Boeing Heading change problem

[Ray Proudfoot]

Here's a problem using the latest versions of the Boeing MCP, PFD and CDU.

Once the aircraft is at cruise and LNav / VNav is engaged input a new flight level on the Cruise page on the CDU. As soon as you have input it but prior to pressing Execute the aircraft will deviate from its current heading. Once Executed the original heading is engaged.

I have had this happen on two different systems so I'm convinced it's a bug. Is anyone able to reproduce this? I'll write to PM Support as I'm convinced it's a problem.

[mauriceb]

Here's a problem using the latest versions of the Boeing MCP, PFD and CDU.

Once the aircraft is at cruise and LNav / VNav is engaged input a new flight level on the Cruise page on the CDU. As soon as you have input it but prior to pressing Execute the aircraft will deviate from its current heading. Once Executed the original heading is engaged.

I have had this happen on two different systems so I'm convinced it's a bug. Is anyone able to reproduce this? I'll write to PM Support as I'm convinced it's a problem.


It is likely a bug. The same thing happens most times when you select a STAR prior to the arrival. The plane starts turning until you hit Execute. Your scenario seems very related to me since in most cases, inputting a STAR will likely trigger an altitude change as well.

Maurice

[Peter Dowson]

It is likely a bug. The same thing happens most times when you select a STAR prior to the arrival. The plane starts turning until you hit Execute. Your scenario seems very related to me since in most cases, inputting a STAR will likely trigger an altitude change as well.

I can positively confirm the problem which Ray explained. It is 100% consistent here, on two systems.

The thing with changing the cruise level is that it doesn't even have anything to do with the A/P or MCP at that stage, neither before nor after EXECuting the change. The MCP is set to fly the previously set cruise on the MCP altitude dial in any case. So it is doubly weird that it has such a direct and dangerous affect on the current lateral flight control.

When I get time I'll experiment with other types of changes in the CDU requiring an eventual EXEC to confirm. It looks like making a change (possibly any change?) sends a signal to the MCP to tell it to ignore the set path until the CDU changes have completed -- but I don't understand why it would actually deviate too, definitely steering off the current heading as well as the set path.

Whatever, the fact that it is so easily reproduced should make it easy enough for Enrico to see it and do something about it?

Regards

Pete

[Bob Reed]

I too have reported this here for a number of weeks. Make a change in the CDU WITHOUT putting the MCP in heading mode and the airplane will start to turn 180deg until you pres exec, then it heads back to the path.

[mauriceb]

I too have reported this here for a number of weeks. Make a change in the CDU WITHOUT putting the MCP in heading mode and the airplane will start to turn 180deg until you pres exec, then it heads back to the path.


And still, no new releases/fixes since the end of May. Something has got to be happening at PM, hopefully a major improved release.

Maurice

[Ray Proudfoot]

Thanks everyone. I'll now submit a bug report to PM support. I'll also include a link to this message making it easy for Enrico and co to read our responses to this and other concerns. I wish they would spend some time here.

[frans]

Hi Ray,

Concern is the best word in this case.
Lets hope I'm proven wrong but the updates are not as frequent as some time ago.
Surely they must read this site and if they dont well.........
"Housten we have a problem "

Regards,

Frans Spruit EHAM

[Ray Proudfoot]

Hi Ray,

Concern is the best word in this case.
Lets hope I'm proven wrong but the updates are not as frequent as some time ago.
Surely they must read this site and if they dont well.........
"Housten we have a problem "

Regards,

Frans Spruit EHAM


Hi Frans,

You're not the only one to be concerned. Having sent a message to PM support on Tuesday I have yet to receive an acknowledgement let alone any news of a fix.

I've just sent a reminder asking them to confirm they received my first message. I also asked if everything was alright as it's unusual not to get a reply from Enrico fairly quickly.

I doubt very much they visit this forum. Pity really.

[PaulEMB]

This may be a bit off topic, but I was fascinated by the comments in the incidents pages at the end of this paper - it seems that us sim pilots are not the only ones confused by the FMS and other automated systems designed to ease the pilot's workload.

I certainly found the pages of advice on transitioning to glass cockpit helpful. ( and I'm transitioning from a desktop!)

http://www.smartcockpit.com/site/pdf/download.php?file=flightops/flyingtechnique/Glasscockpit_Transition.pdf

[michelmvd]

I too I'm very concerned about this situation after I have been in contact with Richard Stefan, the person responsible for the commercial navdata convertions for all the well known addon's for years.

