You can put an RXP GNS430W in the panel if you would like a moving mapand all the other good stuff, like LPV landings, that the 430w offers..

almst afraid to ask you. The 340 is instead of the trimble? Do you have a panel.cfg? Does it interfere with 3d knobs?Rob

almst afraid to ask you. The 430 is instead of the trimble? Do you have a panel.cfg? Does it interfere with 3d knobs?Rob

It works OK... just remove any references to the Trimble in all windowsand create a new popup for the 430W.//--------------------------------------------------------[Vcockpit01]....//gauge06=DA.PA31SYS!ADI,1024,899,390,392gauge06=RXPFLT!KI256,1024,899,386,388....//gauge60=DA.PA31Avionics!T2000,1412,1828,634,220gauge60=rxpgns!gns430,1412,1828,634,226

Thanks Bert, it's much appreciated! And it looks great! Never have been a big fan of the Trimble.

The Carenado C172N, C152 and the F1 C172R models were formidable. Dave.

Hi Krister,You raise a good point, in that I probably under-estimate how much cfg/air-file editing I end up doing to Carenado Models. The credit I will give Carenado, is that their releases aren't blatent compromises.. ie.. just using a generic set of files (air/cfg) and then trimming around the obvious edges to make then "fit". With some payware, I've literally just started from scratch.. going through a generic air-file, item by item, and then creating completely new cfg file. Carenado models don't require that much effort.. But again, some of their stuff is WAY off, when rigidly flight-tested.I think, like most models (payware of freeware), they aim for EASY, as opposed to REALISTIC flight-dynamics. That's the best way I can put it. And if realism suffers (as in the ridiculous performance envelope for the initially realeased Caravan), so be it. And I can live with that, because they give us the best foundation to work with; especially for the price.As for sharing my modifications.. man, that would be tricky. Not only do I modify flight dynamics; I only keep one livery (loading time and aircraft-selection screen clutter).. and that livery is redone at super-high resloution (2048X2048) (many hours spent on the "enlarged" details) .. (good time to thank the people at OZX for some of the 2048X2048 "Redux" on many Carenado models)... So it's not a simple upload/share to be super-imposed on an existing installation. I wouldn't want to get into that can-o-worms, nor worry about copyright stuff.Even if you're interested in having re-named, un-referenced copies of my cfg and air-file sent to you; to use at your own risk... no support, or help in using them.. there are also gauge modifications set to match realistic performnce(re-done ASI, customized MP/Tach bitmaps and XML coding). In order to share this with simmers at large, it would end up being a full-time job.. :Nail Biting:EDIT.. change 2048X2048 to 4096X4096 :(

Have you modified the PA28 Archer II? I fly it in real life and (imho) the Carenado one lacks a lot in flight dynamics. I hate also other stuff, for example:- no rudder trim modelled- no "TAS knob" in the ASI- way of operating radios (it's the same for all Carenados... I prefer Realair "click and drag"... but this is only my opinion).- you need too much power to let the plane taxi... I use about 1100 RPM in real life, If I do the same on FSX, nothing moves.I really would like to know your opinion about this Brett. :wink:Regards.PS I'm not an experienced pilot, only an ATPL student. (110 h total time, about 70 h on PA28 series).

If you spend a lot of time in the sim and go flying real world don't tell them you fly in the sim which means you really have to watch cause the instructors will know cause simmers have a habit of always looking at the instruments and that will give you away.

If you want to test your engine out capability with multi engine GA planes there's no real alternative to the Milviz Cessna 310.Presently its the only GA plane which simulates flight at and even below Vmca extremely accurate.It's the only plane even real GA multi engine pilots at Avsim recommend for engine out training.

If you spend a lot of time in the sim and go flying real world don't tell them you fly in the sim which means you really have to watch cause the instructors will know cause simmers have a habit of always looking at the instruments and that will give you away.

True for vfr flying, obviously not true for ifr training .

Have you modified the PA28 Archer II? I fly it in real life and (imho) the Carenado one lacks a lot in flight dynamics. I hate also other stuff, for example:- no rudder trim modelled- no "TAS knob" in the ASI- way of operating radios (it's the same for all Carenados... I prefer Realair "click and drag"... but this is only my opinion).- you need too much power to let the plane taxi... I use about 1100 RPM in real life, If I do the same on FSX, nothing moves.I really would like to know your opinion about this Brett. :wink:Regards.PS I'm not an experienced pilot, only an ATPL student. (110 h total time, about 70 h on PA28 series).

I never bought the Carenado Archer... I think it's because there's like a yoke mounted GPS modeled in ? I get rid of all GPS gauges.. usually requires re-rexturing the VC panel bitmap.. The TAS dial is a biggy to me.. For their Saratoga, I had to "borrow" the ASI from their Mooney, and re-do the color arcs For Saratoga speeds.. I think I had to re-do the TAS card too..ANYway.. I obviously can't test it, and offer an opinion. If you know how to manipulate VC gauges.. I could re-do the Mooney ASI for Archer arcs...

True for vfr flying, obviously not true for ifr training .

Lol you better look with IFR ;-)

I never bought the Carenado Archer... I think it's because there's like a yoke mounted GPS modeled in ? I get rid of all GPS gauges.. usually requires re-rexturing the VC panel bitmap.. The TAS dial is a biggy to me.. For their Saratoga, I had to "borrow" the ASI from their Mooney, and re-do the color arcs For Saratoga speeds.. I think I had to re-do the TAS card too..ANYway.. I obviously can't test it, and offer an opinion. If you know how to manipulate VC gauges.. I could re-do the Mooney ASI for Archer arcs...

Thanks. I only wanted to know your opinion. I don't fly virtual Archer anymore.

Lol you better look with IFR ;-)

? I don't understand the meaning, sorry.

If you want to test your engine out capability with multi engine GA planes there's no real alternative to the Milviz Cessna 310.Presently its the only GA plane which simulates flight at and even below Vmca extremely accurate.It's the only plane even real GA multi engine pilots at Avsim recommend for engine out training.

Thanks for the tip Bernt,I didn't even know that developer existed but I'm hovering my mouse pointer over the purcahse button right now. Pretty cheap also!

If I may, the product is not cheap in any way. It's merely inexpensive. Certainly not cheap. Not at all!

I've been putting it off for a while but I owe it to myself to buy the 310 hehe!

Thanks. I only wanted to know your opinion. I don't fly virtual Archer anymore.? I don't understand the meaning, sorry.

Well that's easy when flying IFR traiing you better look a lot to you're instruments :(