lonewulf47

Ups, sorry I was pointing to the installtion path. My fault. Should have been the documents path. If you use default installation then it is: C:\Users\<username>\Documents\AivlaSoft\EFB2\Client\Settings

Ok, go into path: <your installation path>\AivlaSoft\EFB2\Client\Settings and open "clientSettings.txt" Look for the lines: [AutoUpdate] AutoUpdateInterval = X NextUpdateCheckDate = XXXXXXXX What figures do they show?

Check for updates is only for the Server. There is no check for updates in the Client. Are you familiar with findig and editing text files?

Omg, you missed two updates on the Client? How comes? Do you never shut down your EFB? ?

Please report the Build # of Server and Client. The server also had an update. Should be Server #55 and Client #72.

Unfortunately again a masterpiece of airport design! ?(apart from the incredible runway dimensions...) RWY 01/19 (actually still declared 02/20 in the BGL) is declared closed for take-off and landing ! The easiest way to overcome this would be to change this with the help of ADE. Unfortunately I'm unable to provide any help in the FSX field as I'm using P3D v4 exclusively and therefore have no more access to the FSX SDK. Maybe someone in the community here can provide an altered BGL file with the help of ADE?

Bob (or whatever name you have: see https://forum.aivlasoft.com/topic/2522-forum-rules-read-before-post/ ), is there anything specific you want to tell us with that? ?

Peter, I think we have a major misunderstanding here. There is no profile "that has to be accepted". I am still of the impression that you try to manually assign a profile to any aircraft. This is not the way EFB v2 works. EFB will assign a valid profile automatically. A manual assignment is not possible as soon as the simulator is running. now again, let's start from scratch: Load the default C172 at any airport and make a screenshot of the sidebar. DO NOT TRY TO ASSIGN any profile in the "Setitngs" dialogue. Just let EFB v2 do its work. EDIT: I'm not sure which default A/C you have in your installation. I think, the BE58 Baron would also be feasible, as it is available on almost all Simulator variants.

Ok, once again: EFB v2 does not do any performance calculations! If there is a difference between TOPCAT and PMDG calculations, then this is definitely the wrong forum!

I guess you are talking about TOPCAT, right? EFB v2 does in no way calculate any performance values. Therefore if there is a discrepancy between TOPCAT calculations through EFB v2 and Calculation directly in TOPCAT (that's what I assume you are talking about), it is my strong assumption that those two calculations are not based of the same meteorological data. Otherwise TOPCAT would deliver identical results.

The BGL "WMKK_ADEX_TIC " you uploaded only contains 2 runways - nothing else. See ADE screenshot. Are you sure the BGL used in EFB v1 is identical?

What does that all mean? You are talking about A321, then you are talking about a default flight and finally the screenshot shows the B737-800 to be used as active aircraft? I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are doing there - and believe me, I've been working quite some time with EFB v2...? To get things straight: First: do not even attempt to reinstall EFB v2. This issue has nothing to do with a faulty install Second: load an A/C of which you can be sure that it will be properly assiged (e.g. the default C172) at any suitable airport. Have EFB v2 running, no matter before or after starting the simulator. Third: check whether all information on the sidebar is properly displayed (weights, fuel - and when airborne speeds). I would be very much interested in the outcome.

correct ?

Why? ZFW and LOAD are pure preflight items needed for flight planning. No need to show them in EFB v2 ?

Well, to make things easier, I would recommend to uninstall everything (use the uninstallers, do not just delete files) and start from scratch with the Server and Client freshly downloaded from the Download Section.If I could give you a hint: if you wait one more day, you will have the newest builds available. This would be build #55 for the Server and build #72 for the Client. Of course you can also download right now Server build #54 and Client build #71 and have it updated later. Most important is to start from scratch and follow the Installation Guide.

Gizzo82 (BTW, what is your name? Please read here: https://forum.aivlasoft.com/topic/2522-forum-rules-read-before-post/ ) It is very difficult to establish what went wrong with your install. Nevertheless I can confirm that I have two complete installs of P3D v4.3 and TOPCAT running on two different systems: System #1: All in one -> P3D, EFB v2 Server, Client and TOPCAT all on the same machine. No problems whatsoever to connect to TOPCAT System #2: Computer #1 with P3D and EFB v2 Server, Computer #2 with EFB v2 Client and TOPCAT connected by LAN. No problems whatsoever to connect to TOPCAT

Victor, The new build #72 (available soon) will take care of the proper Approach Identifiers. For basic Visibility/RVR values you can use the file "0default.txt", found in "....\AivlaSoft\EFB2\Client\Minima" as template. Just make sure that you make a copy of this file and do not change anything in the original! Be aware that there are solely Height Values in use (prefix H), as it is a file for general use. Thus the MDH/MDA values will be set according to Airport elevation.