After I was informed by Jonathan that the situation was out of their hands and that they tried to contact the people from Navdata/Navigrpah without any luck, I ask about it in their forum.

http://forum.navdata.at/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=692

I received a quick response from Richard Stefan that he was very surprised to hear that and he would contact PM himself immediately. This was done on 20th July. Till last friday still no answer or any reaction from the PM site.
Richard then has send again a mail to all the support adresses.

He stated he was always available and certainly not "unreachable" as PM was suggesting. I can confirm that Richard always react promptly to my mails and he was very unhappy about the situation and the way PM was trying to explain their case.

Richard also confirmed strongly that it is Enrico who has writen the NAVDATA converter and that he is only using them to convert the real world data to Navigraph & PM standards.

So why all this misleading information ??? I'm realy very concerned. In my opinion in this modern world of online communication, you always can find easy a way to be online. All hotels has WIFI etc . So even if you are always on the move, this can't be a problem.

Just hope on a honest answer and reaction from PM about what is really happening with that route problem, which are serious bugs.
A good and honest communication would save a lot of time and less frustrations for the customers.

B. Rgds

Michel

[JBaymore]

In my opinion in this modern world of online communication, you always can find easy a way to be online. All hotels has WIFI etc . So even if you are always on the move, this can't be a problem.

If you read my earlier posts in this and other PM threads you'll see that I certainly do not think that PM is "the greatest thing since sliced bread". Reading the feedback in many places on the net, I would never even consider buying the software, due to the bugs and the apparent lack of support at this point.

That being said, in their defense there is a big difference between having access to online communications and having the TIME to actually devote to these communications.

There is that old saying that, "When you are up to your butt in alligators it is hard to remember that your original intention was to drain the swamp." I am guessing the alligators of the REAL business money have taken PM's eye off the low budget hobby swamp.

I have to assume that the simpit builder side of PM staff's jobs is a very MINOR part of whatever business interests they are pursuing. If they are busy on a $10,000,000 project for a very demanding client, finding time to discuss the fine points of conversions of the current navdata for relatively low priced simulators that are really NOT IMPORTANT (read that as ...... if the navdata is slightly out of date or the waypoint is not there NO ONE DIES) is probably way down on their list of priorities.

I am guessing that the PM developers keep the PM hobby side alive at this point out of a fondness and "love" for the hobby side of things and the people who are addicted to this craziness....... when it really is rather impractical for them to actually do so. The "love factor" is what likely stops them from just closing the doors to the hobby. My guess is the "miscommunications" are the result of embarrasment at letting the hobby side go so much, letting down the nice group of hobbiests, and not being willing to actually tell the truth about the situation....... which likely is that there is no TIME to adequately take care of the hobby side, and it IS low priority.

While not communicating with your customers about product problems is a VERY BAD business model to pursue, I am guessing that the hobby side of PM is not really being looked at as a REAL business anymore... but as a "hobby" and a "service to the field". And likely as a bit of an annoyance now.

YES... PM software is expensive........ but compared to a professional simulator it is actually dirt cheap. There is a REASON those simulators that real pilots certify on are worth MILLIONS. But the hobby users are still demanding that the code THEY get be darn close to the professional offerings and everything be continually updated like the real thing. THAT business model also just doesn't work. Particularly in a low unit sales volume field.

This is sort of like, "I want Mercedes quality and features ..... but I want to pay for a Kia." ;)

Should the software basically work? Of course. Will there be bugs. Absoutely (take Windows and Vista, for example. ;) ) How complex and "complete" should the software be compared to the "real thing"? Well...... how much are you willing to PAY? At even $1000 ..... it is CHEAP for the realistic simulation of such aircraft's systems. Remember though... you bought a Kia version of a Mercedes ;).

But I know too that it is hard when it is YOUR $1000 to sit back and wait for fixes.

best,

.......................john

[NicD]

You might be right John but that does not mean that we should sit back and take the warm, fuzzy, pat the head of the hobbyist crap. Money is money and if you pay for a product then it should work and if not it should be supported till it does. When they sold us software they made this commitment, so any change of heart on their part (if that is indeed the case?) is unacceptable.

This is not about bells and whistles of professional sims, this is about an aircraft not doing 360s over a fix for no damn reason. Or not having your CDU go spazzo and freeze after entering a simple STAR.

The folks at PMDG also have a small programming team and they produced a rock-solid CDU and AFDS systems that has stood the test of time. They did this BEFORE they sold any units, so the quality of their product has nothing to do with units sold in comparison to PM.

If we are to be given "hobbyist" support then all PM software should be made free and open-source to hobbyists. If not, then a reasonable level of professionalism and business-like action is still required by all of us.

