FSCommander

[brett 2,282]

Any FSC users want to weigh in here and help the newbie out.

 

I downloaded the demo of FSCommander and made a flight plan from Southampton to Glasgow and about 30min into the flight I get a roller coaster set of turns after KENET before heading north again. Would a RW flight really look like this.

 

 

 Another question is why I am getting so many different flight plan paths when looking at various sites known for RW flight plans, some simpler than others.

 

As to FSC in general, has lots of features and I was able to figure most of them out by tapping away without reading the manual. I think my only major complaint was the rather clunky way the map works when trying to move about it to scan or center the flight path.   

[allardjd 1,853]

Can you give us a list of the waypoints? Did your plan include the intersections KENET, NORRY, COWLY, BENSU? It sure looks like those intersections are in the plan, for whatever reason.

 

It looks like the route was off the SAM VOR, direct KENET, then turning on to L9 or UL9 to NORRY, Q41 to COWLY, Q70 to BENSU, then M605 to SILVA and the DTY VOR. Sometimes they do some pretty funky things to transition between published routes.

 

Efficiency with respect to pilot workload, time enroute and fuel burn for the aircraft are not necessarily ATC's highest priority.

Real world routes can be highly variable based on traffic volume, WX, MOAs being hot/not, runways/STARs in use at certain high-volume airports, navaids down, TFRs, NOTAMs, etc. The kind of route gyrations you're showing are no less realistic than the relatively efficient ones we get from the FS Flight Planner.

 

John

[brett 2,282]

Hi John, how's tricks.

 

Here's the whole thing, there was no SID around EGHI. I let FSC build the whole thing using just the Departure, Arrival and Alternate and added the Star after. I guess I should have added something after Dep but didn't get that far. I still have to look up if you can use hi/low intersections to guide my flight from an airport with no Sid's. This is all mostly new to me, I usually use mountains, valleys and roads to fly.

 

 

I have been looking at places like vataware, RouteFinder, edi-gla/RW FPlan Database and such. I guess my real question is, where is the best place to go for RW flight plans or is FSCommander giving me a true representation of a real world flight plan.

[allardjd 1,853]

I use Route Finder mostly. I don't think there's anything wrong with what FSC is giving you. If you look at the top aqua-colored box, you can see that it's very "airways focused". You can get a good view of that in SkyVector using the new "World" series of charts, World Low and World High in this case, synonymous with Enroute charts, but world wide in scope - they are very, very good.

 

To the extent that you use RW sources, including Route Finder and SkyVector, you may run into waypoints or even navaids that are not in FSX. You may also find the occasional navaid that has been renamed or has had its frequency changed since FS was published. Even FSC uses the AIRACs for data, so that's real world data and is not going to match up 100% with what's in FSX. That's the primary reason I embarked on the Added Waypoints project - to try to bring FSX closer to the RW charts and data sources.

 

My favored source is Plan-G, which builds its databases by reading directly from the selected flight sim (FS9, FSX, X-Plane or P3D). If it's in Plan-G, it's in FS.

 

John

[brett 2,282]

Here's Route Finders,

 

ID      FREQ   TRK   DIST   Coords                       Name/Remarks
EGHI             0      0   N50°57'01.00" W001°21'24.00" SOUTHAMPTON
PEPIS           15     15   N51°11'48.00" W001°14'37.00" PEPIS
TABEN           14     10   N51°21'49.00" W001°10'22.00" TABEN
NORRY           14      7   N51°28'47.00" W001°07'24.00" NORRY
COWLY           14      8   N51°36'58.00" W001°03'54.00" COWLY
BENSU          111      6   N51°34'44.00" W000°55'08.00" BENSU
SILVA          347     16   N51°50'51.00" W001°00'19.00" SILVA
FINMA          348      9   N51°59'47.00" W001°03'13.00" FINMA
DTY     116.4  348     11   N52°10'48.51" W001°06'49.64" DAVENTRY
PEDIG          326     41   N52°44'48.00" W001°43'10.00" PEDIG
POL     112.1  346     61   N53°44'37.56" W002°06'11.98" POLE HILL
NELSA          337      8   N53°51'48.00" W002°11'05.00" NELSA
RIBEL          337     10   N54°00'58.00" W002°17'23.00" RIBEL
SHAPP          337     31   N54°30'00.00" W002°37'38.00" SHAPP

 

Different than the one from FSC and I didn't think that they would all be exactly the same but just wanted a real world feel.

 

btw-I do place your waypoints into my sim, thanks. Not totally sure but I think when it comes to flying the Majestic Dash 8, it follows a coordinate from the waypoint in the FMS plan that does not even necessarily have to be in FSX.

 
 

[allardjd 1,853]

Some of the complex payware AC use an FMC module that is more or less self-contained and uses its own database. For those AC, missing navaids and intersections, etc, in FS are not an issue. For those of us flying bug smashers, freeware or the more mundane payware AC types without FMCs, we're more dependent upon what's in FS.

