very reasonable in this situation, I see no reason why I shouldn't be.

To prevent people from sideloading, simply encrypt or sign the files with the importer. Files aren't signed? No navdata for you! It doesn't have to be bulletproof: as long as you've made a reasonable effort to prevent people from doing the wrong thing, problem sorted.

That's the non-Pro side. For the Pro side, well, you're gonna have to buy the "proper" navdata. Please talk to these guys over here and use this format. I've not quite thought this bit through, but maybe there's something unique about the ARINC data which could be used as a fingerprint for the Pro licence key check.

- Alternatively, can we get in contact with Navigraph and ask them? I think their main concern is they don't want someone using their data for real world navigation. This obviously isn't the case here. In fact I think this is probably the first thing to do: Talk to Navigraph. They want to sell their stuff, they'd love to have more people using their data, work with them.

- Finally, what if you change the format of navdata that PSX uses? To, say, oh I dunno, one that just happens to be identical to FS2020 or X-Plane? Copyright could be an issue here though. I strongly suspect that this is not a small undertaking however.

Kudos to Hardy for discussing this with the user base.

[Hardy Heinlin]

Doug, yes, I need an ARINC 424 file.

Hoppie is right. They don't accept a dual license system. We discussed it here on the forum a couple of times in the past. Each customer's personal kind of software usage is just not controllable -- unless I remove significant parts of PSX for the entertainment market. If you get a light-weight game PSX, you can forget it anyway and buy an FSX add-on instead. The data providers are aware of the difficulty in the usage control. The risk is calculated. When they see tens of thousands of FSX gamers on various websites, and see nearly no FSX in a pro institution, they get the impression the risk is low enough. When they see professionals everywhere using PSX, and nearly no PSX on gaming websites, they get the impression the risk is very high. And they are right, of course. A simple label like "Do not use for professional purpose" will not lower the risk.


Regards,

|-|ardy


I'd like to look farther into the future and even consider initiating an OpenSource project similar to OpenStreetMap -- just not for the ground but for the "skies" (based on AIPs.), and not just for PSX but for any product developers worldwide that are not bound to real-world navigation. AIP knowledge is public knowledge. Why not share public knowledge using a big worldwide community -- like Wikipedia or OpenStreetMap does? As there's no professional requirement, edits need not be done every month.

I really like the idea of Pro vs non Pro. I don't think the overhead of managing this is going to be anywhere near as bad as we think: A simple licence key'll fix this. You've got a pro licence key? The navdata importer thing doesn't work. You've got a normal licence key? The navdata importer will work.

Everyone could buy a "normal licence key". This will not lower the risk. It doesn't solve the problem.

- Alternatively, can we get in contact with Navigraph and ask them? [...] In fact I think this is probably the first thing to do: Talk to Navigraph.

:-) We (Navigraph, Aerosoft, myself) have been in contact on this subject for over 10 years. This is not a contact problem. I understand you're currently on page 1. We're on page 509. There were endless, detailed discussions in the past years, and the result was always the same: Zero. -- Period. No way, I'm sorry.

[Will]

AIP knowledge is public knowledge. Why not share public knowledge using a big worldwide community

A similar thought occurred to me earlier today. The actual navigation data is widely available online and in the public domain, right? Anyone can download current ARINC 424 data for the entire United States here:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/digital_products/cifp/

So what Jeppesen does is collect these files from all over the world, I'm guessing, and put them together in a way that is uploadable to avionics systems, right?

That seems like a business model that could go rapidly obsolete. Why hasn't someone put together a free service that does the same thing? An analogy: it seems like Jeppesen is paid "want ads" in the back of a newspaper, waiting for Craig's List to come along and put it out of business.

[Hardy Heinlin]

Will, that's interesting that the FAA provides an ARINC 424 file.

I'm not sure if all governments on the globe provide their data in an ARINC 424 format. When we compare, for example, Jeppesen data with Navblue data, we sometimes notice differences in how they code certain conditional SID waypoints, for instance. I don't know whether they always translate drawings (from the governments) to 424-code, or modify 424-code (from the governments) to get a "better" 424-code. I've learned they are not allowed to modify government data. When there's a typo in the data, they have to keep the typo. They report the typo to that government and wait until that government has corrected the typo (maybe in the next cycle). So I think the differences in the data quality occurs because most governments provide just drawings or textual descriptions -- which leave some scope for interpretation re 424-coding. And that 424-coding and testing work is a lot of work. That's one reason why it's so expensive. -- It's really nice that the FAA provides it.


|-|ardy


I just downloaded the FAA's 424 file. It seems to cover the USA and Canada. I'll check what record types it includes.

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

So what Jeppesen does is collect these files from all over the world, I'm guessing, and put them together in a way that is uploadable to avionics systems, right?