Please... lets not accept that being hobbyists gives any supplier an excuse to be slack.

[JBaymore]

I don't disagree with you about a COMPANY giving support for their product. But what I think is likely happening is that PM as a company that provides HOBBY type product is "not long for the world". Because they seem to no longer be behaving like a company.

They could be "not long for the world" for one of three reasons:


they decide to simply can it themselves
their potential customers get totally fed up and stop buying
their existing customers pursue "issues" to a level that makes it impossible to continue doing business


Any one of those has the same eventual outcome.

The question will be will they release it open source if they decide to dump the project? And while certainly unacceptable, companies go out of business and leave unsupported products strewn all over the place. Fact of life.

They can't continue to exist and ignore the customer completely. Not if the customers are not willing to take the back seat. So another question also is.... are existing PM users willing to be patient and WAIT for whatever support that PM is ABLE to deliver WITHIN the realities of their current business model?

If not.... they might have very few choices BUT to dump it. Food for thought.

best,

..................john

[JonathanRichardson]

Hi

I have replied to Michel directly about this route line problem via e-mail and explained (as he has outlined here) what the main delay seemed to be in resolving it. There is now a line of communication. Beyond that, nothing more can be said as to when it can be resolved. Everyone is aware of the problem.

The other issues here are related to FSX - we have to find ways to work around them.

This is all the information I personally have on this topic.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson

[michelmvd]

Thanks Jonathan for comfirming my information I gave to the PM community.
It is very much appriciated to see you guys are watching the forum as this item is a very big concern for a lot of us. PM-support has been so great all over the years, just hoping it can resume that way in the futur too.
B. Rgds
Michel

Btw Did a EBOS-LGAV - EBOS flight last weekend. Even when setting the STAR of both airports in the route at the gate, a major part of my route was lost. (Will send you routedetails so you can check for yourself by separate mail)

[JonathanRichardson]

[QUOTE=JBaymore;39262]If you read my earlier posts in this and other PM threads you'll see that I certainly do not think that PM is "the greatest thing since sliced bread". Reading the feedback in many places on the net, I would never even consider buying the software, due to the bugs and the apparent lack of support at this point.

Hi

As I am here, I will answer this one, but not get drawn into a long protracted conversation on all this.

We have always given the highest level of support - e-mails are answered within hours, if not minutes. Bug fixes can sometimes be instant - or take a week or so or longer - it entirely depends on the situation. There are x4 people on the team working 24/7 in various areas, but all receive e-mails and all will answer what they can. There is no lack of support for the software. There is also an extended branch of other people involved and normally this team of people working together is what has brought you the abilities to use this software. It is a team of people who have the best intentions, not a team motivated by profit - I would say quite the opposite. We are not however stupid, you have to keep money rolling in otherwise everything will stop. Private hobby sales are not what keep everything going. There is a model in place, and for the past 7 years it is working.

>There is that old saying that, "When you are up to your butt in alligators it is hard to remember that your original intention was to drain the swamp." I am guessing the alligators of the REAL business money have taken PM's eye off the low budget hobby swamp.

I would not say take our eye off it, it is simply put in perspective to everything else. One thing we do not have time to do is visit forums all the time unfortunately anymore. That is something from the past, it had to be let go because it takes up too much time, and is a reason we shut the PM forum down.

>I have to assume that the simpit builder side of PM staff's jobs is a very MINOR part of whatever business interests they are pursuing. If they are busy on a $10,000,000 project for a very demanding client, finding time to discuss the fine points of conversions of the current navdata for relatively low priced simulators that are really NOT IMPORTANT (read that as ...... if the navdata is slightly out of date or the waypoint is not there NO ONE DIES) is probably way down on their list of priorities.

No, that can't be correct I'm afraid, you use the same software as the professional sector. If you have a problem so do they. The priority level is the same. We do not actively say to ourselves this is a pro or a non-pro customer. Obviously if you are on site working at a pro sim then for those days priority is given because they pay a daily rate. This is not limited only to pro sector - it is limted to time and avialability / cost. Anyone could book PM to be on-site at their sim. Normally it is not necessary unless going through a certification or something very complex and of course having one or two people on site (anywhere in the world) is expensive.

>My guess is the "miscommunications" are the result of embarrasment at letting the hobby side go so much, letting down the nice group of hobbiests, and not being willing to actually tell the truth about the situation....... which likely is that there is no TIME to adequately take care of the hobby side, and it IS low priority.

