is there any way to change magnetic declination?

[unhappytroll]

Right now difference is about 10 degrees with, say, LNM made routes (with current AIRAC). so, no biggie to just subtract it from courses on route manager, but it'll still be nice if it can be changed globally.

[SurferTim]

It seems the problem is with LNM. MSFS has the same problem with it.
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/fl ... map/434960

Edit: You might want to check out this in the LNM manual.
https://www.littlenavmap.org/manuals/li ... AGVAR.html

[unhappytroll]

that was interesting reading, thank you. I think I see the real problem now. for me, it looks like, in the Route Manager bearing to the next point is shown as a True Heading, not Magnetic, as you should expect.
those two pictures will illustrate it:


so either FG has magnetic declination 10 degrees off, being hardcoded in, or we should have option to switch bearing in the Route manager between true and magnetic.

ps. Added screenshot wit autopilot interface.

as you can see required heading and FMS course is 12 degrees off.

[wkitty42]

that was interesting reading, thank you. I think I see the real problem now. for me, it looks like, in the Route Manager bearing to the next point is shown as a True Heading, not Magnetic, as you should expect.

why would you expect that? the map "magnetic hdgs" settings only affects the map, AFAIK... i think for what you are looking at, there should be a switch in the route manager to display it there... maybe in the title row for that column put a clicky switch for true or mag... i don't think it'll be that easy, though... something would have to trigger recalculation of what is being displayed somehow...

[unhappytroll]

what do you mean, "why would you expect that?" when I set heading bug, do I set it on HSI on magnetic or true bearing? when I set VOR needle, do I set it on true or magnetic bearing?
how I can see needed magnetic declination to correct the needles in game? all I can do right now for correction is to align projected path on the map with heading, and I can't expect that in the planes without PFD/MFD option. I do understand the problem, because magnetic declination is changing through the time and position, so may be there should be an option to list a yearly changes in magnetic pole coordinates and recalculate it from here.

[wkitty42]

what do you mean, "why would you expect that?"

you said "as you should expect" and i want to know why you would expect it... i certainly didn't/don't expect it... it depends on the craft and the instruments in it, AFAIK... some are True and others have magnetic compensation... and you may find both in some craft... i do, however, make it a point to use the craft's POH which will tell me everything i need to know about the craft, its instruments, and how to operate them... this distinction between Tru and Mag should be in there when necessary...

as for the moving declination, it may be a data point set in FG's database... when the data is updated, the new declination values will be taken into account... you will still have to know what the declination is for your location and you'll still have to know if the instrument has Mag compensation... that won't change... this probably also won't happen until the scenery can be updated and numerous airports corrected with their newer runway numbers that changed because of the declination changing over time...

[Octal450]

I DON'T see the issue?

GPS work by true heading. If that aircraft is not overwriting my new generic AP, then it will have drift correction as well.

Kind Regards,
Josh

[unhappytroll]

I DON'T see the issue?

GPS work by true heading. If that aircraft is not overwriting my new generic AP, then it will have drift correction as well.

Kind Regards,
Josh

well, yes and no. it calculates your position and bearing as true, right. but if you look at the screen of GNS540, f.e., you'll see TRK as a magnetic bearing given to you, because, you know, HSI is a magnetic compass.

this was Cessna Citation without your autopilot. I had had even stranger issues with Route Manager that day, like it was positioning fixes SB420/421 somewhere in Southern hemisphere, until I re-replaced fix.dat file. may be it would be better in 4.0, but in 3.18 it is better to fly it on HDG, than on NAV, especially because it's very incomplete FMS panel. I may try to install your autopilot, yes.
granted, it may not be an issue in Cessna, if you will fly it VOR to VOR.

[unhappytroll]

you said "as you should expect" and i want to know why you would expect it... i certainly didn't/don't expect it... it depends on the craft and the instruments in it, AFAIK... some are True and others have magnetic compensation... and you may find both in some craft... i do, however, make it a point to use the craft's POH which will tell me everything i need to know about the craft, its instruments, and how to operate them... this distinction between Tru and Mag should be in there when necessary...

because anything with instruments more complex than "clock faces" is usually not very flyable here. and not even some with it. may be I missed something, true, but everything I tried so far with MFDs is not very enjoyable. I do not expect this game to be on par with XPlane or MSFS, mind you. It is basically impossible for free software. I'll give it a pass just for 707 (although it has severe flight performance issues; as it seems to me, I may be wrong ofc; and VS wheels are still broken and default autopilot always tries to hit an alt change with 2k fpm on TO thrust; at least with it-autoflight it is possible to have semblance of a proper climb pattern).

