NAV / Terrain / Road Database

Dear developers,

I highly appreciate your decision to create this addon. It's a great GPS device and can be used as a simple moving map or as sophisticated flight management system. I have used it in both roles in real life.

To support the development I bough it, knowing it is not a finished project.

The first test revealed that both IFR and VFR capability are quite limited at the moment.

I'm missing most departure, arrival and approach procedures for a proper instrument flight. Airspaces and restricted / prohibited areas are not showing.

As for the simple "moving map" - cities, roads and rivers are missing. I've set up the map to show this data but that didn't change anything.

So, my questions to you is: what kind of navigational database is used here? (date / AIRAC)

May we expect an update? May we expect an updated VFR database as well?

Greetings,

Viktor

+1 on the desired additions!

Also, I would like to suggest, adding a CDI instrument somewhere on the flightdeck. This would allow easier tracking of the flightplan.

Something like this.

As the COMM / VLOC part of the GNS430 does not work in the Mi-8 /L-39, I also suggest to free up space on the display and create a Garmin GNS400 instead.

It's basically the same unit - but without COM/ VLOC functions and knobs.

Dear developers,

I highly appreciate your decision to create this addon. It's a great GPS device and can be used as a simple moving map or as sophisticated flight management system. I have used it in both roles in real life.

 

To support the development I bough it, knowing it is not a finished project.

The first test revealed that both IFR and VFR capability are quite limited at the moment.

 

I'm missing most departure, arrival and approach procedures for a proper instrument flight. Airspaces and restricted / prohibited areas are not showing.

 

As for the simple "moving map" - cities, roads and rivers are missing. I've set up the map to show this data but that didn't change anything.

 

So, my questions to you is: what kind of navigational database is used here? (date / AIRAC)

May we expect an update? May we expect an updated VFR database as well?

 

Greetings,

Viktor

Yes, I appreciate to have this add-on was well.

Yes, It can be used as a simple moving map device, for VFR operation mainly. Full stop.

But I can’t see any intention that it was designed as “sophisticated flight management system”.

Do you really want to fly IFR arrival and approach procedures? A STAR coming e.g. from FL120?! With a Mi-8MTV2??!!

If yes, you are better off with dedicated IFR training software, DCS is a combat simulator.

The Mi-8 originally was never IFR certified, for good reasons.

The basic GPS functionality of the NS430 helps VFR mission navigation, e.g. in bad weather getting to the battle field or back to the home base.

It leaves to some extend the authencity of the sim and should not be further expanded.

As for simple moving map functionality: Yes, you're right, landmarks are missing.

But if these landmarks would be simulated in the NS430, I guess, you presumably wouldn’t see much anymore. (resolution issue)

It’s not a huge glass cockpit which has everything to show.

“restricted / prohibited airspaces?” It’s war!! Your enemy would surely not avoid any of these airspaces in combat with you.

Your airfield isn’t safe because it has controlled airspace around!

Give somebody an inch and he will take a mile.

We shouldn't overpower our requests on add-ons which have limited functionality - by intention.

Greetings from EDTF

The software already offers everything you need to use it as flight management system. Some departures / arrivals / approaches are already there. It would just need a database update. This could be done by the users as well. It just needs an open architecture / accessible database.

Do I want to fly a STAR out of FL120 with the Mi-8? Probably not. But flying an NDB approach with RNAV overlay makes sense.

As for the moving map / landmarks: The real unit offers those but they can be switched on / off in the menu. And yes, the original unit is not a "huge glass cockpit" but still offers those possibilities. I've spent around 150 hours using these devices in real life and I find them very helpful in older "steam gauge" cockpits. Landmarks are very useful.

And again, this is just about a database. The programming obviously is already done.

About restricted / prohibited areas: Take a look at modern conflicts like Georgia or Ukraine. Aircraft returning from their mission and entering friendly airspace can not do what ever the want to. It's not Vietnam. It's not total war. ;)

Again, this is only about the database. The display capability is already there.

