Release Candidate (RC) Version - Download and Feedback

Forum dedicated to the alpha, beta, and RC versions
ntnll
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 12:32 pm

Re: RCs public previews

Post by ntnll » Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:44 pm

RandomUser wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:36 pm
Did you see my last post about the nonworking center handoffs, Antonello?

Ref: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=17&start=135#p3827

I'm curious if this could be a 11.30 bug. Does anybody else run 11.30 and have problems with center handoffs?
Hi RandomUser
Saw it, didn't had the opportunity to replicate the issue. I'll hopefully have a better look in the weekend
124thATC Developer

ntnll
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 12:32 pm

Re: RCs public previews

Post by ntnll » Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:08 am

RandomUser wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:36 pm
Did you see my last post about the nonworking center handoffs, Antonello?

Ref: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=17&start=135#p3827

I'm curious if this could be a 11.30 bug. Does anybody else run 11.30 and have problems with center handoffs?
I'm correcting myself, I believe this issue has been corrected by the the EPWW:Warszawa Radar entry in acc.dat.
After that changes, I successfully got the center handoff.
Please try replacing your with the last acc.dat that will be shipped in the next version, and tell me if works for you. If not please re-post the last bugReport

a.
124thATC Developer

JANPIRO
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:16 am

Re: RCs public previews

Post by JANPIRO » Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:32 am

I Antonello,
When I use the RC6 version where we do not choose the SID and the STAR everything is perfect.
When I use the RC20 version and I choose the SID and the STAR, the SID is perfect but the STAR does not have the same way that the RC6: it is much more complicated.
I am on IMAC 10.14.2 and X-PLANE 1.30 RC2
Regards

ntnll
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 12:32 pm

Re: RCs public previews

Post by ntnll » Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:23 pm

JANPIRO wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:32 am
I Antonello,
When I use the RC6 version where we do not choose the SID and the STAR everything is perfect.
When I use the RC20 version and I choose the SID and the STAR, the SID is perfect but the STAR does not have the same way that the RC6: it is much more complicated.
I am on IMAC 10.14.2 and X-PLANE 1.30 RC2
Regards
Not sure to understand what you mean with "much complicated". Bug report or log missing as usual, please read this
Last edited by ntnll on Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
124thATC Developer

ntnll
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 12:32 pm

Re: RCs public previews

Post by ntnll » Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:24 pm

a60.60RC21 available, further crash fixed, minor bugs fixed.
124thATC Developer

JANPIRO
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:16 am

Re: RCs public previews

Post by JANPIRO » Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:17 pm

I just made a new flight with RC21 version LEPA (Palma) LFML (Marseille)
MERO1G MEROS UN853 LUMAS UM976 SOSUR SOSU8C
the problem is always the same: SID(perfect)
STAR see the images that show the difference in the path between the RC6 version (perfect) and the RC21 version.
Image
Image
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

JANPIRO
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:16 am

Re: RCs public previews

Post by JANPIRO » Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:13 pm

To complete my point, it seems to me that if we want to get closer to reality the arrival in Marseille should be that of the RC6 version rather than that of the RC21 which is not very realistic

ntnll
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 12:32 pm

Re: RCs public previews

Post by ntnll » Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:23 pm

JANPIRO wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:13 pm
To complete my point, it seems to me that if we want to get closer to reality the arrival in Marseille should be that of the RC6 version rather than that of the RC21 which is not very realistic
Hi Janpiro. Log still missing, I'm not in the condition to reply to your observation. There are too much factors to take in consideration. The most important is defintely if you're flying VFR or IFR, but much more need to be taken in consideration. I need the full log with debug enabled.
Actually for a proper debug of the approach phase I need the full bug report
124thATC Developer

JANPIRO
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:16 am

Re: RCs public previews

Post by JANPIRO » Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:38 am

Hi Antonello,
Do not understand very well English I do not know what I have to send you.Also I send you everything I have.
I specify that I always fly in IFR.
ImageImage[/img]
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

ntnll
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 12:32 pm

Re: RCs public previews

Post by ntnll » Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:47 am

JANPIRO wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:38 am
Do not understand very well English I do not know what I have to send you.Also I send you everything I have.
There are some really important information in the log and in the kml files.

