Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CoolP

Reality XP gauges for FSX/FS9

Recommended Posts

Maybe a repetitive issue for some of us, but still a current one. The need for somehow current navdata in those fine RXP gauges.There's an interesting thread to follow and maybe support at and you may want to join in to stress the need for some legal update source.Don't get this wrong (and don't post here!), although a free source would be fine of course, a small update fee is well within the limits for us customers asking for current data in the sim. So please follow the thread in full and don't jump on signal words of some kind. :(http://www.simforums.com/forums/can-we-expect-an-alternative-update_topic38946.htmlMy link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe a repetitive issue for some of us, but still a current one. The need for somehow current navdata in those fine RXP gauges.There's an interesting thread to follow and maybe support at and you may want to join in to stress the need for some legal update source.Don't get this wrong (and don't post here!), although a free source would be fine of course, a small update fee is well within the limits for us customers asking for current data in the sim. So please follow the thread in full and don't jump on signal words of some kind. :(http://www.simforums.com/forums/can-we-expect-an-alternative-update_topic38946.htmlMy link
HelloThe problem is Jeppesen don't do "small fees"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe a repetitive issue for some of us, but still a current one. The need for somehow current navdata in those fine RXP gauges.
Out of interest is this an issue for flying "online" with VATSIM or just solo ?? Since the data in FSX itself stays the same I would rather have a set of data that reflects the world as depicted in FSX, I haven't noticed so much on the Reality stuff, but more on the Eaglesoft Citation X....G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Out of interest is this an issue for flying "online" with VATSIM or just solo ?? Since the data in FSX itself stays the same I would rather have a set of data that reflects the world as depicted in FSX,
Good question of course.First item. Offline and online are affected and it depends on the user to demand or recognize the loss of current data.For example, if somebody misses his RNAV approach at his favorite field or is unable to perform the SID or STAR because it isn't stored in the units, this would apply in both regimes of flying.Does not mean that you have the AP connected, you may want to use the GPS for verification and awareness purposes. You can only do this, if you're using the same (mostly current) data as the ATC guy, otherwise you would have to ask for another procedure or you forget about the GPS. But, this forgetting isn't the reason for buying the nice RXP units, right?Also, the world inside FSX isn't as static as one may think. You not only install new (current) scenery, mesh and so on, you also use the already available scenery differently since you can define any waypoint with it's coordinates.So if your ATC knows (and maybe demands) waypoint X from you and your FMC or Reality XP GPS knows about it too, you can fly it although FSX doesn't show it as a defined waypoint. The coordinates alone define it and make it available under a certain name in the gauges, like the one of an intersection or one of those nasty RNAV waypoints with the cryptic names.So the reason for updating the RXP nav data is the same as for updating any FMC bird, the use also is. It depends on the preferences and the usage of the sim. If you just want to fly to that airport, approaching visually and in the way you did it last time, FSX default data and old RXP one will be ok. The airport is most likely included (its location = coordinates) and you may not care much about the current frequencies, approaches and so on.The other guy wants to come in on a current RNAV procedure, using e. g. the fine Duke from Realair and misses all the waypoints in the RXP unit because the data is Sept 2009 only and the approach came in mid 2010.For me and maybe some other guys requesting current data, this lack doesn't really fit into the picture of the great detail of the RXP units itself. You usually buy them because you like to enhance the GPS experience in the sim. If the nav data is one or two months out of date, nobody will complain, but more than a year is a major downside when, for example, more and more RNAV procedures came to live in e. g. 2010.With this in mind, even the somehow static FSX world changes its face here and there. You just use it differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes sense, I was only thinking of the physical world rather than the procedures etc.. .. Pretty new to RXP and use of FMC data in other aircraft .. .. ..G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole chapter is a really interesting one and the RXPs are no doubt a fine piece of software in the sim. :( I'm new to them too.To get a rough number for the mentioned