Where is the Mindstar support forum? Before I buy a new product I always browse the support forums for tips, tricks and experiences.

Yesterday I thought there was a forum button but it gave me an error.

We are a software company. We don't do 3D models of anything.

 

I suspect you'll find that as long as your 3D models are accurate with respect to dimensions and positions of knobs and buttons as compared to the real-world units... things will line up.

 

Ed, how about if you partner up for creation of a 3D SDK with someone like Milviz? They give you the 3D models and 3D mappings and whatnot at the end of the project, and I'm sure there's stuff that would help them in turn - not for me to speculate about though.

 

Please understand that I'm only making suggestions here, but if there was VC integration for the premier GA planes out there, both of your products would be an instant buy for me (and not just for me I believe):

- your products receive active support

- your products are reasonably priced

- your products databases can be updated by 'normal' FSX means (though obviously I'd ask for Navigraph support next )

- you are in a position (re SDK and active development) to achieve a level of market penetration that means Mindstar is a company to place my bets with, as a customer

 

I mean... how about, once you are readily integrated with the products of the companies I named above, you consider doing one or two autopilot gauges as well? Work around that limitation you mentioned, further increase market share, etc... might only work with plane developers who are willing to interface with your AP gauges on a sufficiently low level, no idea. But this is something that can be demand-driven, and it appears there are some out there willing to cooperate. In the end such cooperations will be win-win-win situations: 

1. You win, because you can sell more products to more people

2. The plane developers win, because they get more functionality for lesser cost, compared to having develop the umpteenth realistic implementation of the XY gauge themselves

3. Customers win, because the scaling involved for Mindstar and plane devs means that the end product can be more affordable - plus we get all those nifty avionics into our high-quality plane models

 

Ok I'm having visions again, I should go see a doctor. But please have a think about it...?

Todd, thanks for the summary. Much appreciated.

 

Is there a noticeable performance cost to these gauges? In my opinion, one of the pluses for the RXP units has been the negligible performance hit, I'd be interested to know if these are similar in that regard.

I haven't noticed any performance hit. That being said, I also don't watch my FPS like a hawk like some do, so I haven't a clue if FPS drops or not. I do know that my sim stays very smooth with it in use and have had zero OOM's.

 

Todd

RealAir has told me if enough people express interest, they will consider making the VC of both the Duke and Turbine Duke compatible

Sign me up! I have been putting around in P3Dv2 with the Turbine/Piston Duke far too long now! Do we email Rob to express our interest in this?

I've been happy with the answers provided by Mindstar (Ed) and plan on picking up these gauges!

Until then, the 2D version of the gauge works fine in the Turbine Duke (and I assume piston Duke as well)

Todd

Once installed, do the Mindstar GNS430/530 units automatically appear as 2D gauges in all aircraft or just the default aircraft?

 

Is there any manual configuration to the Duke's panel.cfg file required to get the 2D gauge to work? If so, where can I find instructions to properly do this?

 

Does the installer give you option to install into FSX and/or P3Dv2 or do you have to port it over for use into P3Dv2?

 

Thanks in advance for your replies.

Is there an open tech support forum?

 

Does it do Crossfill?

 

Where is the features list (product spec) .. things it does do?

Ed, how about if you partner up for creation of a 3D SDK with someone like Milviz? They give you the 3D models and 3D mappings and whatnot at the end of the project, and I'm sure there's stuff that would help them in turn - not for me to speculate about though.

Simply creating the 3d mesh and texture bitmaps is fairly trivial. However, that and gauges alone won't accomplish anything at all...

 

You see, the individual developers would still have to take the 3d mesh and integrate it into their models, add the required control scripts to their modeldef.xml file, and then export and compile entirely new models!

 

Adding stuff to a 3d virtual cockpit is not just a matter of making a few panel.cfg file entries...

 

So, while there would be some (possible) advantage to providing integrated and optional support for these new units, it will be most (potentially) profitable if done on current works-in-progress.

 

Retro-fitting such support into already released models however is much less likely to occur, since it would involve quite a bit of work for what would, in truth, likely result in very marginal returns on investment.