It is simply a matter of being exstremely busy, schedules miss-matching, Richard being away, Enrico being away, when a "window" opened to look at it, no direct communication happened for one reason or another and then the window passed and attention was drawn on other just as urgent things. In no way is it a big thing against the hobby market. Everyone is a customer - everyone has problems at one time or another. The trouble is, it is easy to create a narrow point of view, a small wave, that gets bigger and bigger, but then everyone can't see all the original small waves (hundreds of them) that have been solved, the intense support given to people who do not bother to post all their good points - either because a problem solved is no longer in their minds, or they themselves just don't have time to post. There are x4 of us, we get over fifty e-mails a day, all that can be responded to by respective people are answered. The above does not refer specifically to this post, but to the general worries in this thread.

>While not communicating with your customers about product problems is a VERY BAD business model to pursue, I am guessing that the hobby side of PM is not really being looked at as a REAL business anymore... but as a "hobby" and a "service to the field". And likely as a bit of an annoyance now.

We do communicate - we just do not communicate in forums now, it takes too long, is a complete distraction and as I outlined above. It may not be to everyones liking, but we took an active decision to shut down the forum, there was a reason for this, the idea of this forum as discussed with Matt, was to still have a area where people can help each other if they want to. Of course as in any forum you can post whatever you want, I would caution though, most of the time you get a very narrow picture of the truth. The truth is (for example) I am running the same software as you, I sit here with senior training captains (sometimes) and I/we demonstrate full flights without problems and they handle the simulator directly themselves, on the other side, with trainees with 70hrs on a Piper and they get great benifit from the software / simulator as a GC familirsation tool. It is not a situation when they sit there and it is all not working. It works. Of course as far as FSX is concerned, this was a major change for MS, as such it has many factors that are likely to mess things up - so we use FSX for development, not for product demonstrations, what you see outside is the least important thing. It is simply a case of where you set your personal priorities. I don't think we have a single professional customer using FSX for example.

Lastly, you can not in anyway compare PM to PMDG, we are doing something different. PMDG is a closed system, it has x1 a/c model, on x1 computer and is all running with itself inside MSFS. PM has to connect to whatever you throw at it, it is heavily dependent on the user and the hardware configs (of which there can be many) to work properly. 90% of problems are a direct result of hardware/computer or configuration or even perhaps a faulty pot or switch. If you like, it is industrial software, and the enginneers - you, have to know what you are doing with it because it is open enough to give you all those options that you want / need - what I am saying is it is an entirely different concept to PMDG or the like - which are fantastic in their own right at what they do and achieve. But this concept is different. Yes, there will be problems, what we (you) do here is really very complex, it is not just shove in a CD and go fly, it is based on many factors that are required to work together all at the same time. So, I do not wish to make excuses, only to say that please think about the big picture, not just a few little things that paint such a dark image - the opposite is actually the case.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson

[JonathanRichardson]

>Btw Did a EBOS-LGAV - EBOS flight last weekend. Even when setting the STAR of both airports in the route at the gate, a major part of my route was lost. (Will send you routedetails so you can check for yourself by separate mail)[/QUOTE]

- related problems with this route line generation / navigraph should be direct to Enrico it is only something he can look into.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson

[dcutugno]

>I sit here with senior training captains (sometimes) and I/we demonstrate full flights without problems and they handle the simulator directly themselves

I was amazed by this reply, what the fellows simmers do wrong that can generate the route going crazy? The PRO insert the STAR in a different way?!
Also Michel VANDAELE flown a real 744 SIM without problems.

I'm on ground for a very long time 'cause the CDU is not reliable. The only thing i can do is the old vor to vor navigation or at least use old method for STAR and APP.

Note that i'm a REAL FROZEN ATPL Pilot.

[michelmvd]

Hi dcutugno
Thanks for the kind compliments.
I flew several real B744 simsessions on a regural base and knows some things about the B744 systems, but I still have to learn a lot. The B744 is such a complex aircraft that even pilots with thousand and thousand of hours still learn every day.

But this route things are basic handlings, the same for most Boeing aircraft.
CDU imputs are very flexiable. It must be possible to enter routes, rwy's waypoints, SIDs and STARs, delete them, change them; add items, use DCT's etc, all without a problem. It is just there to help you to reduce workload, not make more problems ;)
For example, when you rcvd your route via ACARS, its very easy to change later your T/O RWY or landing RWY or preprogrammed SID or STAR without any problems. Afterwards in the DEP/ARR page, all the new possibilities are shown again, so that you easily can enter a new assigned one.
The real one is very flexiable and if you do something wrong, well you will be noticed. I wished everything else during a simsession goes that smoothly ;)
It is the interface between pilot and FMC, just as the MCP, used atleast for 80% of the modern flighthandling, so it

B. rgds
Michel

[jb747]

Jonathan,

Thank you for taking the time to post a response to the issues raised in the earlier post. It is much appreciated.