approaches, here's the following site, from the FAA. http://www.faa.gov/a...aches/index.cfmIt offers an Excel table with all current US approaches listed that support/need the RNAV equipment. Pretty interesting read if you want to know about this or that airfield and the supported procedures there.Now, working with it. The latest legal! data from RXP is from Sept 2009, so all approaches which were established after this date will be missing in the units database.You can sort the Excel table to only show all Sept 2009+ things and receive 586 out of 2397. Therfore, those 586 approaches are missing when using the RXP units. This could mean that some airports don't offer RNAV approaches at all or that special ones are missing while others (older ones) are there. This would depend on the location. Check the mentioned table if you like, it's free to download.For example, Washington Muni got it's RNAV procedure for rw18 and rw36 published on the 08. April of 2010. So you need at least some May 2010 file to have it in the GPS. They don't have an ILS there, so the only guidance available is the GPS (which has to be certified and stuff).So if you want to go close to real when the weather is bad there, you can go GPS or have to land elsewhere. The buyer of the nice and fancy RXP units may well want to use them as real as possible, while the default FSX GPS guy may not care and also hasn't spent 50 Dollars per unit.That's the point where the personal preference comes into play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only problem (so far) is the lack of support from RXP and the maybe lack to think outside of the box while using the magic 'yes, stay calm, we're on it' sentence. Details? See the thread. :wink:The user input is and was highly appreciated though, the company one currently isn't even existent. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only problem (so far) is the lack of support from RXP and the maybe lack to think outside of the box while using the magic 'yes, stay calm, we're on it' sentence. Details? See the thread. :wink:The user input is and was highly appreciated though, the company one currently isn't even existent. :(
Off the top of my head Jepp/garmin fees even for non ifr certified databases for units like the 496/696 for complete databases are about $1000/yr. per unit.http://download.garmin.com/avdb/Garmin_Aviation_Database_Price_List.pdfWhat box do you see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What box do you see?
I think I've described it in the thread over there. That's why I put in the link for everybody interested to follow.As the thread itself describes even more, it surely is a good read and a well better place to discuss details and responsibilities or even misconceptions. Sorry for having posted here, my intention was to draw some attention from current RXP users while placing the discussion itself in the right spot, at the dev's place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I've described it in the thread over there. That's why I put in the link for everybody interested to follow.As the thread itself describes even more, it surely is a good read and a well better place to discuss details.
I think you gave the answer with "legal window" in the first post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you read on?Quoting myself from the first post here.

So please follow the thread in full and don't jump on signal words of some kind
And, without wanting to sound rude, the statement showed its need once more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you read on?
Yes I did.You might be surprised that there are the same threads on rw pilot boards. We are getting chissled by database fees everywhere. The costs are astronomical.I more than anyone would like a more recent database for reality xp-but lawsuits, copyrights, and high database fees are the reality right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, that might be the wrong impression of yours. I'm (and the other customers there are) talking about a flight sim based solution. Like Navigraph for example shows it to be valid, legal, affordable.I didn't buy gauges for my real Cessna 172, I bought some for FSX.I was asking the 'did you read on?' question because I've explained the responsibilities over there and also showed, that I'm not a Garmin customer but a RXP one. I'm also not a Boeing customer, but a PMDG, Level D or Captain Sim one and they set up a deal with Navigraph to fill their FMCs in a somehow current manner.So if RXP would set up one too, with Garmin or some other supplier, they would have made come true what they are stating with that 'we're on it' sentence.Currently, if you follow the thread and the older ones regarding this issue, the impression is that this statement was given with just one purpose as the other users (even the commercial ones) explained this lack to be present since years, without a single progress report or the honest denial instead of 'please wait some more' or that silence. I'm open to stay corrected about the mentioned purpose