edit: this doesn't look the bug report, just the a copy of the bugreport folder. Have a look here for generate it. Or send me the whole 124thATC plugin folder compressed, if you find the process of generating the bug report too complicated. Bare in mind that you need to collect this information after to complete the affected flight. If you start XPlane over, the information will be overwritten and you need to re-flight for produce the debug info

a.
124thATC Developer

ntnll
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 12:32 pm

Re: RCs public previews

Post by ntnll » Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:13 am

JANPIRO wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:17 pm
I just made a new flight with RC21 version LEPA (Palma) LFML (Marseille)
MERO1G MEROS UN853 LUMAS UM976 SOSUR SOSU8C
the problem is always the same: SID(perfect)
STAR see the images that show the difference in the path between the RC6 version (perfect) and the RC21 version.
Answering to your question, the plugin tries to provide a smooth approximation creating some "Approximation"/"ILS" waypoints in the case the last STAR fix is either too close, or not aliened to the runway. In fact, in most of the cases, a so narrow approach doesn't allow you a correct ILS interception on IFR flights. Looking at the images you posted, I would say one is VFR flight, other a IFR. In the first case, because a typical speed of a VFR flight, you will intercept the runway easily, no further intermediate "Approximation" points are needed. But they are for IFR approaches, because getting at 200nm on the last waypoint, you probably wont have time for intercept the ILS properly. This is not a bug, the plugin is designed to to that. I understand in this specific case is not optimal, but I find this compromise the best for most of the flights. As usual, a compromise need to be found in the algorithm, this case is an example of that.
As mentioned anyway, without log and bug report (that includes the google earth KML files generated for the plugin), I'm just speculating.
124thATC Developer

JANPIRO
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:16 am

Re: RCs public previews

Post by JANPIRO » Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:00 pm

I do exactly the same flight with the RC6 version and RC21 version.
In both cases it is IFR flights.
So I do not see why it works in one case and not in the other.
For all intents and purposes I sends you the elements of the 124thATC RC21 plugin folder, and the 124thATC RC6 folder elements to compare.
Image[/img]
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

ntnll
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 12:32 pm

Re: RCs public previews

Post by ntnll » Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:02 pm

JANPIRO wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:00 pm
I do exactly the same flight with the RC6 version and RC21 version.
In both cases it is IFR flights.
So I do not see why it works in one case and not in the other.
For all intents and purposes I sends you the elements of the 124thATC RC21 plugin folder, and the 124thATC RC6 folder elements to compare.
the user debug is disabled on both logs, these information doesn't help me at all to analyze the problem.
But don't mind JANPIRO, I'll replicate the issue on my configuration and I'll have a look into it
124thATC Developer

argonius
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed May 30, 2018 2:14 pm

Re: RCs public previews

Post by argonius » Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:40 pm

Repeated my the flight from EDDS to LSZB with RC21, again crashing on approach to LSZB. (I did it with 11.30 as I do not think it is related to the XP version, 11.26 was crashing the same with RC20).

Besides the crash something is very weird when doing this approach (ROTOS2M for ILS 14, Transition at BIRKI). The plugin has kept me on FL150 past BIRKI, then there where two approximation waypoints, the first being 24NM NORTH of BIRKI (turn right 006°). That of course explains why I was still kept at FL150, but if you look at the screenshot taken from Little Navmap you'll see that this does not make any sense. BIRKI is inline with the ILS14. The plane position shown on the screen shot is where the plugin crashed.

I think there is something buggy in the STAR to ILS/RWY transition.

Cheers
Christian
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

vittop
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:50 am

Re: RCs public previews

Post by vittop » Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:24 pm

Hi, Just installed RC21. I noticed two things worthy to be investigated. I am at KOLM as usual, my FP is to nearby KGRF.

a) If I choose TO from rwy35 all fine, while if I choose rwy17 the plugin automatically offers WN70, an heliport, as departure airport which is not accepted: In this case as workaround I can still type in the correct KOLM code and that's fine

b) if I choose not to have manually choosen SID\STAR, and ask such a FP, a small dialog buttonless window named "Tower" appears. In this case as workaround I can reset the plugin and check manual SID\START checkbox.

The logfile is available for you
bugReport.tar.gz
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Post Reply