To be able to use a dual 430 layout you need to buy Reality XP 430 plus the Unlimited Pack... I don't think that lots of simmers would buy it.For the 430+530 layout you need Reality Xp 430 and 530, but the Unlimited Pack is not compulsory. Understood the difference?

Hi ardix,I guess sorry that I didn't make myself clear.I have the Unlimited, the problem is that the Duke doesn't have a layout option for a panel with dual 430's. Unless I'm missing something.regards,Igor

I have the Unlimited, the problem is that the Duke doesn't have a layout option for a panel with dual 430's. Unless I'm missing something.

No layout for dual 530 or 430.Benjamin

The post on the RXP forum that was responded to was mine. While I won't give specifics, my post was deleted because I expressed that I thought the unlimited pack was vastly overpriced, and before we go down the same road as the posts above, let me explain why:With just the base 430/530 packs, I was able to run more than one unit in the same panel, with crossfill enabled. This is something they're charging an EXTRA $100 for, a capability that's already built into the units that most of us already own. So what is the $100 for? You get TAWS, sure, but most users are just looking for the ability to run a 530/430 or dual of either with crossfill enabled. As for the "additional license" that they sell you with unlimited, hate to say it but you already own it. The base packs each some with 2 units (one capable of nav/com 1, and one capable of nav/com 2.) Like the original Garmins for FS9, when that was all included. Now, I won't post up how to do that here, Im not out to undermine RXP's sales. Some may be quick to call piracy, etc, but remember that I own legal copies of the base 430/530 units, and it is well within my rights to modify them as I own the license. Where this Stems from is simply, WHY is RXP charging the $100? I guess it is business. If you can get people to pay for you to give them a fancy configuration app, that's a great business idea! I did the research and decided to add the command lines into the INI myself, rather than paying for an app to do it for me, and while RXP might not like the idea, the fact is that it's the TRUTH!

Since I kind of took a shot at you I will reply just one time. It is nice that you have the ability and time to modify your equipment as described above. I think my point is that many folks do not have the knowledge or time to attempt such a mod. Your desire to not undermine sales is correct and commendable. It should be noted however that when all of us less knowledgeable folks spend the money for this upgrade we also are supporting a company that adds a lot to our hobby. That support inturn hopefully will motivate developers to continue to work on more upgrades for the future. I am not rich and do not advocate giving them a handout. They do however deserve to be paid fairly for their hard work.

Which is realistic because in a real plane you're either going to have a 530+430 or two 430's. I flew in a Warrior III with 2x 430's. Fairly common for smaller planes. The 530 costs a lot more than the 430.

As far as i know FSX is a simulation not an angry banker waiting for you. And the layout on the VC allow up to 3 GNS 530.

There is no reason that any Dev or company should have to defend their pricing in a forum like this.

I'm a company manager, and if I follow what you said, I will be out of business in hours...I don't see why FSX addon makers have to be immune of criticism.Benjamin

Shivers9,I agree they need to be paid fairly, however in this case I don't think I would consider $100 "fair." pleaseKeep in mind this is of course only my opinion, some may feel even $100 is not enough. While I have no issue forking over for a well made add-on, my intent was to expose this PETICULAR instance as a vastly overpriced add-on. It literally took me 4 minutes to enable crossfill and install a second unit.Our community is small, and while I'd love to see any developer continue to provide products for us at a fair price, I think instances such as this do more to hurt the community than help it. We all enjoy this as a hobby, and some vendors have taken advantage of it a little too much to try and turn a quick buck. I'll reiterate, I have no problem forking over dough for a great add-on, but if I can replicate in 4 minutes what others are paying $100 for, well, maybe I'm in the wrong line of work! ;)

They do however deserve to be paid fairly for their hard work.

Like paying something that you already have in the base pack ?It's getting close to Microsoft DLC stuffBenjamin

That is exactly my point. The feature is already there in the base pack, I'm not going to pay for some stupid utility to add lines in a config file for me.

That is exactly my point. The feature is already there in the base pack, I'm not going to pay for some stupid utility to add lines in a config file for me.

Using that mentality the real world Garmin G1000 already has the synthetic vision programmed in, but requires unlocking the feature which is quite expensive. So you are saying that if you could figure out how to unlock that feature set on your own you believe it is ethical to do so and circumvent paying the programmer/developer for their work? So when you are selling some of your Mazda parts and someone sees something they also want and pocket it without paying for that is OK too?

Absolutely. Car parts on the other hand, that's a material good, different from software. That analogy doesn't quite work.

No they just want fair price.

What is a fair price? That is a matter of opinion - if someone is loaded, $200 is nothing. If you are on welfare, then 20 bucks is too much.No one is making anyone buy anything - it is up to the buyer to determine what is fair, but don't whinge about it if it is outside your price range either because you can't afford it or you deem it not fair. Let your wallet do the talking.I wouldn't work for chicken feed, would you?David

What is a fair price? That is a matter of opinion

No it's a fact.When you buy 6 bottles of good wine you don't expect to pay the same amount for the cheap wooden crate that carry them.When you buy 2 very realistic GPS for FSX, you don't expect to pay 100$ buck to connect them.And no worries, more you have money and more you look closely at price.Benjamin

Using that mentality the real world Garmin G1000 already has the synthetic vision programmed in, but requires unlocking the feature which is quite expensive. So you are saying that if you could figure out how to unlock that feature set on your own you believe it is ethical to do so and circumvent paying the programmer/developer for their work? So when you are selling some of your Mazda parts and someone sees something they also want and pocket it without paying for that is OK too?

To my mind if the solution is editing cfg files then where is the problem? How many people on here have not edited their fsx.cfg for example, you even have to edit various panel.cfg's to add the gauges to the vc's in the first place. If it involves hacks, cracks, hex editing or replacing dll's then that is a different kettle of fish..G

To my mind if the solution is editing cfg files then where is the problem? How many people on here have not edited their fsx.cfg for example, you even have to edit various panel.cfg's to add the gauges to the vc's in the first place. If it involves hacks, cracks, hex editing or replacing dll's then that is a different kettle of fish..G

When the WAAS trainers were released from Garmin the developer for RXP originally was only able to make them work with a single unit at a time and thus released what would work to the simming crowd at a set price point. The programming did not end there and it was many more months of work to find a way to get two units working at the same time, and then communicating with each other. Now I see the attitude here is that this additional time should have been a gift to all as you so deserve anything that someone is willing to do for free... for you with nothing in return. Now the costs probably could have been even higher had Jean Luc done additional coding to individualize the feature sets but then he would have the maintenance nightmare of each version requiring additional support with issues stemming from one version or another. BTW the coding for allowing autopilot input of the glide slope information for GPS derived vertical guidance on approaches was updated for free on all versions. Personally I think Jean Luc should raise the price of both the 430 and 530 and include the cross fill feature and offer the other additional feature sets of the ultimate for a little less. That said I think we are going to see a move of some of the FSX developers to doing primarily commercial software for true training purposes. The return on investment is much higher, less piracy and less dealing with this whiny gimmy attitude that a part of this community is so practiced at.

Absolutely. Car parts on the other hand, that's a material good, different from software. That analogy doesn't quite work.

It's called intellectual property and carrys laws protecting it much like material goods do since some people don't recognize it as being worth anything since you can't hold it in your hand. Picking up a material good and carting off with it without paying for it is the same kind of stealing as using someone elses intellectual property without paying for it. Hits home much harder if it is YOUR intellectual property that is being stolen though.