Jon

[dcutugno]

I want to point that, my house is open for PM team if they want to come in ITALY where i can show all the problems with MCP,CDU and some Flaps indication on GC. The only things i can offer are beds, food an beers!I can't afford to pay them! 'cause i think they aren't cheap!

All welcome to come visit me.

[JBaymore]

Johnathan,

Thank you for showing up and attempting to explain PM's position on all this stuff. I was HOPING that if I approached what I said here correctly that SOMEONE form PM would finally show up in an online PM forum and talk to people.

Your responses were informative.

I have to say here that I really think your lack of having someone in the company officially responsible for monitoring the various online forums that are labeled "Project Magenta", whether you have taken down the "official" one or not, is a really LARGE mistake. People who use your product and people who might use your product are actively reading the information in those online forums. Most do not realize what is "official" and what is not "official". Most expect that PM staff would participate in such forums. I think not controlling that information stream is a big strategic mistake on your company's part.

At Tom Peters (business guru) says, "Perception is the only reality" for the consumer.

Is the monitoring difficult and expensive to do? Yes, absolutely. But I think it is far more expensive to you NOT to do it.

Again... thanks for taking the time to respond here. :D

best,

...................john

[JonathanRichardson]

>Your responses were informative.

Hi

That is all I wanted to achieve. The rest of your post re forums and our activity in them is not really important. We made a decision with regard to forums some time ago and our position has not changed, I very much doubt it could change now. I'm sorry if it does not fall in line with your expectations.

If you need direct support from PM - support@projectmagenta.com

Regards
Jonathan Richardson

[Matt Olieman]

My two cents worth or what ever it's worth..... ;)

I've got 35 years experience at an international level, dealing with many vendors, manufacturers and sales. I was very successful at what I did. I won't bore you and go into my experience any more then that. :)

The one thing that I learned real fast and what seemed to be most important..... There are tremendous amount of businesses that are successful and most do it very differently then each other.

My wife and I are avid followers of Tom Peters business philosophy. But even Tom Peters will tell you, although we may not agree with certain business practices there are those that are very successful.

Now let's just talk about dealing with Flight-Sim hobbyist products. I've been working on my project for 6 years and have dealt with many "Flight-Sim hobbyist product manufacturers" and that would include buying Project Magenta software - "Airbus complete package" (about 6 years ago).

First of all, the product has, at least quadrupled in complexity and quality. The support has been absolutely fantastic!!! And, you know what... I know it's going to get even better!!!! The best part of that, it won't cost us one cent more.

Some time ago I had the opportunity to befriend a Level D simulator engineer. Part of his responsibility was to maintain and upgrade the software. On several occasions we discussed the sim software and the reliability factor. I got the impression their software was not reliable at all and the complexity of what was offered to the hobbyist amazed him. So I considered myself quite fortunate to PM Software available to me.

Back to the rest of the "Flight Sim hobbyist product manufacturers".... I've dealt with some vendors that promised the world only to disappoint my fellow builders and myself. Unfortunately there are a few of those out there. Project Magenta is NOT one of those. Are they perfect? By no means, BUT, they strive for it.

Obviously, I'm a proud and satisfied customer of Project Magenta. :D

Just my two cents...... worth? :roll:

And BTW Jonathan, thank you for making time, out of your busy schedule, to take a moment to respond. :)

[JBaymore]

http://www.mycockpit.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9935

I rest my case about perceptions. ;)

[James Twomey]

Jonathan,

If you are still poking your head around here; thank you for popping in here with a few words.

While I have been a very satisfied "Full Boeing Package" customer for many years now, I must admit that I was getting a little worried about PM when I was no longer seeing the activity levels of the past. So, you posting here to inform us of the goings on, really alleviated any fears of PM that I may have had.


Anyone could book PM to be on-site at their sim.

Wow, now wouldn’t that be a great time to have the PM team in your sim for a few days!!!!!!! :shock: That would call for lots of Pizza and Beer! Oh and lots of flowers for the missus too! :cool:

James

[JonathanRichardson]

>While I have been a very satisfied "Full Boeing Package" customer for many years now, I must admit that I was getting a little worried about PM when I was no longer seeing the activity levels of the past. So, you posting here to inform us of the goings on, really alleviated any fears of PM that I may have had.