As far as I'm aware, none of the official Mi-8 campaigns involve a war (even if there are some limited hostilities taking place). Certainly the default one doesn't. It does however explicitly prohibit entering Georgia proper - you'll get shot at if you do. Good enough reason to have that airspace marked for me...

As far as I'm aware, none of the official Mi-8 campaigns involve a war (even if there are some limited hostilities taking place). Certainly the default one doesn't. It does however explicitly prohibit entering Georgia proper - you'll get shot at if you do. Good enough reason to have that airspace marked for me...

Is DCS a CIV or MIL sim?

". . . none of the official Mi-8 campaigns involve a war".

Have a look at this Mi-8MTV2 DCS video for the "Border Campaign"

"prohibited / restricted airspaces" is terminology in civial aviation exclusively. Any commercial GPS has a cicvil database only.

A civil GPS shows international accepted borders, it doesn't show e.g actual conflict zones or political territory, e.g. claimed one sided.

A prohibited airspace might be installed due to security concerns, e.g. nuclear power station

or sometimes even a bird's sanctuary. Would you mind entering these airspaces when being attacked?

Have a look at this Mi-8MTV2 DCS video for the "Border Campaign"

�Uhuh, I have seen that video. I own the campaign and I'm half way through. Who knows, maybe there's a twist somewhere in there and a big NATO force appears and starts a war with Russia. If that's the case, then I was wrong. But so far - no war.

I have finished the Spring Tensions campaign and there's no war in it. An insurgency starts a few missions into the campaign but at no time the restrictions on crossing into Georgia are lifted. Nobody ever declares a war.

And while I don't own the Oilfield campaign the description strongly suggest that it's a civilian campaign altogether:

Life in civil aviation is far removed from dangers of military conflict. Instead, it’s based on strict time tables and lunch breaks.

 

Meet a group of old friends: captain Jury Maksimovich Protasov and his Mi-8MTV2 crew. After the events of the "Spring Tension" conflict, they are again in business together. However, this time they are gainfully employed as cargo transportation contractors, serving the interests of the oil industry.

So what is it that you want me to take away from that video?

This may surprise you, but military aircraft fly according to civilian laws a lot. Particularly transport aircraft. The Mi-8 fits civilian or military in times of peace missions very well.

A prohibited airspace might be installed due to security concerns, e.g. nuclear power station

or sometimes even a bird's sanctuary. Would you mind entering these airspaces when being attacked?

When under fire - probably not. OTOH when training over NTTR or "serving the interests of the oil industry" - I would.

Indeed, respecting all civil regulations is part of every pilot's responsibilities. In wartime they don't just disappear, but naturally, when circumstances dictate, the exigencies of war would trump restrictions applicable in peacetime.

That doesn't mean nav aids won't still have them in their databases - though of course it could be argued that military operations with the use of civilian navigation aids possibly wouldn't be permitted anyway.

I guess the one way to satisfy all would be to provide some options within the NS 430 suite - possibly through the specials tab?

There are declutter options in the set already to disable such things, if they bother the pilot.

The issue here isn't if airspace matters during war. It's that this is a SIMULATION. These features are present in the actual device and as such should reasonably be included in the simulated version. It's in alpha, I'm not going to jump down their throats about it, but it should be included at some point.

I have managed to add a standard instrument departure (SID) to URSS (Adler Sochi) airport.

/DCS World/Mods/aircraft/NS430/Cockpit/Scripts/avionics/terrain/aptdb/U/

Here you'll find all airports that feature approach/arrival/departure procedures.

However I was not able to add or modify waypoints or airports. Maybe someone else can?

Greetings,

Viktor

o.k. let’s assume the NS430 has e.g. restricted airspaces (RXXXX-Y) in their data base.

As consequence, if you want truly care about these R’s (as real) you’ll have to prepare and brief your flight extensively.

You must have a valid ICAO map, consult an AIP and get the most up to date NOTAM’s. And finally contact the AIS to hear whether RXXXX-Y is active or not.

