MSFS Sydney erroneous ILS bearings

[lonewulf47]

Gentlemen,

You missed the fact that for ILS definition in MSFS you need to use the magentic variation in the RWY record. Therefore all earing are off by approx. 13°. Furthermore ILS RWY 34L has a GS angle of 0.0° (horizontal). That's at least what I found on my present installation via ORBX Installer.

See decompiled RWY records:

YSSY, ILS/DME [BC] MagVar 0.0, Localizer: 110.90 / ISS / CRS 155° / RW16L / RNG 27.0NM / -33.97317, 151.19438 Glideslope: 3.00° / RNG 27.0NM / -33.95462, 151.18958 DME: RNG 27NM / -33.96031, 151.19105 Name='16L'
YSSY, ILS/DME [BC] MagVar 0.0, Localizer: 109.30 / IKN / CRS 335° / RW34R / RNG 27.0NM / -33.94882, 151.18808 Glideslope: 3.00° / RNG 27.0NM / -33.96765, 151.19296 DME: RNG 27NM / -33.96767, 151.19297 Name='34R'
YSSY, ILS/DME [BC] MagVar 0.0, Localizer: 109.50 / IKS / CRS 155° / RW16R / RNG 27.0NM / -33.96576, 151.18103 Glideslope: 3.00° / RNG 27.0NM / -33.93403, 151.17280 DME: RNG 27NM / -33.94680, 151.17612 Name='16R'
YSSY, ILS/DME [BC] MagVar 0.0, Localizer: 110.10 / ISN / CRS 355° / RW34L / RNG 27.0NM / -33.92766, 151.17115 Glideslope: 0.00° / RNG 27.0NM / -33.96038, 151.17964 DME: RNG 27NM / -33.94680, 151.17612 Name='34L'
YSSY, ILS/DME [BC] MagVar 0.0, Localizer: 109.70 / ISW / CRS 242° / RW25 / RNG 27.0NM / -33.94376, 151.16357 Glideslope: 3.00° / RNG 27.0NM / -33.93892, 151.18402 DME: RNG 27NM / -33.94062, 151.17676 Name='25'
YSSY, ILS/DME [BC] MagVar 0.0, Localizer: 109.90 / ISY / CRS 062° / RW07 / RNG 27.0NM / -33.93752, 151.18992 Glideslope: 3.00° / RNG 27.0NM / -33.94248, 151.16899 DME: RNG 27NM / -33.94062, 151.17676 Name='07'

Regards
Oskar

[george[flytampa]]

Setting the MagVar to zero is intentional. Some guys in the MS development forum discovered zero works better as there are oddities in the current ILS alignments.

The glideslope is an error. Thanks.

[george[flytampa]]

In-game, despite the glideslope being set to zero. It is behaving correctly, so it might be reading the stock ILS. I was able to fly under the GS with space to spare, so its not at zero.

[OmniAtlas]

Hi George,

The ILS localiser is offset as lonewulf has discussed.

Will there be a future patch to fix up the ILS alignment?

Thank you.

Ben

[John Burgess]

Hi George,

The fact you are getting the GS for 34L makes me suspect that you are seeing the default ILS's.

We came across a similar situation testing a couple of sceneries at ORBX.
Different testers saw different ILS's.
Turned out that it was an ordering issue in the content.xml file causing some to see the default.
I found ,believe it or not, that if
<Package name="asobo-airport-c53-lowerloon" active="true"/>
ended up BELOW
<Package name="fs-base-nav" active="true"/>
then you saw the default ILS's in addon scenery.
There may be other things that cause it.
I've just tested and the same happens here.

If I make that change (or put the asobo YSSY below the FT version) then I see what you see.
If I delete my content.xml file and allow MSFS to rebuild it I see what Ben and Oskar see (in the sim).
Still a bit confused however.
In the Daher tuning 110.1 into Nav1 for rwy 34L the course of 355 is automatically set (so the LOC display on the PFD is pointing in the wrong direction) but the LOC remains centered if I stay on a 335 heading. The GS is at 0 degrees, I can't fly below it.

Hope this helps. I really suspect you guys are seeing different things.

All the best,

John

[lonewulf47]

Setting the MagVar to zero is intentional. Some guys in the MS development forum discovered zero works better as there are oddities in the current ILS alignments.

The glideslope is an error. Thanks.

Wrong! Please check in-game and also refer to another famous developer (FSDreamTeam) which was using the very same method and had the very same issues. You should be aware that not everyone is using default navdata anymore and that MSFS is not doing any useful proirity layering as other simulators do. So when using the Navigraph database the data from the abovementioned RWY records are used. And those are misaligned by the local variation of 13.0° ! You could also check the alignment on Asobo's own rendition of YSSY within the \Official\onestore apth. There all ILS' definitiona are correct.
The same (non) priority applies to the GS !

[george[flytampa]]

Hi George,

The fact you are getting the GS for 34L makes me suspect that you are seeing the default ILS's.