of the statement of course. It represents my current impression.So, honestly, breaking it down to a simple 'real pilots have to pay this or that too' is not only too simple, it is wrong when looking at some very current and working flight sim only solutions. I t takes a will from the company side to achieve this and the thread may point to a lack of this will.I don't think that an upcoming FSL Airbus or the PMDG NGX which may use some real world data format in the sim (would be a first) require the sim pilot to buy real world data from Jeppesen or some other company like it, at real world costs. So you may catch my drift there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only problem (so far) is the lack of support from RXP and the maybe lack to think outside of the box while using the magic 'yes, stay calm, we're on it' sentence. Details? See the thread. :wink:The user input is and was highly appreciated though, the company one currently isn't even existent. :(
"Lack of support"? If Jeppesen/Garmin won't agree to make affordable updates for simmers then what is RXP supposed to do exactly? Don't think other companies haven't asked about this type of thing before too - we would love to have the real life Jepp data, but the answer is always the same - "Sure, we can do that, it'll just be (insert huge amount of money here)."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, that might be the wrong impression of yours. I'm (and the other customers there are) talking about a flight sim based solution. Like Navigraph for example shows it to be valid, legal, affordable.I didn't buy gauges for my real Cessna 172, I bought some for FSX.I was asking the 'did you read on?' question because I've explained the responsibilities over there and also showed, that I'm not a Garmin customer but a RXP one. I'm also not a Boeing customer, but a PMDG, Level D or Captain Sim one and they set up a deal with Navigraph to fill their FMCs in a somehow current manner.So if RXP would set up one too, with Garmin or some other supplier, they would have made come true what they are stating with that 'we're on it' sentence.Currently, if you follow the thread and the older ones regarding this issue, the impression is that this statement was given with just one purpose as the other users (even the commercial ones) explained this lack to be present since years, without a single progress report or the honest denial instead of 'please wait some more' or that silence. I'm open to stay corrected about the mentioned purpose of the statement of course.So, honestly, breaking it down to a simple 'real pilots have to pay this or that too' is not only too simple, it is wrong when looking at some very current and working flight sim only solutions. I t takes a will from the company side to achieve this and the thread may point to a lack of this will.
What makes you think that Navigraph can be legally imported into a sanctioned Garmin trainer without threat of a lawsuit to all parties..? Garmin is in control not only of simmers but a great deal of rw aviation. The please wait more is probably from the Garmin lawyers.It really is simple-it is about who owns the data, and lawsuits.Seems simmers expect more..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Lack of support"? If Jeppesen/Garmin won't agree to make affordable updates for simmers then what is RXP supposed to do exactly? Don't think other companies (hint hint) haven't asked about this type of thing before too - we would love to have the real life Jepp data, but the answer is always the same - "Sure, we can do that, it'll just be (insert huge amount of money here)."
Do you see any of such statements on the RXP site or do you see the same thing every customers does? 'Please be patient, we're on it'.Ryan, your company did the right thing, go with Navigraph to enable some flight sim based opportunity. That's a big difference to 'please wait' for years and do nothing (or at least not talking about it), don't you agree?As already pointed out, a honest 'sorry, folks, RXP will never be able to offer some flight sim based data at flight sim based prizes' would be highly appreciated, but it isn't there, it never was.One part of the thread also points to the not so clear description about the nice and close to real gauges. You really have to search that 'oops, ain't no current nav data' statement, otherwise you will miss it and may think that the professional touch of the product is reflected in whole, operational and data base aspect. It currently isn't and probably never will.I did point out here and there that this database aspect is a personal reference thing. Some may be ok, some others may be not. I was assuming that quite some RXP users aren't happy about the lack there as they've spent at least 50 Dollars on fancy gauges to realise that the nav data isn't current, with no sim based solution to come.They've only bought sim gauges, so they may like to use them in full there, which includes current data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems simmers expect more..