 

Looking at your FMC plan, it's jumping through hoops to get you on and keep you on airways. The Route Finder one kinda' does the same thing into and out of BENSU. It's getting you onto the airway it wants you on and even though it may not look all that logical, it may be a RW preferred route/entry point. Anyway, even though both are a little convoluted, I don't see anything in either the FMC or Route Finder routing that would make me say, "That would never happen in the real world". Chances are, it would/has/does. If you really want to see convoluted routing, do something to get on the ATC controller's bad side and your STAR and approach will turn into a 3-state regional tour, probably with a hold or two thrown in.

 

John

 

EDIT:

 

When reviewing RW routes to find missing waypoints I sometimes see radical doglegs like your plan(s) have in mid-route out over some NeverHeardOfIt-Stan kind of country. If I look at the area with SkyVector, it's usually the result of the plan having to jump from one airway to another in an area that doesn't have very many of them, so the jump sometimes looks kind of radical. Bear in mind that the plan needs intersections, navaids or airports (seldom airports except as origin and destination) as waypoints - it's never going to have you join an airway or make a turn at a "midpoint" between waypoints - it will do so at a named waypoint or a navaid, which sometimes means a fairly radical turn to get you pointed at the next waypoint or over on to the next desired airway.

 

JDA

[jaydor 345]

I have used FSC, I get route finder within the program to set get the route.  Then when it is up I check it and edit out any waypoint/VOR that does not give me the direct or shortest line of route.

 

Then I add the transition and then the SID/Star.  Only then do I save it and transfer to the FMC/GPS.  Have you been doing that?

[allardjd 1,853]

Quote

...I check it and edit out any waypoint/VOR that does not give me the direct or shortest line of route.

 

Certainly a reasonable thing to do, but if RW fidelity is important to you, it's not very accurate. In the RW you file what you'd like to get, but are pretty much stuck with what Clearance Delivery gives you and it may or may not look like what you expect or desire.

 

John

[brett 2,282]

I have used FSC, I get route finder within the program to set get the route.  Then when it is up I check it and edit out any waypoint/VOR that does not give me the direct or shortest line of route.

 

Then I add the transition and then the SID/Star.  Only then do I save it and transfer to the FMC/GPS.  Have you been doing that?

 

I did it both ways, in-program Routefinder and clicking on, in this low airways button, this gave me the flight plan generated by FSC. They were varied and the reason I asked these questions. I guess any of the routes are good, maybe the FSC plan was a lot more controlling but it will certainly get me there. 

 

I did stumble upon the sid's and star's and got that figured out. The demo doesn't let you save so I imputed the plan into the FMS manually. Wouldn't want to do that all the time, that's why I think I might get it. Importing the flight plan is a definite plus, there's plenty enough to do getting this Q400 to the hold point.     

 

Thanks fellas, appreciate the feedback. Any more comments are always welcome.

[britfrog 180]

Hi Brett just came across this, in answer to your question "could this be a real routing" yes it could. The difference between flying vfr and IFR in many cases means that on an ifr  clearance they can run you around the houses, whereas on a vfr clearance you can go direct, when i ask my fsc for the same routing it gave me eghi, pepis, uq41 norry ul9 cpt

However you have to bear in mind that ATC might have given you the initial routing and that may be to give other traffic clearance

If I was going to write an ifr plan i would have programmed pepis y321 cpt

the problem with some of these flight plans is that they have been created by enthusiasts not real pilots so one has to accept the odd error every now and then

I will try to scan over a real airways map so you can see what it looks like

 

Interestingly aivlasoft EFB which also uses route finder proposes EGHi  HAZEL MID OCK HEMEL BUZAD WELIN AKUPA etc

which in itself is interesting because, in reality, there is a general air traffic flow around London which goes in an anticlockwise direction which gives Heathrow arrivals and departures more room. So ,all traffic for the North of the UK has to go to the east of London.

 

When it comes to my own Sim plans I generally look at them and if there are discrepancies I look to see if there is an airway linking 2 points so that I can get rid of some weird routings, Remember in reality if you are on an IFR flight plan and you are going to an airport that does not have an atc on it you have to leave the airways (and controlled airspace) at a recognised point, and thiis can be some distance out of your way ,

 

 

[brett 2,282]

Interesting observations Nigel, thank you. I found it odd that my demo and your FSC gave different routings, I guess they have a few in their program so you do not always get the same one and I am sure things change day by day when you enter your flight plan for whatever reason. I have looked at the low/high airways charts but for ease of use have been using PlanG's airways to check things out.  

 

I was under the impression that FSC gives you real world example of flight plans, as does EFB and not something made up by enthusiasts. I was looking for something that actually gives you flight plans that are used by airlines on a day to day basis. Unlike myself, you have a better understanding of the area as a pilot, that is a luxury I do not have. 

 

If I worked for flybe as a pilot, would I be given a flight plan from another source in my company and only make adjustments based on changing WX or would I be the one to create it from start to finish, with only ATC giving me departure info as I got ready to leave? I gather the RW arrival airport would also give me routing while in flight to. FSX ATC does not give you actual intersections during IFR flight and just says go this heading and then that heading. I figure at this point I am not understanding how commercial flight plans are actually created and enacted. 