There is a lot of activity in the background, however I do understand that when something changes it may cause concerns. There is quite a lot planned for both Boeing and Airbus. Indeed there are many updates that have gone through on the Boeing side which hardly anyone mentions or notices. Some of those updates really took a vast amount of work. There is a lot of Airbus work planned, we are just trying to put some things in place to enable us to achieve some of this. And of course we hope to tackle this navdata problem, right now though I don't have further info about that, and Enrico will no doubt be dealing with it when he can.

>Wow, now wouldn’t that be a great time to have the PM team in your sim for a few days!!!!!!! :shock: That would call for lots of Pizza and Beer! Oh and lots of flowers for the missus too! :cool:

Well that has happened in the past at various peoples sims on a social level. But not for technical work. I'm afraid time is so short that everything is accounted for these days.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson




James[/QUOTE]

[Bob Reed]

And here is the proof that they have done it!! http://www.737simguy.com/simfest2003.htm

[sas550]

Tnx for the link. Nice to connect some faces to known names.

[NicD]

Jonathon - its good to finally get the facts from the source, so thanks for updating us. All this doomsday theorising here was wearing me out.

Looking at various comments here, together with yours, it's obvious that the key issue is communication. I understand that you guys don't want to monitor forums all day - fair enough - but I suggest you need to replace that with a simple form of mass communication to customers. Even just a bulk 'noreply...' email from PM every month or so to all customers would do. We'd love to hear about the new features you've built in, and, if we know that bugs/issues are ackowledged and in hand then it helps us to be patient and not come up with doomsday theories. That would reassure existing customers and encourage new sales too no doubt :)

[JonathanRichardson]

Hi

This is a general post to the past comments. (Hopefully my last one!)

We do understand these concerns, and I personally try to put myself in your seat. But I must say again, we do have a mass form of communication, it is called e-mail. As I outlined it is the chosen one for us. But this frorm has a good role to play, I just think energy is wasted bashing us on it. There are actually people who prefer e-mail to forums and vice versa. All updated areas or changes to the software are indicated in the changes.txt and any major news event is usually posted on the website under news. Recently though nothing posted because we are dealing with details not "news events" as such, and mostly we are dealing with details now. What we do not want is to add another level to this because you will be surprised at how much more that adds to the workloads. The whole idea is to streamline as much as possible to allow us time for development not admin. This has worked, we don't want to turn the problem around again. The past few months have been I must say much more busy than any others but it does not mean anything other than people are working, for every major software change a lot of planning (sometimes) and research has to be made. It is also not just limited to us internally.

A change in the software like, adding dual QNH to the MCP may seem very small to those using it on a day to day basis, but actually (just this one example) was a lot of work and adding all the other things that go with this, independent FD's - dual true mode AP's - it goes on and on, in many different areas. Just an example below:

MCP 413

- when no modes are active and F/D or A/P is switched on -> HDG and V/S active
- mode reversions from APP/VORLOC
- HDG SEL when VORLOC armed re-activated
- SINGLE CH operation down to 1500 ft

- changes to approach mode handling, both NAVs need to be tuned to ILS for 2 channel APP mode
- second A/P is kicked out when NAV1 <> NAV2 in APP mode or APP is deselected
- PFC glareshield sixpack correction
- new DLL, some CPFlight Changes

MCP 412

- added option to INI file to disable autobrakes below 80 knots

MCP 410

- release

MCP 409

- separared CMD A and B for VOR/LOC and QNH and ILS handling
- changed TOGA and GA handling (not yet for engine out situations)

- added MachAltitude INI file settings, will automatically switch to MACH/IAS when that altitude is passed and > 20000 ft

So, the infomation is there and is always there. If there is something you are really worried about just e-mail. Of course as soon as you add new features, the new features that have been requested, the complexity level goes up, and some bugs jump in. That is a fact of life, nothing we can do about it. If you want more, then there will be a price to pay ironing out the issues and likely it will take time. I/we understand 100% what people say about the route line generation as being a basic fundemental thing that should work - and I 100% agree with them. The reason why it stopped working as well as it did are complex. One reason is that it is all in an effort to make things work better in the long run. A lot of re-writing in the way the CDU handles things. And this work must continue. Before we had Navigraph there were more problems the problems were elsewhere, usually a route disappeared due to a network error or something, now it is more to do with converting the data (still our problem) we have started to change the way this in the CDU are computed from the old way to a much more in-line way as to how the a/c does it - but doing this really is complex - in the end it will be better. Hopefully in the meantime, we can fix this current issue of lines dissappearing which are worse or better depending on which navdata cycle you actually use and so on...

