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.

You do, in fact, need direct access to Jeppesen - the database format is proprietary. Jeppesen has no intention of releasing it for nothing, if at all, since the sale of navdata is a cash cow for them. If it were inexpensive or available RXP would have had it long ago. Navigraph uses data that they obtain from a commercial vendor and tailors it to the formats required by the various add-ons they support - no format = no support.DJ

re: "blackworld group"I believe the world is what it is-and one accepts that and deals with it the best they can...The facts have been pretty clearly stated here and on the other threads you link,by many including fellow simmers, pilots, and developers as to why there is not a current database and the problems inherent of getting one...and those facts seem to me to be rather black and white!:(

re: "blackworld group"I believe the world is what it is-and one accepts that and deals with it the best they can...The facts have been pretty clearly stated here and on the other threads you link,by many including fellow simmers, pilots, and developers as to why there is not a current database and the problems inherent of getting one...and those facts seem to me to be rather black and white!:(

Perhaps you've not yet grasped the fact that to disagree with CoolIP viewpoint and or assertions is to be awarded a membership in his "black world group".:( The term does seem to be ill mannered as well as ill defined... Absent a more coherent definition it seems wise to consider that lack of understanding on his part does not equate to wrong doing on others part.:(

Once more this entire discussion is taking place based on a fundamental, erronous assumption, that being that RXP actually has any control whatsoever of the Garmin Trainer(s) used as its basis.One has to understand that RXP didn't code the GPS units at all. It is an extremely clever bit of code that mostly provides a "front end" display in the sim, along with the ability to interact with the Garmin Trainer via the knobs, softkeys, et cetera. To be sure, RXP has also invested a lot of time in getting this to integrate with both FS9 and FSX, but the essential nav data acces and database belong to Garmin.The actual "guts" of the GPS is contained entirely within the Garmin Trainer executables. As a result, the only legal method for database updates would have to come from Garmin itself, and honestly there's absolutely no incentive whatsoever for Garmin to do so. In all the years since Garmin first released their Trainer packages, it has had one -and only one- update to the navigation database. The purpose of the Trainers for Garmin is simply to provide a way for their customers (or prospective customers) to practice the operation of the unit(s), not as a way to review any specific, real world nav approach. The focus of their Trainer(s) is on the hardware, not the data...

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. :(

Come on now....just drink the coolaid and move along. LOL

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.

The point is quite simple.Navdata updates whether real world or sim related come at a sometimes substantial renewal/subscription cost. Ask a real world charter pilot about his renewal/subscription costs.In addition, there are legal hurdles for certain vendors such as RXP.In no place have I stated there is "no need" for sim related DB Updates. In fact we do participate in Navigraph integration into certain products and will continue to do so.What I have stated is that sim DB Update users face the challenges presented by the differences between older DB/Airport/Runway code as contained in FS and newer DB Updates.Those challenges do not simply melt away because someone uses a newer DB. Perhaps this information will help you understand the position of those who do understand that not everything sim users wish for will magically appear.:(

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?

My recollection is RXP's use of Garmin trainer pre-dates the Navigraph Navdata update availability.I don't think they could have foreseen such a database would be regularly up to date and available for flightsim use so cheaply. I believe this only occurred sometime in 2007. IOW its not somethingRXP could have been able to take into account during its development. I still find it hard to believe such a thing exists, considering the price of commercial Navdata from just about every other source.Outside of developing an entirely new product from scratch, the options appear limited, or expensive.Regards.Ernie.

But if the reasons and difficulties are so obvious and clear, why is the statement from RXP unchanged and still offers a 'we're on it', throughout the years?Is that a communication problem or an intention, to keep the customers hoping and calm?The one part of the problem is the lack of data, the other one may be the policy then. In my eyes, the last part is the most severe one and also the factor to stay away from the dev if this intention to just feed the hoping and supporting customers turns out to be true.They don't lead any support charts, that's for sure. Even other devs are complaining that there is zero support when it comes to questions. Some companies promote RXP in a way, offering nice 3D models for the VC. All they get is no attention, same as the customers reporting about this and that and also requesting an update on that mentioned statement.Maybe I get surprised in a few days though, but more likely I won't and therefore add another dev in that small business to the avoidance list. The good thing? The list of friendly companies still is way longer. ^_^Some nice and comprehensive list can be found here (oh, there even is a black part). http://airdailyx.blo.../barometer.html

Your list is most interesting; as one person's opinion, it's certainly worth the paper it's printed on...DJ

But if the reasons and difficulties are so obvious and clear, why is the statement from RXP unchanged and still offers a 'we're on it', throughout the years?Is that a communication problem or an intention, to keep the customers hoping and calm?The one part of the problem is the lack of data, the other one may be the policy then. In my eyes, the last part is the most severe one and also the factor to stay away from the dev if this intention to just feed the hoping and supporting customers turns out to be true.They don't lead any support charts, that's for sure. Even other devs are complaining that there is zero support when it comes to questions. Some companies promote RXP in a way, offering nice 3D models for the VC. All they get is no attention, same as the customers reporting about this and that and also requesting an update on that mentioned statement.Maybe I get surprised in a few days though, but more likely I won't and therefore add another dev in that small business to the avoidance list. The good thing? The list of friendly companies still is way longer. ^_^Some nice and comprehensive list can be found here (oh, there even is a black part). http://airdailyx.blo.../barometer.html

Ah, your own private or not so private consumer advocacy interest at play. It has now become clearer in terms of personal motivation for the judgemental tone...:(

Ah, your own private or not so private consumer advocacy interest at play. It has now become clearer in terms of personal motivation for the judgemental tone...:(

Did you read more than the last sentence of that post?However, thanks for acknowledging my aim for good and honest product support. :( And regarding that list, Aerosoft and some other positively named companies seem to like it, they mention it on their main page. What makes you so negative about it?What's your agenda then, with that great 'simmers are dreaming' statement in mind?