Asking for restricted airspaces in the data base of the NS430 is one thing.

But if having them, then you will have to follow up on all actual information related to these R's and treat them accordingly (as in real life).

But if not, the restricted airspaces in the data base are useless, then they are for decoration only.

Is it that what you want?

o.k. let’s assume the NS430 has e.g. restricted airspaces (RXXXX-Y) in their data base.

As consequence, if you want truly care about these R’s (as real) you’ll have to prepare and brief your flight extensively.

You must have a valid ICAO map, consult an AIP and get the most up to date NOTAM’s. And finally contact the AIS to hear whether RXXXX-Y is active or not.

 

Asking for restricted airspaces in the data base of the NS430 is one thing.

But if having them, then you will have to follow up on all actual information related to these R's and treat them accordingly (as in real life).

But if not, the restricted airspaces in the data base are useless, then they are for decoration only.

Is it that what you want?

I really, REALLY don't understand why you are getting all weird about this. Why the digg about combat sim? Is this why you are argueing this? Don't want your pure combat sim tainted?

We all here are aviation fans. The distinction between combat and civil sim is yours, and countless people like me, who love flying, don't care at all about that. I love general aviation, I fly airliners in other sims, I study how RL aviation works for VATSIM etc.

Now again, YES, I want to have all (reasonable) features in DCS that work IRL. This includes precision approaches and a valid navdata cycle (DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CURRENT, JUST AUTHENTIC!) so we can use real approaches.

And no, nobody HAS to do anything, this is a sandbox sim, stop argueing nuances that don't affect you at all. Don't want Navdata, don't use it. Don't want airspaces, don't use it. DON'T WANT GNS 430 FEATURES? DON'T USE IT! =) FFS

This includes precision approaches and a valid navdata cycle (DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CURRENT, JUST AUTHENTIC!) so we can use real approaches.

The NS430 contains real FAA data and real approaches today, at least for NTTR. I am not familiar with Russian/Georgian data sources, but the procedures for Caucasus line up with existing Jeppeson chart updates at major airports. (The lesser airports in Caucasus don't exist today and thus have no modern charts) I don't know (and haven't tested significantly) the approaches (if any) in Normandy, but given the time period I would expect a lot less.

Is there a specific IAP/STAR/DP missing that is needed? (I haven't gone through and done an airport-by-airport check)

In all cases, the magnetic variation is (I believe) fixed in each map, and will not follow changes in the calendar year. However, since GPS waypoints are lat/long, magnetic bearings should align to the map being used.

--gos

omg sorry, can't back pedal here fast enough! :P

I haven't looked at 2.x yet and apologise if we already have these in, I assumed from the tone of the discussion they werent. Good to know about the magnetic variation, thanks. Your work and input here is very much appreciated! :)

For the Caucasus map:

- Navdata obviously is out of date (which is ok for me)

- Landmarks are missing

- only very few approaches / SIDs / STARs available - one example of missing data: Adler / Sochi URSS airport. It's neither a small airfield nor a closed one.

For the Caucasus map:

- Navdata obviously is out of date (which is ok for me)

- Landmarks are missing

- only very few approaches / SIDs / STARs available - one example of missing data: Adler / Sochi URSS airport. It's neither a small airfield nor a closed one.

RE: navdata, yes, I don't know what their navdata's date is, but it would make sense if it were constant

RE: landmarks, I don't know whether BST plans to implement the landmark/obstacle database. However, I think that data likely needs to be pulled from the map itself, versus a real-life obstacle database in order to ensure the data matches the maps we actually have. Doesn't make sense to have a tower on the GPS when the tower wasn't modeled in-game.

RE: URSS, can you be more specific? I'll look tonight, but if you can post a link to an approach plate or SID for URSS I'd appreciate it (and I can list it as a bug that way)

thanks!

--gos

I really, REALLY don't understand why you are getting all weird about this. Why the digg about combat sim? Is this why you are argueing this? Don't want your pure combat sim tainted?