The best analogy is with scientific publishers, who collect papers for free from all over the world, have other peer reviewers check the papers for free, bundle them, and then sell them back to those same authors and reviewers for a very hefty price. Their added value? In the time of no internet, for sure the distribution -- but mostly they claim it's quality assurance. Never mind that the reviewers are the real quality assurance, but the publisher adds a layer of branding that "should" guarantee a "minimal level of scrutiny or else the business dries up."

Well we know how many publications are available online these days and do not make much money for Elsevier any more.

Within certain limitations, safety critical information may benefit from these "publisher branding" QA actions as well, and certain procedural rigour is required. However half the world runs on publicly available and peer-reviewed programming code that for sure is business-critical. So cutting out the middle man and going straight to the source (FAA) or adding a peer-reviewed translation layer (for non-424 AIPs) certainly seems feasible. And who knows, maybe other states will start publishing in ARINC 424 as well, if some help is offered.


Hoppie

[Mariano]

Hardy,

Could you perhaps add a feature to allow us to create and modify gates, so we can see the PSX blue gate lights?

Best regards,

Mariano

[Hardy Heinlin]

The best analogy is with scientific publishers, who collect papers for free from all over the world, have other peer reviewers check the papers for free, bundle them, and then sell them back to those same authors and reviewers for a very hefty price. Their added value? In the time of no internet, for sure the distribution -- but mostly they claim it's quality assurance.

What Jeppesen also added in the past century was their unique graphic style on the paper charts. Very ergonomic. That was pretty innovative -- before the glass cockpit era ...


Mariano:

P.S.: I will probably make for each ARINC record type a dedicated world file. The types are:

VHF Navaid
Enroute NDB Navaid
Terminal NDB Navaid
Terminal Waypoint
Enroute Waypoint
Enroute Airway
Enroute Holding Pattern
Airport (reference point, TA, TL, ICAO region)
Gate
Runway
ILS
ILS Marker
Approach
SID
STAR
Airport Communication

Each record type gets a "hide" file and an "add" file.
The "hide" file contains a list of objects that are to be hidden in the original database.
The "add" file contains a list of objects that have to appear in addition to the original database.

[Hardy Heinlin]

I'm running some automatic record type checks with that big FAA file ...

Re Airport Records -- the file contains:
12983 airports in the USA
711 airports in CAN (Canada)
20 airports in LAM (Latin America)
62 airports in PAC (Pacific)
3 airports in SPA (South Pacific)

Are there 12983 airports in the USA?
(In PSX we've been excluding airports whose longest runway is shorter than 1400 meters.)

VHF Navaids:
USA: 1041
CAN: 95
LAM: 21
PAC: 22
SPA: 1

NDB Navaids:
USA: 591
CAN: 91
LAM: 7
PAC: 16
SPA: 2

Terminal waypoints:
USA: 33725
CAN: 1590
LAM: 107
PAC: 423
SPA: 25

Enroute waypoints:
USA: 25892
CAN: 2065
LAM: 113
PAC: 909
SPA: 3
EEU: 23 (Eastern Europe / China)

Enroute Holdings:
Zero. (Holdings in SIDs, STARs, approaches are coded in the related procedure itself.)

ILS:
USA: 1266
CAN: 29
LAM: 3
PAC: 10
SPA: 1

ILS Markers:
Zero.

Runways:
USA: 13494
CAN: 688
LAM: 24
PAC: 94
SPA: 8

Gates:
Zero.

Airport COM:
Zero.

SID Legs:
USA: 31677
CAN: 492
LAM: 169
PAC: 241

STAR Legs:
USA: 35893
CAN: 288
LAM: 106
PAC: 344

Approach Legs:
USA: 122748
CAN: 5104
LAM: 312
PAC: 1385
SPA: 96

Airway Legs:
USA: 17487
CAN: 1566
LAM: 166
PAC: 554
SPA: 0
EEU: 2
Total airway IDs: 1541

Restrictive Airspace Records (not used in PSX):
USA: 24007
CAN: 2864
LAM: 230
PAC: 442

Grid Minimum Off Route Altitude (MORA) Records (not used in PSX):
236

Airport Minimum Sector Altitude (MSA) Records (not used in PSX):
USA:  5617
CAN: 143
LAM:  16
PAC:  67
SPA: 4


...

[thecrazedlog]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183496/number-of-airports-in-the-united-states-since-1990/ says there is around 20,000.

Here's some stats from the Bureau Of Transportation Statistics with an excel doco that can be downloaded: https://www.bts.gov/content/number-us-airportsa

So 13,000 that would show up in a waypoint database sounds plausible......

[Gary Oliver]

If you wanted to do a user contributing project then I would suggest a git hub project is the correct way.

For the past few years I have seen it run very well to keep the U.K. controller pack for VATSIM updated with "navdata" updates.

https://github.com/VATSIM-UK/UK-Sector-File

However.... look at how many updates from so many people are needed to keep the U.K. up to date.