Did you read more than the last sentence of that post?However, thanks for acknowledging my aim for good and honest product support. :( And regarding that list, Aerosoft and some other positively named companies seem to like it, they mention it on their main page. What makes you so negative about it?What's your agenda then, with that great 'simmers are dreaming' statement in mind?

Probably the "The insolent" part. :( Most consumer advocacy groups we've observed tend to be overly biased in the direction of consumers, advocates of the fallacy of the "customer is always right" philosophy, generally unbalanced/unfair in their approach, and of course arrogant in false accusations/black listing if challenged.:(

Probably the "The insolent" part. :( Most consumer advocacy groups we've observed tend to be overly biased in the direction of consumers, advocates of the fallacy of the "customer is always right" philosophy, generally unbalanced/unfair in their approach, and of course arrogant in false accusations/black listing if challenged.:(

And setting up strawmen and then beating the heck out of them - by my count, so far, there are very few people outside of the OP on this forum or on the RXP forum who are in any way deeply excited about the whole subject. Jean-Luc has made the limitations of the RXP architecture quite clear in the past so that those of us who have been around since the beginning understand the situation in terms of the GNS software's capabilities and limitations. RXP makes the gauge functionality very clear in sales copy and the faq. If you want a very good FS simulation of the Garmin GNS530 and GNS430 units, RXP can't be beat and the original FS2004 and FSX databases are well supported. If you want anything other than what is advertised then perhaps you should shop elsewhere - your expectations are your own problem.DJ

Haha, you are of course right, nobody but me really cares about customer service, honest information and value of a product. If a company says 'we're on it' but means 'just shut up and buy', that's very much ok and really my problem to get over with.And see what happens if somebody complains about it ..You are also right that I can't convince any of the Eaglesoft guys (they always come in pairs by the way) or the fellows who think that flight sim people should pay rw prizes (and stay happy about it). Please feel free to ridicule my attitude and break it down to 'the customer is always right and wants everything for free' (what!? you already did that? How wise!) and please disregard the topic, asking for a creative solution, not stereotype statements from some commercially related people.There can't be any interest in customer support, you are again correct, since nobody has clicked this thread, nobody read it and nobody looked in the the RXP forums. If you, as RXP, set up a vague informational statement in your knowledge base but get around the fact to describe the need for rw data updates in the product description itself, you are totally fair of course, honest and adorable. Especially when you tell the guys asking for a real sim solution that you are really on that topic. :(So I must have missed the fact that people are so happy about the customer support shown and I've also missed the across-the-board 'costumer mentality statements' from e. g. Mr. Eaglesoft which clearly show a nice, warm and helpful attitude and the will and ability to explain or discuss things in a friendly manner.It was a pleasure talking to you guys (well, to some it really was, others may have sensed some sort of sarcasms in the above sentences) and if you wonder why people complain about bad service, you may have chosen the wrong business to be in. You may also, and once again, by more part of the problem than of the solution to things like piracy.That's where the mentioned list comes in handy (it gets ridiculed by you of course, who is surprised about that? Other companies like Aerosoft take it for real, who's surprised there?) as you can look up some of the good and some of the other players in that small business. I wished for RXP to join the "good" club, but they don't even react on tickets (describing a flaw in the product), so why was I thinking that they may leave this "informational" path of getting the requests down to zero while still selling nice or no descriptions regarding vital product characters?As said, some of you gave input to work with and look at, some others just did as they did before, behave as Ghandi told us when it comes to opposing attitudes. Ignore, ridicule, fight, .. lose. Surprising thing to happen? For some it (still) seams.I'll leave that thread to the 'boot in people' now, they were once again 'on spot', feeling very confident about that mess they produce, suppressing the helpful and informative statements from people with more open minds and attitudes.Well, your win, gentlemen, if you think so.Unless any useful comments and viewpoints enter the thread, I'm out and leave it up to the readers to decide about the repeating 'he must be insane, he requests service and/or honesty' statements of yours. :(Ah, I can see N400QW writing already .. another nag, nag may come up. Enjoy!

Haha, you are of course right, nobody but me really cares about customer service.....

Please cut the false pretense. You love the sound of strawmen falling while you pretend to care about customers and service. To date I find no record of you having produced anything of value for FS either free or commercial in nature. In addition I find no record of your having assisted anyone in the area of actual customer service.What I do observe is that your pretense is wearing on those who are quite capable of determining for themselves who and what has value in this community.Long before entering the business aspect of FS I was a user who never took the advice of those who "sought to protect me from evil and unscrupulous developers" or mounted their soapboxes under the guise of "consumer advocate."Probably stems from a (rearing which provides) longstanding abilty to think for myself and actually determine my own purchase decisions without all the "customer is always right" whining that occurs these days.Frankly and ironically, "self appointed consumer advocates" actually accomplish very little in the way of true advocacy due to lack of credibility...... :(