VC panel integration depends on the respective aircraft developers. There is no magical way for Mindstar to insert their gauges into a VC unless the developer makes that option possible when the VC is modelled. It's not like you can just open up a slot in the VC to insert a 3rd party GPS unit. We all wish it were that easy. I know I do!

 

Hopefully developers will enthusiastically embrace Mindstar's gauges snd make the option for VC integration possible. I asked RealAir if they could do it, and they said integration would essentially require a complete redo of their VC, even though RXP is supported. RXP never made a gauge with 3D bezel and knobs, either.

 

Todd

Yes, I understand the integration is entirely up to the airplane modeler.

 

So, if a developer were to create a 3D representation of the 530/430 they could use the Mindstar 530/430 and it would work like the RXP 530/430 in the RealAir planes (minus the Garmin trainer linkup that RXP uses of course)?

Philip, I really have no idea.  I don't own any of those aircraft and have no idea what events their 3D models may or may not be sending to get the RXP units to see knob and button inputs.

 

Our event support is pretty flexible in our GNS units, so I can't imagine it all being totally impossible.

I'm not trying to throw you for a loop Ed, just wondering if your units could be used in a VC with a 3D representation of them.

 

I'm not asking if I could replace the RXP units in a plane's panel.cfg and it would work, I understand the limitations of that.

A reply today from Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft forum) on the topic : Mindstar GN530 Integration, post #11 (Airac data).

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/74240-mindstar-gns530-integration/
 

Definitely going to wait and see.  This recent discussion sounds like there will be an SDK available in which developers will have access to the a fore mentioned events to add required functionality to 3D elements (i.e. knobs and buttons).  That is a serious plus.

 

However, hearing that the units won't ship with ANY AIRAC at all... yikes... It is going to essentially be a default GPS unless I shell out an additional $40? No thanks.

A reply today from Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft forum) on the topic : Mindstar GN530 Integration, post #11 (Airac data).

 

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/74240-mindstar-gns530-integration/

 

Doesn't change our restrictions we must comply with.

I'm not trying to throw you for a loop Ed, just wondering if your units could be used in a VC with a 3D representation of them.

 

I'm not asking if I could replace the RXP units in a plane's panel.cfg and it would work, I understand the limitations of that.

Philip, short answer yes. I have both gauges working in the A2A cessna 172 and it's VC options were modelled for RXP. In fact, the gauges work flawlessly so far. Buttons and knobs work well, so what was modelled in the VC must match up well with the Mindstar units. The gauges also mostly work in the MilViz Cessna 310 VC but gauge alignment is off so the knobs don't work well. Bill Leaming already said he'll try to fix that once he gets the gauge pack. As for RealAir, they already told me the Mindstar gauges won't work in the Turbine Duke because of the way their VC was modelled for RXP. And I tried to fit the 530 into the Aerosoft Twin Otter unsuccessfully, so the way the VC was modelled obviously prevents that. Inserting the gauges as 2D popup panels in all aircraft works just fine.

 

So, VC integration is possible, as long as the VC is modelled in such a way that integration is allowed.

 

Todd

Thanks Todd!

 

If you got it working in the A2A 172, then with enough tinkering it may be possible to get them to work in the Dukes and Legacy.

 

I look forward to giving it a shot.

Philip, I really have no idea.  I don't own any of those aircraft and have no idea what events their 3D models may or may not be sending to get the RXP units to see knob and button inputs.

 

Our event support is pretty flexible in our GNS units, so I can't imagine it all being totally impossible.

Ed, I'm looking forward to buying these new units when they become available simply so I can quickly provide full VC integration for the B55 E/B and C310R aircraft, and any future aircraft that will use GNS530/430 units.

Ed, I'm looking forward to buying these new units when they become available simply so I can quickly provide full VC integration for the B55 E/B and C310R aircraft, and any future aircraft that will use GNS530/430 units.

That's good to hear Bill, I'm a big fan of the MILVIZ aircraft.

 

Maybe Mindstar could send you a copy of the beta?

 

 

However you could update sim nav data: http://www.aero.sors.fr/navaids3.html

Not tested this myself, but looks good.

 

If you're going to use up to date charts, you probably want to do this anyway, but you need to be aware of the tradeoffs.  They're well documented on the site and in the documentation, and include the fact that this will break the FSX flightplanner, and airways must be turned off for map views to work.  I've been using this for some time with no issues other than the known limits.

 

Also keep in mind that this updates ONLY enroute navaids.  Except for a small number of airports in Europe, anything associated with an airport (on-airport NDB, localizer, or on-airport VOR) is not touched.

 

Scott

 

 

If you're going to use up to date charts, you probably want to do this anyway, but you need to be aware of the tradeoffs...

 

Thanks for clarification, Scott.

If you're going to use up to date charts, you probably want to do this anyway, but you need to be aware of the tradeoffs.  They're well documented on the site and in the documentation, and include the fact that this will break the FSX flightplanner, and airways must be turned off for map views to work.  I've been using this for some time with no issues other than the known limits.

 

Also keep in mind that this updates ONLY enroute navaids.  Except for a small number of airports in Europe, anything associated with an airport (on-airport NDB, localizer, or on-airport VOR) is not touched.

 

Scott

 

(emphasis added by me)

 I think there is one of the answers that I was looking for in another thread that I started about magdec and navaids for P3D.  So even if we were to use this, we'll still run into the situation where the Localizer course is set in 2005, and for all the currency of our Airac cycles or charts, we'll still have to be aware of the 2005 headings in order to fly an accurate instrument approach.  Is that correct?

 

edit: Since the topic is being discussed two places simulataneously, Sam, in the other thread, says that he does see ils allignment.  Ok, I guess I'll have to read more about this.  I guess this is the Mindstar topic, so it looks like we're drifting here. :lol:

 

 

So we'll still run into the situation where the Localizer course is set in 2005, and for all the currency of our Airac cycles or charts, we'll still have to be aware of the 2005 headings in order to fly an accurate instrument approach. Correct?

 

I think the answer is - it depends.  No matter what you do, something's going to be out of whack in FSX/P3D as you've got a mixed bag of old and new.  My preference is to keep the magvar data and enroute navaids as up to date as I can (matching current chart data) and then deal with the airports as I can.  Payware and freeware airports are generally corrected to the time they were published, and I believe that Orbx does the same for the airport updates in their regions.  There are freeware updates available for many fields as well.  As a consequence, many of the places I fly are pretty good, but YMMV.

 

For ILS and localizer approaches in particular, the biggest thing is you're flying the localizer that's actually there represented in the original airport, and that horizontal (and vertical in the case of an ILS) guidance will still be correct relative to the runway.  If it's a few degrees off from the chart, you're probably not going to notice much difference - almost like there's a bit of xwind correction going on.  For non-precision approaches (VOR, NDB), well, they're non-precision anyway.  Most approach fixes will also be close enough for a good experience, even if they've changed at some point in the approach's life.

 

In a practical sense, the biggest problem I actually see is when an on-aiport navaid frequency has been changed, or a new one commissioned.  Even worse, when an entire new airport is built and an old one decommissioned (I'm thinking, for example, of St. George, UT)

 

No approach (sorry, bad pun) to managing all of this is perfect.

 

Scott