I confess.................I literately can't stand that ancient video. I admit, I'm a GPS fanatic. I've been one since I started using aviation moving map GPS's in 1993, for real life flight. As I've stated countless times over the years, that video was produced on the heels of an American Airlines 757 crash in the mountainous area of Buga, Columbia. The year was 1996.  Almost everything that went wrong in the crash, with much being attributed to over reliance on the on-board navigation systems................would have been solved (at a glance) with today's GPS systems including many portable handhelds. A typical Cessna (glass equipped) trainer has GPS information that would have told those pilots exactly where they were, where they had been, and would have warned of rising mountainous terrain for hundreds of miles in advance. In 1996, they had around 14 seconds.

 

Much of my aviation life, evolved around CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) accidents, and the prevention of. I became highly interested after a United Airlines DC-8 smashed into the mountain very close to home in 1977.  I'd often overfly accident sites, to compare modern terrain data base navigation, to the old school methods. It's a night and day comparison.

 

It is true, that you have to figure it out. It takes book work and practice.  You just can't jump into a plane with unfamiliar GPS systems, and do well.  I still go crazy every time "Children of the magenta line" is mentioned, as a reference of being over reliant, and that old school is somehow preferable.  It wasn't stated that way in this thread, but it sure has been, over and over.  There is a reason that we don't suffer a yearly average of three CFITs out here in the mountain west anymore. Same for Alaska.

 

Other than that, I agree with Real Airs position on glass. I seldom use glass for flight simulation. To do it correctly, as has been stated, involves far excess programming. The screens are too small to be meaningful, unless they cover most everything else with pop ups.  For real life cockpit use, I could quickly glance at the screen, while watching everything else, that isn't on the GPS screens. I think that old school nav gives the simmer more to do. The scenery just isn't quite as exciting as all of that real life scenery that's so close to here. Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, lots of national parks, etc.  If, I was still into real life flying, and had a particular glass system, in which I'd like more training through flight simulation..........then I'd be prepared to pay hundreds of extra dollars, if that's what it would cost.  It was around $250 for a decent Garmin 1000 study system when they first came out, years ago.

 

 

edited to add "at a glance"

 

I can understand your points about GPS, the fact you mention Alaska struck me because I know GPS has helped save many lives over there and has been important for bush pilots. There's no doubt that GPS has improved over the years and that many more pilots are alive because of it. I don't think the increased capability and ease of use of GPS makes the video obsolete, however. VanderBurgh mentions, for example, a trainee attempting to use autopilot parameters to avoid a mid-air departing KSNA under noise abatement rules in the sim, a copilot of his on a real world flight who lost situational awareness in fair weather on a visual approach because he started reprogramming the FMC, and the Tarom 371 disaster that could have been easily avoided had the pilot had his hands on the throttle. The last example seem especially relevant after Asiana 214 (which wasn't even a malfunctioning auto-throttle like Tarom). In addition, Children of Magenta iirc was presented alongside another presentation by VanderBurgh on unusual attitude recovery, where the first rule was to disconnect the autopilot and autothrottle. The shift in training was in response to pilots depending on automation in situations where automation had zero hope of responding intelligently or quickly enough to alleviate the problem. And despite the advancements made in the FMCs, GPS or even FBW, there is no automation system in the world that can match the response of a trained crew to an emergency or in-flight upset. But I do agree that as far as CFIT and GPS is concerned, that has been revolutionary and saved many lives.      

 

 

And despite the advancements made in the FMCs, GPS or even FBW, there is no automation system in the world that can match the response of a trained crew to an emergency or in-flight upset. But I do agree that as far as CFIT and GPS is concerned, that has been revolutionary and saved many lives.      

 

Good points.

Pro line 21 and G1000 are tame compared to the Honeywell Primus Apex in the PC12.... and if you think it looks like the space shuttle in the PC12.. well.. that might be because Honeywell did the shuttles last "glass" cockpit upgrades too.  Apex in RW could require many hours of training in order to fly safe... and no one should ever expect a Dev to model a full Apex system.

 

I think most of the time, fokes buzz around for a couple hours.  That's great, but it can be really exciting and interesting to turn off the GPS, and do some old school VOR to VOR flying.