I just can't see a user sources navdata update being practical.

There has to be another way

Cheers
G

[DougSnow]

Hardy

Check your email...

[cagarini]

Sorry for catching up so late in the thread...

Excellent initiatives already suggested, but I wonder, regarding the licencing issues, how Prepar3d ( professional + academic ) versions manage to get navdata from navigraph or the aerosoft version without restrictions ?

Mentioned also Airlinetools, which I signed for a few days, receiving 1 year navdata updates ?

[Steve Hose]

Hi Hardy,

Firstly many thanks for your efforts over the years in supplying us with annual nav updates in addition to the tremendous product you have created that is PSX. I guess this situation always had a high probability of arising given the professional nature of PSX.

I for one would be happy to pay more for annual updates, but I wonder if the best of both worlds can't be achieved? I would welcome the ability for user-editable data (version controlled or otherwise), while still retaining a professional update option.

I appreciate none of these is easy and only you can decide if they make commercial sense. But as long as you keep producing new features, I am more than happy to support you as a developer.

Looking forward to seeing what the future holds!

Regards, Steve.

[GodAtum]

Really sorry to hear this. I cant offer any suggestions, but I've struggled on Vatsim lately with some SIDs/STARS being out of date, even in the UK.

[Markus Vitzethum]

While we wait until there is some feedback (if it can be done publicly) from the idea Doug came up with ...

> I just can't see a user sources navdata update being practical.

I fully agree and this is basically what my previous message said.

User contributed navdata will not work practically, period (IMHO. I occasionally contribute to openaip.net and it's a nightmare... ) expect maybe in certain hotspots like EGLL, KLAX, EHAM, YSSY... for all the other airports (Worldflight!) it's back to day 1.

Just to summarize:
- price for NavBlue data: not feasible
- dual license:  not possible
- agreement with Navigraph/Aerosoft: not possible
- user edits for NavData: possible, but most likely not feasible for global operations
- Doug's idea: .... tbd (standby)
- one more idea:
  I know that Aerosim's FMS Trainer (back then) came bundeled with a tool which
  allowed the conversion of 3.5'' NDB disk content to Aerosim's FMS format.
  No, I'm not suggesting that (I does not contain sufficient data, anyway, for PSX).
  But is an Aerowinx-supplied ARINC424-to-PSX tool an option? E.g. for the FAA data file?

Markus

[the mad hatter]

just maybe i dont fully understand   and have limited understanding so there is 300 peolple that buy the update why not the mighty spartans ask navigraph to support PSX   and we pay for such support and there after just falls under such subscription ? no     

never.mind  i.now understand   

[Markus Vitzethum]

See Hardy's message here: https://aerowinx.com/board/index.php?topic=6267.msg67721#msg67721

"We (Navigraph, Aerosoft, myself) have been in contact on this subject for over 10 years. "

and cavaricooper's message here: https://aerowinx.com/board/index.php?topic=6267.msg67709#msg67709

"You may not use the Service for real world navigation".
"Professional training centers: Training or familiarization as a part of a professional occupation, is not permitted."

PSX is (in terms of majority of licences, I assume?) in the professional training market.

I guess it is a product liabilty issue, given as a legal requirement by the commercial data providers - make sure that the data - by no means - never ever is used in an environment related to real airplane operations (flight planning, training, etc... ). Guess what happens when you tell the lawyers that the pilot who crashed trained his approach on PSX with NavData based on a gaming license the day before

Markus

[Ton van Bochove]

Navblue have increased their PSX fees by 300% and on top of it added a 5% price increase every year;

Hardy, is this an increase per sold update or an increase of the sum you pay to navblue. If it is the latter than you have to earn back the expenses and you depend on the sale of the upgrade. If it is the first then a PSX owner can upgrade for about 100 euro's a year or leave it. Many of us spent heaps of money on hardware and software for an 100% experience. Well for me a good NAV database is part of that experience and that 8 euro a month is worth the money!

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

Navblue have increased their PSX fees by 300% and on top of it added a 5% price increase every year;

It feels to me like they told Aerowinx "we no longer want your business". A threefold increase cannot be justified by any other means I can think about.


Hoppie

[Markus Vitzethum]

Well for me a good NAV database is part of that experience and that 8 euro a month is worth the money!

I agree ... don't forget that this is the price I'm already paying to Navigraph...
But on the other hand, don't forget they announced 5% annual rise...

> A threefold increase cannot be justified by any other means I can think about.

Or, in a commercial company, anything is possible. Maybe the sales agent position is now filled by a new employee and he has no longer the old PSX friendly attitude ... or has been given new targets, commercially, or he/she has just calcuated the "real costs" of PSX (including lawyer rate, ... ). They may have streamlined their processes, whatever...