reported OAP bearing with leading zero enters as negative but no indication on UFC

[Shiroka]

Not sure if this is correct behavior or a bug, but I was having trouble entering OAP. If you enter an O/S bearing < 100° as a 3 digit number the first 0 is registered as a - (which I assume is correct behavior as the UFC panel shows a - on that button).

However, there is no indication anywhere on the UFC or HSI that this is happening. Took me ages to work out why my OAP was in the wrong place. For example if you enter “090” then the bearing is registered as “-90” and the OAP appears at 270°.

is this correct or should there be an indication on the UFC that you are entering a negative number?

No track yet but I’ll try and get one. 

[Frederf]

Preceding zero is used in some cases to enter negative numbers but OAP bearing should only accept values of 0.0 through 359.9 degrees, no negatives.

[BIGNEWY]

As mentioned above by Frederf no negative values should be used. 

thanks

[Vlad_Mig]

3 часа назад, BIGNEWY сказал:

As mentioned above by Frederf no negative values should be used. 

thanks

But the problem is that it’s possible to enter a negative value, as Shiroka says

[dorianR666]

20 hours ago, Shiroka said:

For example if you enter “090” then the bearing is registered as “-90” and the OAP appears at 270°.

so thats why it didnt work for me...

[Shiroka]

10 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

As mentioned above by Frederf no negative values should be used. 

thanks

Thanks @BIGNEWYI get that, the problem is that if you enter a bearing with a leading zero (I.e., "090" rather than "90") it reads it as a negative number and inputs it as -90.

3 hours ago, dorianR666 said:

so thats why it didnt work for me...

Yeah I thought for ages that it wasn't working and was just giving me a completely random OAP. Then I sat down on the runway and entered a few values to try and work out what was happening behind the scenes. I didn't save a track (I turned off recording to try and save some FPS) but I'll reproduce with a track and upload next time I get a chance.

[Shiroka]

@BIGNEWYtrack attached here. In the first case I enter a bearing of "90" on the UFC. You can see the OAP is positioned correctly to the East of the waypoint. Then I repeat and enter "090". Now the data page still says the bearing is 90.00.00 but the OAP is incorrectly placed at 270 (West of the waypoint, i.e., at -90).

FA-18C OAP.trk

[Mikaa]

+1, just tested this myself. Not sure if this is intended behavior, but I'd be surprised if a leading "0" would allow you to swap the integer signs in this submenu. I also replicated this by attempting other bearings.

Oddly enough, trying '180' and '0180' swaps the resulting sign, but has on effect on the O/S point. Same with '360' and '0360.' 

Additionally, typing '045' into the offset menu actually gives you '-45' for an offset bearing (315 degrees). That to me, doesn't make sense, as every avionics package I've worked with utilizes standard digit formats for bearing/distance entries. IMHO, I'd expect an 'ERROR' callback if 3 digits wasn't used. 

Edit: I can upload a trackfile if needed, but hopefully the already submitted tracks are enough to have this revisited. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Mikaa

[Shiroka]

Hey @BIGNEWYcan we get the tag changed on this - I think the track clearly shows something is not right and I beleieve my discussion of negative numbers (which was just meant to help explain what is going on behind the scenes) confused the issue I was trying to report somewhat (apologies for this). I reproduced it and added a couple of screenshots below:

First two images are expected behavior (by entering "90" in the O/S BRG on the UFC):

Now if you enter "090" in the bearing on the UFC, the data page still says "O/S BRG 90..." but you can see the O/S grid has changed (from BN696062 to BN326050) and now the OAP appears in the wrong place W of the WYPT:

There is no way that can be "correct-as-is" (the simple fact that both data pages show OAP range 10nm, bearing 90 but with wildly different grids 20nm apart)

[BIGNEWY]

Marked investigating, yes will take another look, next time please include the whole report and a track replay in the first post, it saves time

[Shiroka]

7 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Marked investigating, yes will take another look, next time please include the whole report and a track replay in the first post, it saves time

Thanks, and will do, my apologies!

[BIGNEWY]

No problem I have reported now

thank you