Why no RealityXP GNS530 support? I want to purchase but only if it will support the RXP530

I think they, as well as some other devs, didn't receive any help from RXP on some items. In turn, they dropped the VC support which shouldn't rule out a user made mod for displaying the GNS530 in the panel, albeit without working (VC) knobs.

There is zero support for RXP for anyone at all, much less developers. It appears for all practical purposes to be "abandonware..."

For those with sticking throttles, this plane has start lock modelling, a reality with the Garrett 331. The training videos outline this, after you start you must bring the throttles into reverse and back to idle to release the lock. After that go fly. I've got about 20 hours on the MU2 now, its crazy fun. Still can't get the autopilot to hold the glideslope on an LPV approach, but its the best excuse to hand fly in 0/0. Watch the training videos, its worth it!

Why no RealityXP GNS530 support? I want to purchase but only if it will support the RXP530

 

Upgrade time!  GTN 750 time!  It's better than the 530w in every way except one:  It won't show you distance and radial off a VOR when one is tuned to NAV1.  Apparently Garmin forgot to carry over this nice feature from the "old" 530W.

Upgrade time!  GTN 750 time!  It's better than the 530w in every way except one:  It won't show you distance and radial off a VOR when one is tuned to NAV1.  Apparently Garmin forgot to carry over this nice feature from the "old" 530W.

I have the GTN750 for FSX SE and love it in the MU. I am in the process of migrating over to P3D and it seems I will not be purchasing the GTN for it as Flight 1 refuses to even give a discount for those wanting to purchase both. This practice baffles me when so many developers either include support for both platforms, or allow you to pay a modest fee to own both. Seems it's all about how much money they can squeeze out of us.

 

 

Seems it's all about how much money they can squeeze out of us

 

Flight1 development does not take on projects out of love or passion for the hobby or the hobbyists. They are more concerned with their bottom line and they make no bones about telling us this over and over again with their support posts. At least they're honest about who and what they are and what you can expect, which is more than i can say for certain other outfits who like to use alot of smoke and mirror tactics.

Upgrade time!  GTN 750 time!  It's better than the 530w in every way except one:  It won't show you distance and radial off a VOR when one is tuned to NAV1.  Apparently Garmin forgot to carry over this nice feature from the "old" 530W.

I like to simulate the real life avionics found in most airplanes.And I like the simple operating 530 and 430 design.

 

so many older aiprlanes had RXP as an option, even if RXP is abandoned. Is it that difficult to put in as a developer?

Flight1 development does not take on projects out of love or passion for the hobby or the hobbyists. They are more concerned with their bottom line and they make no bones about telling us this over and over again with their support posts. At least they're honest about who and what they are and what you can expect, which is more than i can say for certain other outfits who like to use alot of smoke and mirror tactics.

Care to elaborate on this claim Dave? If your going to point fingers and and make claims about other "outfits", please tell us what you think. And subststaniate these claims with some evidence.

I don't much care for the 430/530s.  It seems like ages, and actually is, in which my Garmin portables had far more computing power, and much better graphics & resolution. Before I quit flying, I had gone through three additional generations of Garmin moving maps, since that model that was already superior to the panel mount 430. I'd say upgrade to the seven series too.

I don't see why everyone is fooled into thinking these flysimware aircraft have superior systems depth. You can't initiate a failure by exceeding the operating parameters of the engine (unless something has changed from the C441) and there are no random failures - things you can get from A2A and RealAir respectively at a a similar price point in addition to really nice graphics. Putting engine locks on an aircraft and making it take a bit longer to start does not make it a SUPER REALISTIC DEEP AIRCRAFT GAIYSSS!!!

 

The good includes really nice sounds, a nice FDE, and F1 GTN 750 integration that is well done at doesn't cost any extra.

 

I'd save your money for the MU-2 from MilViz. After you pay for avionics integration package it will be the same price and although the sound might not be as nice as flysimware the FDE will be every bit as good or better and you'll get something that looks like an FSX addon aircraft developed in the current era rather than one drawn in MSpaint. That nighlighting in the c441...give me a break.

 

I hate to come out and be so harsh on someone's work, as I said there are good points. But the people that are going to pony up $41.00 US on this thing deserve to hear the other side of the story as told by someone who isn't a busy stroking themselves off over being able to like an ugly airplane.

 

Save your money and get a turbine duke v2.

Care to elaborate on this claim Dave? If your going to point fingers

 

You're quite the character..it's ok for you to point a finger here but nobody else? I think everyone can agree that not everyone in this industry is Honest Abe...that ok with you? I was infact simply responding to your own "pointing finger" regarding Flight1.

 

@nessis - well you are correct, it's not that their systems are deeper...they are really not. They are just some different systems which gives some of us a fresh feel so to speak. You know...different strokes for different folks. Yes there are other devs offering a bit more value for the money at that price point (I pointed this out a few weeks ago and got ripped apart for it of course)...right now their biggest attraction of what's different in their wares is their engine startup effects and their plane types. For some that is worth it...for others it is not.

 

Yea, as far as the GPS upgrade, I'd certainly agree with the others who say the 700/600 series is alot better than the 500/400..I own both and yea it's pricey alright...but if you're comparing then I'd say the 700 kills the 500...go for it if you like to use a gps very often. Offers many useful features during your flights.

All sound like spoiled kids. We should be thank full that another player has taken on trying to better the experience. Yes there textures are not the best. They are a two man team lets not bite the hand that feed us. I have just got this and looking forward to flying it. There are better textures coming. I can wait.

 

I don't see why everyone is fooled into thinking these flysimware aircraft have superior systems depth. You can't initiate a failure by exceeding the operating parameters of the engine (unless something has changed from the C441) and there are no random failures - things you can get from A2A and RealAir respectively at a a similar price point in addition to really nice graphics. Putting engine locks on an aircraft and making it take a bit longer to start does not make it a SUPER REALISTIC DEEP AIRCRAFT GAIYSSS!!!

 

The good includes really nice sounds, a nice FDE, and F1 GTN 750 integration that is well done at doesn't cost any extra.

 

I'd save your money for the MU-2 from MilViz. After you pay for avionics integration package it will be the same price and although the sound might not be as nice as flysimware the FDE will be every bit as good or better and you'll get something that looks like an FSX addon aircraft developed in the current era rather than one drawn in MSpaint. That nighlighting in the c441...give me a break.

 

I hate to come out and be so harsh on someone's work, as I said there are good points. But the people that are going to pony up $41.00 US on this thing deserve to hear the other side of the story as told by someone who isn't a busy stroking themselves off over being able to like an ugly airplane.

 

Save your money and get a turbine duke v2.

 

If you save your money for Milviz you will have an uncertain wait. Years probably. And no Moo for that entire time.

 

And how you can laud the benefits of a package that isn't released, isn't finished and you cannot have tried, much less compare to whatever extensive real world time you must have on Mu-2's is frankly beyond comprehension. 

 

The Flysimware product is here, now. I have no doubt that the Milviz project will be on the shopping list eventually, but first of all it's a short body, not a Marquise; next it's already been in development for three years by Milviz and shows no sign at all of ever being finished; third the last update of any renown was at the end of February when it was `moving but slowly`.

 

Sure we'd all be interested in where your extensive knowledge of this `unfinishedware` comes from that entitles you to make comparisons?

Can anyone explain why the MU-2 is priced so high.

SimMarket has it at £33 which is £5 more than the Realair Turbine Duke 2, is this addon really better than the Duke turbine V2, looking at the screen shots I am having a hard time convincing myself to drop £33 on it.