We came across a similar situation testing a couple of sceneries at ORBX.
Different testers saw different ILS's.
Turned out that it was an ordering issue in the content.xml file causing some to see the default.
I found ,believe it or not, that if
<Package name="asobo-airport-c53-lowerloon" active="true"/>
ended up BELOW
<Package name="fs-base-nav" active="true"/>
then you saw the default ILS's in addon scenery.
There may be other things that cause it.
I've just tested and the same happens here.

If I make that change (or put the asobo YSSY below the FT version) then I see what you see.
If I delete my content.xml file and allow MSFS to rebuild it I see what Ben and Oskar see (in the sim).
Still a bit confused however.
In the Daher tuning 110.1 into Nav1 for rwy 34L the course of 355 is automatically set (so the LOC display on the PFD is pointing in the wrong direction) but the LOC remains centered if I stay on a 335 heading. The GS is at 0 degrees, I can't fly below it.

Hope this helps. I really suspect you guys are seeing different things.

All the best,

John

Thanks for the help John. Are you saying I could move sydney in the content.xml to be above asobo and/or base nav and it will work? I believe I am seeing the stock ILS ingame as my changes don't seem to do anything. I re-call some time back, trying to exclude the airport stock ILS but it didn't work.

[John Burgess]

Hi George,

The simplest approach is almost certainly to delete or rename your content.xml and let MSFS rebuild it.

As far as I can tell your YSSY definitely needs to be BELOW the asobo version in the list (seems best to just get rid of the asobo version since it causes double towers etc). However, as I mentioned above, there are other apparently unrelated layering issues which seem to cause this problem with the ILS's.


Why the position of <Package name="asobo-airport-c53-lowerloon" active="true"/> can cause problems is a mystery but it does - hence I reckon rebuilding the content.xml file is the best option.

All the best,

John

[lonewulf47]

Hi George,

The simplest approach is almost certainly to delete or rename your content.xml and let MSFS rebuild it.

As far as I can tell your YSSY definitely needs to be BELOW the asobo version in the list (seems best to just get rid of the asobo version since it causes double towers etc). However, as I mentioned above, there are other apparently unrelated layering issues which seem to cause this problem with the ILS's.


Why the position of <Package name="asobo-airport-c53-lowerloon" active="true"/> can cause problems is a mystery but it does - hence I reckon rebuilding the content.xml file is the best option.

All the best,

John

This ONE possibility, but be realistic, if this is the way users have to cope with MSFS missing priority system, I wouldn't call it extremely userfriendly. And BTW: Why creating own RWY records with ILSes if they need to be replaced by stock ILSes ??? Why does FlyTampa not just adjust the wrong figures and everything is ok?

[george[flytampa]]

Hi George,

The simplest approach is almost certainly to delete or rename your content.xml and let MSFS rebuild it.

As far as I can tell your YSSY definitely needs to be BELOW the asobo version in the list (seems best to just get rid of the asobo version since it causes double towers etc). However, as I mentioned above, there are other apparently unrelated layering issues which seem to cause this problem with the ILS's.


Why the position of <Package name="asobo-airport-c53-lowerloon" active="true"/> can cause problems is a mystery but it does - hence I reckon rebuilding the content.xml file is the best option.

All the best,

John

This ONE possibility, but be realistic, if this is the way users have to cope with MSFS missing priority system, I wouldn't call it extremely userfriendly. And BTW: Why creating own RWY records with ILSes if they need to be replaced by stock ILSes ??? Why does FlyTampa not just adjust the wrong figures and everything is ok?

I have fixed the magvar already. I just can't test it if I can't see the results ingame.

[lonewulf47]

I have fixed the magvar already. I just can't test it if I can't see the results ingame.

There's one more thing on the ILS 34L: The INBD Course is wrong! You use 355°, actually it should be 335°

[John Burgess]

Hi George,

As I said hopefully, after a rebuild of the content.xml file, you will see the results in game.

At the very least make sure <Package name="asobo-airport-c53-lowerloon" active="true"/> is at the top of the list and disable the asobo YSSY.

All the best,

John

[DMullert]

Hello Gang!

I just tested an ILS approach to runway 34L and the localizer seems to be tracking well, but the glideslope never worked; it stayed pegged to the bottom and never moved. Something is wonky with the 34L ILS.

[lonewulf47]

Ok, I must stand corrrect. After reading the discussion I had with the other competitor, I see that the issue there was exactly the other way round. He used TRUE courses for the LOCs and thought it would be adjusted by the Variation.

So in the case of YSSY there are onyl two main errors: the wrong course of ILS34L (355° iso 335°) and the GS being zero. Then main problem with localizer bearings however is that obviously noone at Asobo has the faintest clue about Aerial Navigation. I have no idea why they changed the LOC courses to be MAGNETIC. This will cause a few more problems in the future if they are not IMMEDIATELY reverting to the usual method of using TRUE BEARINGS for LOCs (as they do for RWYs anyway). One of the fantastic outcomes of Asobos missing knowledge is the fact that their ARINC parser (whatever Gremlin told them to do so) alignes all LOC bearings strictly to the RWY thus eliminating all OFFSET LOCs worldwide...

I do hope that we get an update for YSSY in reasonable time and I thank you in advance.

Regards
Oskar