 

In all candor, since currently these are the only option for Prepar3D, that is where most development work will be focused, and that frankly depends entirely on how well this new platform is accepted. ^_^

Simply creating the 3d mesh and texture bitmaps is fairly trivial. However, that and gauges alone won't accomplish anything at all...

 

You see, the individual developers would still have to take the 3d mesh and integrate it into their models, add the required control scripts to their modeldef.xml file, and then export and compile entirely new models!

 

Adding stuff to a 3d virtual cockpit is not just a matter of making a few panel.cfg file entries...

 

So, while there would be some (possible) advantage to providing integrated and optional support for these new units, it will be most (potentially) profitable if done on current works-in-progress.

 

Retro-fitting such support into already released models however is much less likely to occur, since it would involve quite a bit of work for what would, in truth, likely result in very marginal returns on investment.

 

In all candor, since currently these are the only option for Prepar3D, that is where most development work will be focused, and that frankly depends entirely on how well this new platform is accepted. ^_^

 

Bill, sounds like you know a lot better than I what you're talking about; I'm aware that a VC designer still would have to integrate the gauge 3D model into his cockpit, however I would be under the impression that you copy-paste the gauge model into your cockpit project, place it accordingly and that should be that? 

Or lets turn this around: which task, in the process of integrating a 3D Garmin Gauge, takes 6 months of work? And can this effort be reduced by providing integration templates to plane designers? If so, how would those templates have to look?

 

I'm happy with Mindstar only being an option for future aircraft (as I currently consider the Turbine Duke v2 to be such a future aircraft ), and I've no issue with P3Dv2 either - would probably be the tipping point for me to migrate...

 

 

which task, in the process of integrating a 3D Garmin Gauge, takes 6 months of work?

Neither one! It would be more like maybe 6 days at maximum, and that would include creating the requisite artwork for the model's texture(s).

 

It might take another week or thereabouts to create and test whatever mechanism the developer chooses to make the option "selectable" by the user, whether by a custom Configuration Manager, or some other manual method.

Neither one! It would be more like maybe 6 days at maximum, and that would include creating the requisite artwork for the model's texture(s).

 

It might take another week or thereabouts to create and test whatever mechanism the developer chooses to make the option "selectable" by the user, whether by a custom Configuration Manager, or some other manual method.

 

Ok - I gladly accept that as an answer and retract my initial proposal if that's the case.

 

I was given the 6 months number by a aircraft addon developer for inclusion of the Reality XP gauges, that's why I was proposing that Mindstar do something to get this number down for their product. 

A few pages back, Ed stated:

 

 

Open a Garmin manual for the 430 or 530 and take a look. That's the way we created the way everything looks, based on the actual Garmins and what they display.

 

I was wondering if someone who has purchased the Mindstar 430/530 unit could comment on the depth of the functionality that is simulated? I use the RXP 430 to fly procedures in the sim and increase my familiarity with the 430 for the RW planes I fly. As such, it's imperative that the bulk of the functionality of the real unit be there in the flight sim version (flight planning, editing routes, cursor capability, vertical speed required, terrain maps, coupled approaches, etc. are all useful to me). I'm not super thrilled about the third party AIRAC data - third party as opposed to the most commonly used sources - but at least it IS updatable and even better if the units work in P3dV2. 

I purchased it, but cannot figure out how to get it to display!

 

Frank

Frank, I was in the same boat as you.  Send an email to support_at_mindstaraviation_dot_com.  Documentation is scant and I can see that it'll take some work to puzzle this out, but they already responded to my first help request in short order.

 

Trevor, I'd hold off for the moment.  I''m pretty sure terrain isn't modeled, and I just tried to activate the cursor feature you mention but to no avail. I'm not experienced with these units; but you might want to wait for more user feedback.

As far as I can see it is installs into the default C172 among others in FSX. First thing to strike me with the latest Realnav database update is that airspace boundaries around my home airport YMMB appear to be default FS data. See picture - this is a big downer for me to start with (forgive my image post - not much experience at it)