The new downloads for the Navigraph Database must be in: "..\AivlaSoft\EFB2\Server\AIRAC\Navigraph FMS Data". Please check what is in there. A screenshot of this explorer window would be helpful.

Hi Victor. ATM there is no reason to produce a minimum file for EHEH, as there is this bug with the Approach Suffices. The only remedy would be to omit the suffix but this would mean that no distinguishing between X and Y approach can be made. Nevertheless there are still a number of errors displayed when running the file, mainly because you defined an approach category (1) for a non-precision approach -> Prefix "L" or "H". In addition there is one semicolon in excess in line "A;;1;A;227;R1100"

Well, if you hear the buzzer it means that an error has occurred. How about sending the logfile(s)??

Hi Victor, Yes I checked it out and it worked with one exception: your text editor obviously put a line break into the lenghty text for Circling. This makes TWO lines of text which leads to an error. If you have turned down the sound on your Client, you won't hear the buzzer, but you can still see the entry in the logfile reading: ".... Error : Approach minima: EHAM/C*, Number of elements. Line=an emergency."? No big thing. I just had to remove the line break. About the circling text itself: It is much too long to be displayed within the provided space. The idea would be to reduce it to the shortest, most significant terms. Nevertheless it must also be said that no text is displayed if all minimums are "NA". It wouldn't be logical to display something that has no condition to the corresponding minimum. And BTW, believe me, in case of an Emergency no ATC has the authority to forbid something. The only thing ATC can do in such cases is to give best guidance... So, as a conclusion the text for the Circling can be omitted. It will not display either. I wonder a bit about the RVR values. You use 350m throughout CAT II, CAT I and LOC. This is certainly not what operators would use. A (non-precision) LOC approach with RVR 350m would be unique worldwide, as would be a ILS CAT II with RVR 350m... The display logic for the approach categories is as follows: the (lowest) ILS approach category of each runway is defined in the ARINC dataset. If a certain RWY is declared CAT III, the CAT III minimum is displayed.EFB v2 does not distinguish between CAT III a, b and c. It just used the lowest standard values. if it is not defined in the (tailored) minimum file, the default value is displayed (light amber background). The thing about minimums is that in fact there are some basic values within State Authorities (EASA, FAA, CAA etc.), however the actual values applicable for an operator (airline) is laid down in their Ops Specs, agreed upon between the State Authority and the operator.Those values are then applied on the (usually) tailored approach charts. This also means that there may be different values for different operators. Within EFB this would mean that e.g. a certain V/A would provide tailored minima files for their members. For general use this would of course go a bit too far ?

Well, that's interesting (I have no idea why you would need more than two programs for simming: Simulator and EFB v2) but you can't blame EFB v2 for that...??

Hi Victor, Sorry that it took so long to verify your EHEH minima file. Ufortunately we detected a bug within the minima interpreter, which leads to the fact, that Approach Identifiers containing a hyphen are not properly decoded. We will need some time to implement this change properly. EHEH is one of the airports having numerous such approach identifiers like I21-X, -Y etc. So, for the moment no correctly working Minima file can be issued for EHEH. Nevertheless it must also be said that your submitted files unfortunately contain numerous bugs. The respective lines must correspond exactly to the data laid down in the example in the User Guide. The most important bugs are: A;1;A128;NA -> a Visibility MUST be indicated and cannot be replaced by "NA". "NA" is only allowed to mark an approach category as unavailable, such as: E;;NA *;;A690;NA -> the Asterisk (*) cannot be used as a wildcard for all approach categories, each line must start with the respective approach category. Minimum approach visibility is in most coutries' AIPs no longer listed on the respective approach chart, but listed in the AD2 part of the airport or even in the common AD1 part. This is unfortunately not handled consistently within the AIP publishers. As a simplification method at AivlaSoft we use standardized min. visibility, such as R75 for ILS CAT III, R200 for ILS CAT II or R550 for ILS CAT I plus some higher visibility for non-precision approaches. As there are no legal requirements for approach minima in Flight Simulation, we freely decided to do so on our own ?.

Sorry, I don't understand the question. Everything is up and running and you are asking whether installing into default directories could be a fault? Definitely not!

Am I right with the assumption that the screenshot is taken from a "Slave Client", i.e. a second client running networked but not on the same machine as TOPCAP is installed? That's at least my interpretation of your report and the screenshot. This would in any case not work. The performance calculation must be initialized from the Client on the same machine as TOPCAT.