It is a myth that all full motion simulators work like clockwork, that is in the minds of people not the reality. As Matt pointed out already. I have been in a 737NG simulator with the route line disappearing before, I have been in a 747-400 with the IRS not ever able to be aligned losing 4hrs of time - and we are talking a team of four engineers running around 24hrs a day. And I know of countless other problems I have heard of, they are always in and out of service, they are always being checked every 3months and defect lists produced to be corrected in a time frame. I have done sim details with a defect list in my hand, "no LNAV today". In full motion sims it comes down to legal factors, if you fly a detail with no LNAV (just extreme example), then the detail must be arranged so that later down the line the pilot who failed his check can't blame it on the simulator. It is all a legal thing. I know this, been there done it - it is different to the hobby world and the expectation of the hobby world. The fact is, simulators and software are complex things. We are still adding layers to ours, as such if you want to get into that at this price point then sometimes there will be problems. If you want to spend 1.5m on the actual a/c software you could, but you will still have problems one way or another.

On the navigraph problem, it is already being looked into by Enrico and Richard.

Hopefully this is the last of my novels and you are so bored by now you don't want anymore!

Regards
Jonathan Richardson

[ryanf]

Hi Jonathan,

I for one am not bored at all to hear from yourself and PM.

Being an PM Airbus user, I am looking forward to developments there. Being also a software engineer, I am fully aware that fixes are not instant and software which is constantly being functionally enhanced can never be perfectly bug-free. However, I am a big believer in giving as much support to a customer as possible to **understand** the true nature of software problems they experience - since once they understand them, they can work around them more easily and are much more content to wait until a fix can be delivered.

Unfortunately, I am still waiting for support on problems I reported weeks ago. I have received acknowledgement emails but no actual support.....

I really hope that will change soon.....

It's good to hear from PM!

/Ryan.

[JonathanRichardson]

Hi

If it is the same "Ryan" you sent in a specific list, some are probably specific to your set-up, some are most likely problems our side, some might be flight model related. The list you sent in is on file, it is also logged for the main development cycle. It has to be tested in context with when we get into the Airbus stuff, we can't test it now or resolve it in any depth.

You also asked when can we expect major changes/improvements in the Airbus software and in relation to this specific question and the above I answered:

My Reply: "By the end of the year. There will be more work in the Airbus
area, and there has already been preparation work done for that."

Nothing has changed at all to what I previously stated. So, I am not sure why (if it is you) you state you have not had a status update, the status update as I stated will not be until the end of the year. So, I repeated everything for you.... (if it is you <g>)

Regards
Jonathan Richardson

[ryanf]

Hi Jonathan,

yes it is the same one!

Yes you did reply to me before and gave me lots of interesting information about what developments you are planning - which I appreciated.

Unfortunately, I am no closer to understanding the problems I am having - yes they may be flight model related or related to the config files I use etc.....there is no need to get into it here...

I was just making a point that I am not looking for a fix right now, just some one on one email support to discuss/troubleshoot the issues I am having so I can see where my setup is wrong. I have not received that.

If because of your current developments, you cannot provide that support, and if it will happen in the next month or so, then ok - I'll have to wait.

cheers,
Ryan.

[JonathanRichardson]

>If because of your current developments, you cannot provide that support, and if it will happen in the next month or so, then ok - I'll have to wait.

That is exactly correct. We can not provide specific further information on your issues without much more detailed work ourside as such we can't give further info. We have to do this in context with the already planned work. That is what I stated at the time and the status has not changed.

The important point aside from your specific issue is - we did respond to you, I don't want it to appear from your post to people that you wrote in and got no response, I have several e-mails on file to and from you. It is all logged. Your message is not lost. If you had posted the same list of issues on this forum for us to look at - I never would have found it for future reference because our system is not set-up for that. This is a very good example why e-mail works better for us. The fact that your issue is still outstanding is out of my hands - it has to be resolved in a much more detailed context.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson



cheers,
Ryan.[/QUOTE]

[ryanf]

....I meant to say this in my previous post....

I think that the PM software is **excellent** and for what it provides, is well worth the price - I have never regretted buying it.

There are only (what appear to me at least) small bugs that need fixing - the software is high quality and about 90% there.

Unfortunately, these small bugs can make using the software difficult at times but in the big picture, are really quite small.

I just think that it needs to go the last mile....

[3202b]

The important point aside from your specific issue is - we did respond to you, I don't want it to appear from your post to people that you wrote in and got no response,

Well I hope it's important for me too because I've wrote in 3 or 4 times over the last 3 months and what response or support have I had to my problems?