I now spend the first few seconds of a new release scanning for GTN integration , if none...next! The good latest releases have them including Flysimware Cessna 441 .

 

RXP is old and clunky now and I strongly urge anyone who is sitting on the fence regarding the purchase of a touch screen to consider buying just for the GTN. Its touch is smooth as silk and you can now buy infra red touch screens to slap over the top of your second monitor.

 

I like the compact design of the 430 and 530, simple but effective. And in use much more commonly than the gtn.

Good points.

 

Yours as well. In fact, I just remembered something that happened to me the other day in the Duke Turbine... the RXP GPS saved me from flying into a mountain in British Columbia. The IAF was behind a cloud and inside of that cloud was high terrain that my vertical path would have cut right through. Wasn't looking at charts, and got a little ahead of myself thinking "I'm on an instrument approach, so it's all good". When the "press home to goto to terrain" came up I was kind of shocked. So I guess GPS can even save your butt in the sim.  

I like the compact design of the 430 and 530, simple but effective. And in use much more commonly than the gtn.

No question regarding being effective for sure but the clunk factor is the laborious right/left mouse clicking to enter way points, put me off long routes. I actually really look forward to flight planning using the GTN/ touch combo

Sorry to push a bit more of topic the thread but gps in cockpit is a fascinating topic...

 

I like having gps to support situation awareness. My plane has no legal IFR GPS but while relying primary on steam instruments, I often crosscheck quickly information either on Foreflight on an Ipad that provide a very fast position and access to airport information. Its especially efficient in that regard with the aircraft position overlaid on the approach plates or on the airports layout while landed. I have also an old Trimble GPS that i use also mainly for its direct to function and for its link with autopilot but again knowing its not a legal primary instrument. I purchased also a Garmin Aera a few years ago but bring it only as backup unit as I find that its added value diminish rapidly with the advance of Foreflight on Ipad.

 

But agree that with so many functions and buttons around, you have to develop a discipline that if one of those gps based system starts to confuse you, and they sometime do if you push the wrong button, you have to immediately forget about them and focus entirely on steam gauge until workload decrease in the cockpit. The risk of becoming distracted with those gadget is very real and can lead quickly to dangerous situations.

 

Flight sim evolved for me from a teeneger hobby on a Radio Shack computer to a very usefull tool for developping good flight planning, checklist operation, quick digging on info provided by foreflight, and approach procedure. You can everyday look at the worse marginal weather around and go for a flight.

 

Absolutely no untertainment with Prepar3d (but pure joy.......).

 

Back on topic, wallet ready for Duke 2 as sonn as Prepar3d installer is there.

 

 

Flight sim evolved for me from a teeneger hobby on a Radio Shack computer

 

WOW...I used to have a Radio Shack computer (Tandy I believe it was) and reading that brought back some great memories.  Sorry to get off topic but reading that got me all nostalgic.  Great thread though...very good reading.

 

I recently bought the F1 GTN 750 and it is an absolute joy to use in the a2a 182.  I was just doing some bush flying in BC last night and the terrain awareness feature is outstanding.  I'm really looking forward to using it with the Turbine Duke when it's released for P3D.

 

 

I also agree with your post regarding the issues with modern glass cockpits in flight simming. And especially the fact that they seem to significantly impact FPS, even on a relatively high end system like mine (OC'd i7 4770k + 980GTX).

 

The thing that nags at the back at my mind is that the RXP and Flight1 units have, as far as I can tell, no impact on frames.  So...begs the question, is there a better way to create the glass instruments that doesn't impact frames like it does in some add-on aircraft?  E.g. out of process?  I know that some devs are using XML which is extremely not suited for making GNS gauges...very hard on performance.

So the f1 gtn series is as fps friendly as the rxp units?

 

 

RXP is old and clunky now and I strongly urge anyone who is sitting on the fence regarding the purchase of a touch screen to consider buying just for the GTN.

 

I understand where you're coming from Zoran, but remember we all sim for different reasons.  In my case, while I'm no longer current and actively flying I hope to again before long, and planes available in local rental fleets feature 430's and a few 530's.  I'm not aware of any GTN's.  I agree that Garmin didn't build the most intuitive UI when they did these older units, but the functionality is solid and I greatly enjoy and appreciate the fact that I get to "fly" with them regularly so that when I do step into a 430 or 530 equipped plane, futzing with the GPS will be the least of my concerns.  I've been using them for years in a wide range of scenarios, and they're old friends now.

