I hate to be the one to do this, but ...
in order for these forums to be a good souce of information for the public at large, we have to do something in forums that is called thread addressing.
What this means, is in order to make the threads that are posted more valuable to people we try to keep the threads (or forums topics), and their verious replies and re-replies -all working toward or "in the subject of" the original post.
That way people who may be searching the topics and thier headings, can easily find the information they need. This topic is about an issue that IMFD 5.1j and k were causing an issue with (in particularly my machine) the existing libraries in Jarmo's recommended
MS VC++ 2005 Redistributable Package as it stood alone listed on his webpage.
I posted the original thread so the developer can see the topic name and find it very easily in these forums.
To keep your ideas and our ideas organized you may consider posting your issue under a new thread called maybe "Strange Flight Path for Base Approach in IMFD 5.1m" or somthing and then we can all help you with that issue which to me seems to be different than this threads "main topic" Here you should try to keep your questions and ideas "On the issue" or "on discussion topic" which is usually the subject of your topic post.
I would be happy to address your question under a different thread.
Here, I would say that your Base Approach is a flight programming issue you are having. As my tutorial
"From the Earth to The Moon" an AMSO 1.17 Apollo 11 Full Mission Tutorial Using IMFD, you will find in the section on programming your TEI in IMFD 5.1h, (which is very similar to recently released 5.1m), it will tell you that there may be some map program "wierd looking" flight paths at first until you enter the earth's SOI or sphere of influence. There are ways to "tweek" IMFD map program to make the view look more like what you would think a return flight would look like. Hit me up with the same question under my thread above on my tutorial and Ill see if I can further help you.
I dont see this issue as a bug at this time. But I would need more information -in a different thread.
Thanks for your help in "thread addressing" better in the future.