I don't have the impression that you took the name Navigraph as the thing it was meant to be, an example.Sorry that you seem to think that 'Seems simmers expect more..". Currently, I see some simmers to have opened a dialog opportunity, nothing more, nothing less. So whatever you are breaking down there, it may be more severe than it really is, Sir.To get to the point of the thread (here and there), doesn't the Navigraph example show you that it is possible to develop a sim based solution? I mean, what were people thinking before Navigraph came up with that service and some simmers requested to go cheaper than a few thousand dollars per year on their sim FMC planes?History repeated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't have the impression that you took the name Navigraph as the thing it was meant to be, an example.Sorry that you seem to think that 'Seems simmers expect more..". Currently, I see some simmers to have opened a dialog opportunity, nothing more, nothing less. So whatever you are breaking down there, it may be more severe than it really is, Sir.To get to the point of the thread (here and there), doesn't the Navigraph example show you that it is possible to develop a sim based solution? I mean, what were people thinking before Navigraph came up with that service and some simmers requested to go cheaper than a few thousand dollars per year on their sim FMC planes?
If you are a real 172 owner I assume you do not have a ifr gps that needs to be updated every 28 days or you would truly understand the costs involved of doing so.Do you understand that the reality xp simulation is a Garmin trainer licensed by them and therefore can only use data licenced by them?A "sim based solution" would open reality xp and every user to a possibility of a lawsuit.I wish it could be different as much as you do-but there is reality beyond the name Realityxp....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are a real 172 owner I assume you do not have a ifr gps that needs to be updated every 28 days or you would truly understand the costs involved of doing so.Do you understand that the reality xp simulation is a Garmin trainer licensed by them and therefore can only use data licenced by them?A "sim based solution" would open reality xp and every user to a possibility of a lawsuit.I wish it could be different as much as you do-but there is reality beyond the name Realityxp....
I already gave some outside of the box examples and I've also shown that you don't buy at Garmin as a RXP customer, you buy at RXP. So the whole legal and license stuff is located right there and is pure company-to-company-business. What currently happens is that some honest customers request an update on the progress instead of 'wait some more' statements and not so clear product descriptions.So if RXP really is on a solution for flight sim purposes, they should give an update. If they can't achieve it for whatever reason, they should point that out too. If they can only achieve it with some extra costs, they should inform us and maybe come to a point where some interest from the simmer's side is enough to start a service. Just plain and simple examples here, nothing more.If this really is too much to ask for and if this avoidance of illegal update paths from my side is a thing to complain about, then I really don't know where the focus of this behaviour is located. It may be well off the customer friendly side.And, yes, I'm educated in legal things, their radius and some enforceable or not so enforceable facts, same as on that other thread where the whole breaking-it-down-process sometimes showed a severe lack of understanding and attitude. :smile:My credo is that it takes a will to achieve solutions suitable for both sides, company and customer. That will has to be developed and requests often enough show the current lack for it.So it can only get better and the first steps are to read, listen and understand what was said.Did I mention the thread in the RXP forums? Batting%20Eyelashes.gifhttp://www.simforums...topic38946.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I already gave some outside of the box examples and I've also shown that you don't buy at Garmin as a RXP customer, you buy at RXP. So the whole legal and license stuff is located right there and is pure company-to-company-business. What currently happens is that some honest customers request an update on the progress instead of 'wait some more' statements and not so clear product descriptions.So if RXP really is on a solution for flight sim purposes, they should give an update. If they can't achieve it for whatever reason, they should point that out too. If they can only achieve it with some extra costs, they should inform us and maybe come to a point where some interest from the simmer's side is enough to start a service. Just plain and simple examples here, nothing more.If this really is too much to ask for and if this avoidance of illegal update paths from my side is a thing to complain about, then I really don't know where the focus of this behaviour is located. It may be well off the customer friendly side.And, yes, I'm educated in legal things, their radius and some enforceable or not so enforceable facts, same as on that other thread where the whole breaking-it-down-process sometimes showed a severe lack of understanding and attitude. :smile:My credo is that it takes a will to achieve solutions suitable for both sides, company and customer. That will has to be developed and requests often enough show the current lack for it.So it can only get better and the first steps are to read, listen and understand what was said.Did I mention the thread in the RXP forums? Batting%20Eyelashes.gifhttp://www.simforums...topic38946.html