 

As a simmer I could really just fly where I wanted to but I found this topic to be an interesting mind exercise.   

[britfrog 180]

Brett

if you worked for fly be or any other airline what normally happens  when you fly for an airline is that they will already have programmed in your FMC at least 3 or 4 standard routes to choose from for any given routeing. from these routes some will be discarded because of runway direction and wind direction , the sids and stars are chosen by ATC on the moment to link you to your route in the flight plan. Most airlines will give you the freedom of analysing the actual current weather and allow you to deviate from their standard routings, and if you save them money they will give you a bonus at the end of each month.

hence the reason for telling the engines the air temp is higher than it really is so you falsely reduce the power output of the engines thereby extending their life.

[jaydor 345]

Brett

 

Why don't you buy a second hand laptop (a cheapo) as long as it has WiFi.  Then get Aviasoft EFB link the 2 lappies via wifi use remote EFB on the cheapo and watch yourself on the 2nd (Cheapo) Lappy on the moving map.

 

You will absolutely love it..   also you will find EFB is a better planning tool.. Although I use both together EFB/FSC

Check out the specs needed from the linc below

http://www.aivlasoft.com/index.html

[brett 2,282]

Now there's a pricey program.  I fly using a laptop but I do have an older Vista run laptop sitting in the closet, wonder if it has the specs to run it. 

 

Does the EFB export their flight plan into my aircrafts FMS James and is their flight planner good enough or do I need both programs?

 

 

[britfrog 180]

you can do just the same with fs commander except with fsc you only have to enter your flight plan once with aivlasoft you have to do everything twice

[brett 2,282]

Looking at both, they seem to do pretty much the same things. I think the EFB has a nicer look about it on the face of things and the charts were nicer looking. Yet James said he uses both, the flight planner in the EFB seemed ok from checking out their site.

 

What did you mean by the EFB one makes you do everything twice Nigel.   

[britfrog 180]

hi brett,

I also use both progs however although aivla is a bit flashier I find fsc is quicker and easier to setup and receive a flight plan.

with fsc you simply put the names of your depature and destination , hit the high or low level flight plan, and then enter a sid or star

with aivla you open the route page enter the departure and destination aircraft and height and tell it to activate it . it then goes to page 2 and shows you a representation of the air[port where you are, in order to install a routing you have to reopen the first page  choose a routing, and again enter your altitude before again hitting the activate button, which then takes you back to the airport view. if you want to modify your route you again have to return to the first page and find the mofify route button, again enter the altitude and again activate the plan. If you want to add or remove a waypoint it gets more complicated and each time you have to go back to page 1 whereas in fsc you simply add or remove a waypoint on the flight plan page.

Once you have finally setup your plan in aivla it gives you your airport and like fsc you can hook it up to fsx and watch yourself taxi along , when you take off it automatically changes the page and shows you flying along your departure route, and then arrival route and the thing that I find distracting is when you are approaching an ILS arrival when you are concentrating pretty hard to make sure the a/c captures the ILS etc the page on your second monitor changes to show you the approach , which I dont like because you then have to reconcentrate on the cockpit.

However the weather info in aivla is better represented .

as for whether one planner gives more info than another  I would think they are equal, you just need to delve more deeply to get access. some things are easier to do in fsc and vice versa

but there is no doubt that fsc is easier all round. what probably lets fsc down is that its visuals  looks a bit hokey pokey  whereas aivla looks more professional and cleaner. I havent done a complete comparison of what each planner can do because the more you look into them the more you find they are capable of doing, a lot of it is down to personal; preference , as I said at the start I have both but find fsc both easier and quicker and less prone to giving stupid routes than Aivla , but no doubt someone else here will see it the other way round.

I am purposely not mentioning ppfx here because that is a different ball game altogether

I have also looked at PlanG which is quite good for small a/c but little use for airliners as is skyvector, the thing I like about skyvector is that you are working from the proper aviation maps, however it is currently quite limiting , no doubt in a year or so if they keep developing the product it could become very interesting indeed.

[jaydor 345]

Brett

 

I use the 2 as FSC shows the transitions and SID/STAR in  multiples if you are not sure of a SID/STAR approach, then you can select the correct one.  But EFB is the far superior of the 2.

 

PS You should be able to use the Vista as the specs say as long as you have FSX + Acceleration..  (Just checked for you and yes you can use Vista) 

 

PSS Send me your address via PM and I will mail you my boxed version for free of FSC (Version8.2) as I upgraded via a download from AS.

 

[brett 2,282]

Thanks guys, all great details to filling in the blanks and for making a decision.  I think I am leaning toward FSC, mostly because it seems to be easier, cheaper and I think a good choice for the amount of usage it will get. I am still a GA guy at heart, flying the big ones is exciting but also feels like work.

[Kasper 14]

Brett, you can make it as easy or difficult as you like. For different plans I use different tools. At the moment I use FSC, EFB, PFPX and TOPCAT, Plan-G and Skyvector. Plan G is free and if you use plans from Real World Flight Plan Database http://www.edi-gla.co.uk/fpl/index.php(free registration required) you are good to go with real world flight plans for free!