I've got the RXP 430 WAAS (x2), GMA340 and GTX 327 in my C310R and they work beautifully in this magical airplane.

 

You may also notice that I have a non-standard (older style) AP in my C310 as I find the KAP140 / KFC225 style autopilots dull, and 'default-like'. :smile:

 

[CLICK PIC, to see full size]

 

Hi Dave,

 

Any chance you can share your panel.cfg file?  I assume you use all RXP avionics? I have them as well but I have not put them in the C310 yet.

 

Thanks in advance,

How did you remove the default KAP140? I'm using the GFC700 that comes with the MindStar G1000. I inactivated the KAP140 by placing // in front of the gauge wherever it is listed but the gauge is still there (albeit not operational).

 

Todd

Yes, the VC was deliberately designed with the exact same knob placement for both our XML G1000 version and the Mindstar G1000 version.

I wish more developers had your foresight and flexibility.

 

Todd

Here's the MilViz C310 with MindStar G1000 (VC Cockpit) and GFC700 AP.  The KAP140 is inactivated in the panel.cfg file but the gauge remains. If you use the MindStar G1000, select the Baron profile (Profile 12)  in the setup utility.

 

I'm thinking about this Mindstar G1000 option, but I've just encountered an early roadblock to those plans.  I've had the C310 for quite a long time, but I've never flown the 'default' G1000 that came with the airplane.  I loaded up the basic G1000 VC tonight to see what we're dealing with, and noticed that there is a really big uglybugley gap between the panel and the glareshield, right there in front of the pilot.  The outside scenery can be seen through it, and it is quite a large gap, so there is no ignoring it.  It's only present on the G1000 VC model, not the analog.  You can't see it in the twharrell screenshot above, because his eyepoint is too high.  Bill, are you aware of this, and are there any plans to get it fixed up?

Here's the MilViz C310 with MindStar G1000 (VC Cockpit) and GFC700 AP. The KAP140 is inactivated in the panel.cfg file but the gauge remains. If you use the MindStar G1000, select the Baron profile (Profile 12) in the setup utility.

 

I didn't think the Mindstar G1000 worked in the VC....thanks!

Oh, it works alright. Make sure you download the latest upgrade, which includes the ability to update the nav data. It's best to contact MindStar directly about the upgrade as their forums are down due to their website being hacked. you can also reach them on Facebook. The developer is very responsive.

 

 

And, yes, the gap is there. I have made MilViz aware of the issue and they are looking into it. I think right now they are putting all their efforts into the 737, since it's release had to be delayed, so give them some time to address it.

 

Todd

I'm gonna throw a curve-ball here.. But first let me say that I've always felt cheated out of being able to sim-fly turbine aircraft, due to the horrific, MSFS turbine engine modeling.

 

After some research, and forum-learned tweaks; the Carenado Caravan ended up being a "decent" turbine model (I know, not a twin).. but the whole game changed, when I took a chance on the highly-praised, PMDG J41 (I know, too big).

 

Recently, via trusted advice, I bought the Carenado B200. It's a standard-setter for model/texture quality, inside and out.. the sounds are amazing.. the performance and handling are great and accurate, and the turbine-engine modeling surpasses even the PMDG J41.. from spool-up, right down to FF/prop-rpm relationship.

 

With the recent release of the RealAir B200, I feel I might have jumped too soon... but I do have the RealAir turbine Duke... very nice, but not near the model quality of the Carenado B200, albeit decent turbine modeling. I like the idea of the RealAir B200's damage/maintanence modeling, but I hate glass cockpits. The icing modeling is neat, but I have that in the J41.. it's mostly a novelty after the first few flights.

 

The curve ball ? Welllll, as far as total package, emmersion, flight-dynamics, but most importantly..just really feeling like you're really flying an airplane (twin)... the old Carenado Seneca is still the ticket. I cannot fully explain this, it just "is" ..

 

RealAir B200's damage/maintanence modeling

 

You mean the Flight1 B200, right?

 

BTW: Do you confirm that it mantains FF as Prop RPM is varied, as it should, being a PT-6 free-running turb?

 

 

RealAir B200's damage/maintanence modeling

 

 

You mean the Flight1 B200, right?

 

BTW: Do you confirm that it mantains FF as Prop RPM is varied, as it should, being a PT-6 free-running turb?

 

 

Ahh, yes, the Flight1 B200 (I get confused)

 

Are you asking about the Carenado B200 (PT-6) FF/RPM ? If so, yes.. the FF doesn't follow Prop RPM. I'll take it up for a flight in a sec, and report back any fluctuations.

 

Even with turbines that have the prop/engine mechanically tied.. FF is still mostly a function of throttle setting.. not like a piston-engine where fuel-flow IS a function of RPM.

OK... quick flight.. cruise-power at 7000msl .. changing only prop-rpm..

 

 

Edit: I'm unfamiliar with the image uploading here.. I think it worked.. one image at 1700rpm.. one at 1900rpm..

Perfect!  Thank you!

What am I seeing here? This is Flight1 B200. The throttle setting for both props is the same, prop levers separated. The fuel flow is different for the engines. What does this mean regards modeling?

 

 

It's a small difference, but you should see the same FF.

_{Your prop syn indicator shows you have more power going to the right engine, that is why you are seeing the difference. Syn your props and it should show the same.}

 

_Cheers

_Martin

It's a small difference, but you should see the same FF.

Looks to be about the same as the default King Air.