 

We all here are aviation fans. The distinction between combat and civil sim is yours, and countless people like me, who love flying, don't care at all about that. I love general aviation, I fly airliners in other sims, I study how RL aviation works for VATSIM etc.

 

Now again, YES, I want to have all (reasonable) features in DCS that work IRL. This includes precision approaches and a valid navdata cycle (DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CURRENT, JUST AUTHENTIC!) so we can use real approaches.

 

And no, nobody HAS to do anything, this is a sandbox sim, stop argueing nuances that don't affect you at all. Don't want Navdata, don't use it. Don't want airspaces, don't use it. DON'T WANT GNS 430 FEATURES? DON'T USE IT! =) FFS

I really, REALLY don’t understand why you are getting me wrong.

If you want to use DCS as civil sim - fine. I’m myself enjoy flying IFR approaches

as civil mission in the A-10C (because it’s certified for civil IFR) under CAT IIIa conditions.

All I’m saying is, that when you are asking for data base perfection for the NS430

then you will have to perfect and adopt your way of running your flight simulation accordingly.

Asking for e.g. restricted air spaces in the NS430 is per se useless unless you don’t follow up

on what these restrictions mean. This is consequent sim perfection.

You have to find out which CLASS these R's are, what are the vertical borders in relation to AGL

and most important, are they active or not?

Where do you get these relevant informations? You will have to consult your ICAO map, NOTAMs and call AIS.

But you won't get these informations because these sources are not simulated for the NS430.

As consequence, you, the sim perfectionist, will fly around or above these airspaces according to your own discretion.

It’s lukewarm asking for sim perfection (regardless of CIV or MIL sim) but later

you are not behaving according your own requests for perfection.

Another Example is the request for SID or STAR procedures in the data base?

Is it an academic request or is it meant seriously? Flying a STAR procedure,

coming down from FL150, with a Mi-8MTV2?? Is it this what you want?

I bet the next NS403 threat is about requests for implementing weather overlay display

or the coupling between the GPS and the autopilot. Any more requests?

Asking for e.g. restricted air spaces in the NS430 is per se useless unless you don’t follow up

on what these restrictions mean. This is consequent sim perfection.

You have to find out which CLASS these R's are, what are the vertical borders in relation to AGL

and most important, are they active or not?

Where do you get these relevant informations? You will have to consult your ICAO map, NOTAMs and call AIS.

But you won't get these informations because these sources are not simulated for the NS430.

As consequence, you, the sim perfectionist, will fly around or above these airspaces according to your own discretion.

As long as the database is accessible, it would be possible to create different scenarios, missions and campaigns with preset restricted and prohibited areas. How about a no-fly zone during humanitarian missions?

These preset zones could be mentioned in the briefing package and announced during the mission by ATC. Where's your imagination?

Another Example is the request for SID or STAR procedures in the data base?

Is it an academic request or is it meant seriously? Flying a STAR procedure,

coming down from FL150, with a Mi-8MTV2?? Is it this what you want?

Now, SIDs, STARs and approaches are already simulated. So what's your problem here? The main focus lies on approaches. But SIDs and STARs are great as well. In real life I have flown STARs and even Transitions on light types during flight training. FL150? - No, 5000ft!

As long as the database is accessible, it would be possible to create different scenarios, missions and campaigns with preset restricted and prohibited areas. How about a no-fly zone during humanitarian missions?

These preset zones could be mentioned in the briefing package and announced during the mission by ATC.

This already exists (the restriction).

In NTTR Red Flag, if the player gets too close to Groom Lake, the mission fails. They are briefed that they are not allowed near R-4808N.

This already exists (the restriction).

 

In NTTR Red Flag, if the player gets too close to Groom Lake, the mission fails. They are briefed that they are not allowed near R-4808N.

and.. can you see it through ns-430?

and.. can you see it through ns-430?

No, BST hasn't implemented airspace boundaries at this time.

Point being, there is a potential use of having airspace boundaries marked in the NS430 for both civilian and military operations.