Reality XP gauges for FSX/FS9

[Geofa 108]

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..

[CoolP 283]

"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.

[CoolP 283]

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?

[Geofa 108]

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....

[CoolP 283]

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? http://www.simforums...topic38946.html

[Geofa 108]

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? http://www.simforums...topic38946.html

In a perfect world I agree with you.:(

[CoolP 283]

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.

[N400QW 205]

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.

[CoolP 283]

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.

[ryanbatc 12,820]

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.

[CoolP 283]

You name it, Ryan. I'd be ok with old data as long as it isn't as old as the last official update, from Sept 2009. Nobody is asking for wonders to happen but for creative people to start thinking.

[Geofa 108]

You name it, Ryan. I'd be ok with old data as long as it isn't as old as the last official update, from Sept 2009. Nobody is asking for wonders to happen but for creative people to start thinking.

If you looked at the link I supplied I would expect what is being worked on is the ability to get a one time database update or a 28 day subscription for 1-2 grand for all data. http://download.garm..._Price_List.pdfI was lucky as the 28 subcription for a kln94 was only $400 year.If this ability comes out-flight schools will be delighted to be able to update their sims for rw cost-but I bet simmers will not. Just a hunch.There was an excellent article in the American Bonanza Society magazine last month (I unfortunately thru it out) about how it is actually implied in the regs and recently the language has even been clarified more that there actually is no legal requirement to have a current database for a gps to fly ifr-only that the pilot be aware of any changes that have been made in the database-a little bit like the Howie O'keefe charting system.So until if and when an update occurs perhaps a rw technique like this can be practiced and is actually useful...Believe me, there are many pilots that are ticked at Garmin/Jepp and their high priced database updates. On the other hand-the price is probably so high because if they ever screw up with even one waypoint and someone goes down because of that they will of course be sued. Food for thought.P.S. I have no idea what the "black world group" is but thanks for nominating me-I appreciate the gesture and I am sure it is relevent to this discussion.

[CoolP 283]

No problem, Geofa, I did realize that you are posting some input there. I was just stressing (still do) that the approach from the rw data side isn't a thing even close to simmers needs and resources. Maybe those 400 USD are a solution for some, but their numbers may be very low when we're talking about simmers only.For the mixed rw/sim setup, the solution may be well in line though, no question.You first statements just came to easy on the 'pay rw values, dear simmers' thing, so I maybe accidentally put you in some group where you don't belong. Apologies then, honestly.I don't doubt legal dependencies or high prizes when Garmin itself is in the game, but e. g. Navigraph shows that you don't need direct access to Jeppesen to be a happy simmer, a Navigraph subscription works fine there and it was established after the same requests we're now seeing at RXP usable data.My major concern is the will from RXP, to be honest. I can't really see it and that year old statement isn't too convincing in my eyes. Haha, now I'm painting black. Funny thing is that I've received some PMs now, from users stating that, in their eyes, the value of the fine RXP units really drops by huge amounts with old nav data. But I wonder why those guys can't post it in the thread then. Touchy thing? Don't worry, we're still demanding a fair (flight sim focused) solution, for the dev and customer side.

[N400QW 205]

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?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.

FS includes a time stamped (limited) DB which corresponds directly to existing airports at the time stamp date.The challenge for those who use DB paid update subscriptions such as Navigraph which is the service Eaglesoft and others have chosen is that DB updates do not account for (airport and other info) which the simulation has locked down at previous dates.Imagine that an airport has added new runways and frequencies since FS Release and that FS does not include. Newer DB will update frequencies and runway info but the sim airport new runways do not exist. That challenge is met via custom AFCADS.In addition, please note the subscription fees/costs. Finally note the legal restrrictions on vendors such as RXP as pointed out by Geofa.One quick question. Your use of "Black World Group" is puzzling. Can you please define in terms that readers can fully comprehend.?:(

[CoolP 283]

Oh, I've mentioned that FSX database/scenery thing in a previous post. I can't really get to the point of your post. You're saying that e. g. Eaglesoft uses the updated databases but you also question the need for it? This actually puzzles me. But could be that I don't understand it correctly though.Since all major devs take updated nav data into account and offer a opportunity to add current contents for the interested customers (over the Navigraph way), isn't that a valid proof for the big use of such current data in the sim? Now we're talking RXP and have to admit that there's no such nice flight sim focused opportunity. A bid downside, don't you agree?That's what this thread is about and I'm happy about some participation.And that group definition you're asking for is available when looking at the linked thread. I've added the link there, you may click it and read .. some of your statements. :(