as for the moving declination, it may be a data point set in FG's database... when the data is updated, the new declination values will be taken into account... you will still have to know what the declination is for your location and you'll still have to know if the instrument has Mag compensation... that won't change... this probably also won't happen until the scenery can be updated and numerous airports corrected with their newer runway numbers that changed because of the declination changing over time...

well, yes. it is an issue. SID/STARS are really broken with this one. but, iirc you can set any time, date and year (within reasonable range, probably? attempted to set it to 1900, and game silently crashed), it should be a db with magnetic pole coordinates within that range and a mean to calculate a magnetic variation at given point.

[wkitty42]

well, yes. it is an issue. SID/STARS are really broken with this one. but, iirc you can set any time, date and year (within reasonable range, probably? attempted to set it to 1900, and game silently crashed), it should be a db with magnetic pole coordinates within that range and a mean to calculate a magnetic variation at given point.

FWIW: if we could access SIDs and STARS for the period that the scenery was generated, there wouldn't be a problem with them... that folks are trying to use today's data with yesteryear's scenery makes this an obvious problem... one that is not easily fixed without a scenery rebuild... a rebuild that takes months with the current tools and would probably be out of date by the time it is completed and distribution started... hopefully WS3 will fix this when it finally arrives for public consumption...

[MariuszXC]

because anything with instruments more complex than "clock faces" is usually not very flyable here. and not even some with it. may be I missed something, true, but everything I tried so far with MFDs is not very enjoyable.

Well, from pure user interface design point of view expecting any simulated glass instrument to be enjoyable, or even usable is a bit of an overexpectation IMHO. Compare the screen diagonals on this screenshot:



Note the number of pixels across both diagonals.
Now realize, that a real (i.e. not a simulated one) instrument has its own screen, for its own exclusive use...

Another factor is a physical display size. On this screenshot a diagonal of instrument's screen is 3 inches (on my laptop screen) - perhaps it would be 4 inches on a bigger desktop monitor. In real life instruments have displays with diagonals of 12 inches IIRC.

tl/dr: too few pixels and too small to be readable/usable/enjoyable in simulation.

[unhappytroll]

I didn't mean display size. 32" 4K is OK for me. I mean that even unfinished GNS 430/530/1000 in vanilla XPlane are mostly working as expected. FMC plugin there mostly working too. I do not expect this level of instrument complexity here.

[Octal450]

Well, from pure user interface design point of view expecting any simulated glass instrument to be enjoyable, or even usable is a bit of an overexpectation IMHO.

tl/dr: too few pixels and too small to be readable/usable/enjoyable in simulation.

I protest this statement. Is not true. Many glass things are working very well in FG and other sims. However unfinished ones are well… unfinished, and you should not make a global judgement like that using them.

One common problem I’ve noted in FG is people making lines too thin on the canvas. That will cause issues because of the pixels. If you keep your lines a decent thickness that problem goes away.

Kind Regards,
Josh

[MariuszXC]

Josh, I respect your work and attention to detail, but the fundamental issue with lack of screen real estate remains. Please, look at the picture I posted and draw your own conclusions. The chart is there, but is it usable? readable? Are fonts and lines on PFD just fine? Can you see details without straining your eyes?
If a diagonal is ~1/3rd , it means that available area is ~1/9th of the full screen. This then means that it is not possible to cram the same amount of information on screen as the real instrument would, and keep readability. Even a hefty magnifying glass won't help, as pixels simply are not there

Let me amend my previous statement though. I think that if someone builds a physical cockpit (sim pit) and equips it with dedicated screens for each of PFD, MFD, etc. then the usability and enjoyment will be very good.

Kind Regards
Mariusz

[Octal450]

Hi Mariusz,
Sorry, let me be more clear:

I agree with you about the charts. This thing is very hard to do in sim, without excessive zoom.

But I think about properly designed flight displays, is not an issue. That G1000 is using extremely thin lines and small text so it's hard to see. Things must be tweaked slightly to look good in sim.

To combat this, I used thicker lines on my PFD and slightly larger than real text objects. I find it perfectly readable even on the small display of my laptop.

Have a look:


Kind Regards,
Josh