In a perfect world I agree with you.:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a perfect world I agree with you.:(
Maybe an off topic question.Are you maybe a part of the 'black world' group? This would explain this fixed viewpoint which I can and have to respect, but won't understand with the arguments given, especially when breaking it down is done so roughly. Apologies for pointing that out so clearly.But no harm done so far and maybe some viewpoints added to the reader's eye.The positive and willing approach gave the flight sim community things like the cheap and fairly accurate Navigraph service. Lets see how the RXP solution develops. I think that requesting one is a very valid and not too naive thing to do.Regarding the topic, I would be very pleased to get corrected about the motives shown and the lack of will to get to a flight sim based solution. So far, I have fancy gauges (they are really good) with old(er) nav data and no legal or close to sim regime costs way to update them. Sad fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe an off topic question.Are you maybe a part of the 'black world' group? This would explain this fixed viewpoint which I can and have to respect, but won't understand with the arguments given, especially when breaking it down is done so roughly. Apologies for pointing that out so clearly.But no harm done so far and maybe some viewpoints added to the reader's eye.The positive and willing approach gave the flight sim community things like the cheap and fairly accurate Navigraph service. Lets see how the RXP solution develops. I think that requesting one is a very valid and not too naive thing to do.Regarding the topic, I would be very pleased to get corrected about the motives shown and the lack of will to get to a flight sim based solution. So far, I have fancy gauges (they are really good) with old(er) nav data and no legal or close to sim regime costs way to update them. Sad fact.
"but there is reality beyond the name Realityxp...." :( You'll do well if you ponder Geofas answer rather than accusing him of being a member of a "black world group". Simmers are prone to "dreaming a little dream" without regard to the realities of whatever their latest request/demand happens to be.A simple understanding of the challenges and motivating factors involved should help you adjust to the "sad facts" of some sim situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any statement or attitude to be revised, Sir. A personal viewpoint is what it is, a viewpoint. Read, understand, agree or disagree there, as you like. I'm doing the same, respecting people. The topic was about some customer requests, it still is. If the guys from the one world interact with the ones from the black one, nobody will get upset, but is able to read about attitudes, arguments and sometimes facts.Regarding facts ..

Simmers are prone to "dreaming a little dream" without regard to the realities of whatever their latest request/demand happens to be.
Superb summarization of your very attitude and viewpoints. Seems like your realities were already measured here. Aerosoft currently is happy to be on top of that list and promotes it, so it may have some weight. See your placement there?On topic.I'd really like to see and state that RXP listens to their customers too or at least gives updates on the progress towards a nice and acceptable solution, for both sides, legal and fair. That's a honest wish and existing examples show that it can happen.I don't think that anybody questions the value that current nav data has when using the RXP flight sim units. I really doubt that every customer goes "direct-to" like on the default GPS and I also doubt that the rather simple equation of 'pay real world prizes or fly old' does justice to flight sim needs, the needs of your customers. Needs which already are getting successfully fulfilled with e. g. that fine Navigraph service. That solution is a role model for creative, constructive and realistic thinking.So if you don't have more to say than that 'flight simmers are dreaming' thing, your input here may be of low value for the readers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are a real 172 owner I assume you do not have a ifr gps that needs to be updated every 28 days or you would truly understand the costs involved of doing so.
Another perfect reason to file /A lol!Anyway, I'd love to see a legal way to obtain new data. It's unfortunate that they couldn't reduce cost for flight simulation, heck it's not even an FAA FTD, it's only for entertainment purposes. Or, give us flight simmers the old data, ie - six month old data. At work we have to continually update our charts and just end up throwing away the old ones. Seems like such a waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...