 

I would hate to see developers drop support for the 430 and 530 in favor of the newer, sexier GTNs.  My hat's off to RealAir for providing support for all of the above!

 

Scott

The thing that nags at the back at my mind is that the RXP and Flight1 units have, as far as I can tell, no impact on frames.  So...begs the question, is there a better way to create the glass instruments that doesn't impact frames like it does in some add-on aircraft?  E.g. out of process?  I know that some devs are using XML which is extremely not suited for making GNS gauges...very hard on performance.

 

Yes there is. PMDG has been using it for years. Majestic used it in their Q400. Multi threading. However its only possible with the C++ gauge system....not with XML.

 

The myth that glass always kills frames is something that has bugged me for a long time....Because even synthetic vision has been done with no framerate impact.

I don't think this is so much about using GPS or not, so much as to why RealAir planes are better off not having G1000, Pro Line...etc. A standard 'six', with standard nav equip plus a RXP or GTN give you the pilot more realistic simmable navigation with more flexiblity than currently simulated G1000/Pro Line addons. To program such complex avionics to an operational level that equals or exceeds current 'six'+RXP/GTN capabilities would require ridiculous amounts of programming time (probably similar to PMDG airliner programming. For a two man team like RealAir, it makes no sense to spend kind of time programming those type of avionics when the 'six'+RXP/GTN is already available and equally capable. Any G1000 features not covered by standard equipment can still be accomplished with the good old pilot 'noggin' and paper/downloadable charts.

 

I am still an RXP user, I have no problem with the clunky old dials. I just enter a few waypoints on the ground, then add the rest in flight, lol it gives me something to do. I'll eventually go to GTN someday, but currently RXP + a second monitor for displaying SKyvector charts, approach plates...etc does everything I need.

 

Anyway just to recap repaint registration requests from here and other forums. To keep track of requests more easily, I am going to start another thread in the Avsim repaints section, if you have a repaint registration request, please let me know there.

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/459538-realair-turbine-duke-v2-repaint-reg-request-thread/

 

Currently done/WIP

Blue;

D-SYR (stock)

N4269T

ZK-RTD

 

Red:

VH-AFX (stock)

N6942J

ZK-DTR

C-FRTD

 

Requested

Blue:

C-GGCC

N6341R

VH-JKM

So the f1 gtn series is as fps friendly as the rxp units?

 

Yes absolutely Glenn, I can't detect any FPS loss whatsoever between using the GTN-equipped models, and those that use standard FS GPS.    

 

That's in the RA T-Duke, the A2A 182, the Flysimware C441 and the Milviz C310R.

So the f1 gtn series is as fps friendly as the rxp units?

 

I purchsed the T-Duke upgrade on Jan 1, the GTN 750 on Jan 5. Aside from a steep learning curve (for me personally) with the GTN I was amazed by:

1. How little, if any, impact its had and I'm running 2 side by side in the T-Duke.

2. How easy everything is to read.

3. The amazing wealth of information available from the units.

4. The RA config app made installing the 750 easy and idiot proof.

 

This is my first addon GPS so I have no experience with RXP but with support and any future development of RXP questionable and my past good experiences with all F1 product, the GTN was a no brainer.

 

As always for me FPS and smoothness always boils down to a combination of LOD and Autogen setting, nothig else seems to matter, Bufferpools 0, water on High, etc, no big deal. Even ASN weather has liitle impact by comparison with LOD and autogen settings in combination.

 

I have a couple addons with glass cockpit, very pretty but more time consuming and harder to read for me than steam gauges, and kills my smoothness. A quick glance at a steam gauge  is like a quick glance at the arms of a clock, I know exactly where things stand. With a glass cockpit I spend to much time hunting for and then reading what I need to know.

 

It sounds like RA is going retrofit the P-Duke and Lancair config panels to allow easy insert of these guages (after they address the P3D installers for those who use it).

 

I'm hoping A2A will do something similar for their 172/182/and PA-28 as well as those 3 aircraft and the 3 RA's get  90% of my flight time.

 

Just my experience, but I highly recommend the F1 GTN750.