Absolutely nothing at all apart from an 1 worded acknowledgement from you to say you have actually received my emails.

So from this customers point of view the support email system is not working at the moment - It was a few months ago when Enrico was working really hard to get some of the major problems fixed. It just seems to have gone deadly quiet - a response to say that something was going to be done would have been nice but I've had nothing. I can wait for things to be fixed but when it feels like my support requests are being ignored it's just not good.

It's just so frustrating to not hear back at all, I really want to get the problems sorted and offer any help I can give..I really don't want to spend any more money on other software (AST A320) when I know PM could be great.

[JonathanRichardson]

The same thing applies - but posting on here is a no win situation for us, I already spent a lot of time explaining things, but people will immediatly use it as a way to publiclly vent their frustration. It makes no difference what we say, there will always be situations where we can not meet expectations. Your e-mails were not neglected - it is just that we can not switch right now to your issues. If we did we would let someone else down. Everything is planned and we will stick to these plans I'm afraid.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson

[3202b]

Why you didn't just tell me that in a support reply email I just don't know. What do you expect me to think if you write to someone 4 times and receive no reply?

[JonathanRichardson]

Why you didn't just tell me that in a support reply email I just don't know. What do you expect me to think if you write to someone 4 times and receive no reply?

We did reply, twice (brief look), once to tell you that there will be improvements coming (and there has already been some since that reply) and once more to tell you that we did receive your email. Without spending time cross referencing I think there were other support issues resolved with you. If Enrico or any of us decides not to reply it probably means he/we have no further useful information to give you - especially as we see you coming back again and again. As I said - we can not please everyone 100% when dealing with 5000customers - we can only try our best. We are not dealing with a simple mass product. We are dealing with something that requires a lot of support. Not just Airbus, but right across the board, all products. If you are that unhappy, why not try the demo of AST? Make an evaluation of it? Is it that much better? Does it have flaws as well? Who knows - I don't. Perhaps not - if not use that. Not sure what else one could say...

Regards
Jonathan Richardson

[michelmvd]

I 'm very happy to confirm that Enrico sent me last night personal emails concerning the Navigraph/ Navdata problem. He explained also - just as Jonanthan did here in the forum - the reasons for the troubles.
It is great to hear that they are looking into it and his reaction was very much appreciated by myself.
As so many other people stated here, a good communication is doing wonders and will kill all doomed speculations.
Thanks a lot Jonathan to take finally the time to inform us here all. Very much appreciated I think.

I fully understand the general situation in PM and how work is done and organized commercially now.

Many thks and best rgds
Michel

PS. I just noted that from your "changes.txt" MCP quote, a lot of the recent changes (excluding the first one (HDG/VS mode) which is a long term demand for B744) are very B737NG specific. I just hope the futur will also bring more B744 MCP specific things. I'm using MCP 421a but have not see the HDG/VS mode working correctly in B744 maybe I overlook an ini setting ?

[JonathanRichardson]

> I just noted that from your "changes.txt" MCP quote, a lot of the recent changes (excluding the first one (HDG/VS mode) which is a long term demand for B744) are very B737NG specific. I just hope the futur will also bring more B744 MCP specific things. I'm using MCP 421a but have not see the HDG/VS mode working correctly in B744 maybe I overlook an ini setting ?[/QUOTE]

This snippet was not taken from a recent build, it was just to illustrate where changes are shown to the user in the changes.txt. And most changes are for the 737 as it is the primary introductory training a/c for flight schools and airlines, working with the flight schools and airlines is where the demands are for these details, I'm afraid we don't do any introductory training with the 747-400 yet. Most crews moving to it are already experienced on GC Jet a/c and don't require the typical benifits a Fixed based full FTD can provide. They are already used to the enviroment. It might happen in the future, who knows, but demand is not there for it right now. The 737 is primary, followed by ERJ, CRJ and lastly Airbus. Please do not take this and "worry" that it means we will stop working on the 747 / 777 / 767 / 757. I do not know what issue re modes you are reffering to on the 747 so I do not know if it can be solved by an ini setting.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson

[Herbert Müller]

Hi,
the problem of deviation, just as you described it above, is known by me for almost a year now.
It appears, that the deviation mostly turns up whilst flying a narrow curve. The deviation starts with crossing the original course followed by a much stronger turn than the given one.

Enrico was informed about the issue, but had no advice.
After many try outs and testflights, i now think that it is a problem of data communication in between the networks.

Maybe the experts in this forum have any clue about this problem.

Regards Herbert