FSX-MS Carenado Hawker 850XP or........wait?

[dgraham1284 92]

 

 

Ah, if I understand correctly there are some who use it as hardware interface instead of FSUIPC or some other methodology?

 

It works in tandem. 

[N400QW 205]

LINDA, from a sim pilots prospective, allows use to more easily use our panels and yoke to their fullest. Without it and SPAD, a lot of things just won't work with saitek panels for example. 

 

Like I have their radio panel, switch panel, multi-panel, yoke, multiple throttle quadrants and combat rudder pedals.

Seems as if Saitek is not providing needed interfaces to it's customers. I think I remember this scenario back when Go Flight was the big hardware periphials group. :blink:

[dgraham1284 92]

They do provide drivers, and they work with more basic planes. But when you start getting complex, not so much. 

 

Seems as if Saitek is not providing needed interfaces to it's customers. I think I remember this scenario back when Go Flight was the big hardware periphials group. :blink:

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

 

 

Greg we don't do Linda at this point... What is the interest in Linda from a sim pilots perspective?

 

It makes configuring controls easy as well as easy to change.  You can assign all the buttons, switches, knobs from a great variety of hardware quickly and easily all using LUA commands.  Also, you can aggregate commands (e.g. on some airplanes, hitting the trim up/down button on the yoke also disengages the autopilot but not the YD...hitting the autopilot disconnect on the yoke disconnects the YD, things that are easily handled in LUA.) Further, those configurations can be shared in the community. 

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

Seems as if Saitek is not providing needed interfaces to it's customers. I think I remember this scenario back when Go Flight was the big hardware periphials group. :blink:

 

Saitek's interface using SPAD is clunky...no way to aggregate and create custom commands if I recall.  If you use LVARs and offsets then either FSUIPC or LINDA will work.  FSUIPC is more difficult on its own (LINDA handles the repetitive grunt work) but it's doable.

 

EDIT:  To be clear, LINDA handles Saitek just fine...no need for SPAD anymore.  I have about 20 or so airplanes from various devs (RealAir, Milviz, A2A, Carenado, PMDG, Flight1) and they all work with LINDA a champ.  Nothing much special about that part...they just use LVars and offsets.

 

 

Ah, if I understand correctly there are some who use it as hardware interface instead of FSUIPC or some other methodology?

 

Sorry for going off topic from the OP.

 

My apologies to OP as well.  There's no XML gauges requirement.  C++ gauges work just fine with FSUIPC/LINDA.

[ryanbatc 12,836]

If you do get the Hawker and have the GTN 750 you can do a pretty cool GTN mod. Not realistic but feels right and looks really good. It doesn't fix the FLC issue but it will allow for complex navigation / advanced RNAV

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

If you do get the Hawker and have the GTN 750 you can do a pretty cool GTN mod. Not realistic but feels right and looks really good. It doesn't fix the FLC issue but it will allow for complex navigation / advanced RNAV

 

And it comes with a LiftDump shortcut  -_-

[Glynn 405]

Seems as if Saitek is not providing needed interfaces to it's customers. I think I remember this scenario back when Go Flight was the big hardware periphials group.

 

Ron, It is the developer that needs to provide the interfaces.

 

Once a developer strays outside of the SDK the hardware providers have no target to code against.

Saitek hardware and Goflight hardware works perfectly with any addon aircraft that adheres to the FSX/P3D SDK.

 

That is why PMDG and Ifly provide their own SDK's so that the hardware guys can build the needed drivers to interface with the addon.

 

Every bit of hardware on the market can work with addons using the available FSX SDK, once you as a developer go outside of that framework then the hardware does not work. at that point it is up to the developer to publish the L:vars or provide documentataion to enable us to get our hardware working.

 

Saitek and Goflight hardware work out of the box with SDK compliant addons, if you as a developer go outside of that box to provide "needed" functions then you need to document what you have done.

[N400QW 205]

Fair enough Glenn. The FSSDK does not specify for custom functions thus hardware interface builders are at a loss when a dev departs the SDK for a custom function.

In that case we've provided ini files for FSUIPC interface and will do so in future releases on a limited basis. We have no plans for an es-sdk for hardware vendors at this time.

[LeonardvanderWalt 0]

Thanks everyone, I had an idea that the Flight1 Mustang would be recommended, mostly positive reviews thus far. Will definitely have a look at it, but will be keeping an eye out for the Eaglesoft release. I had the Citation X in FS2004 and it was brilliant then, so can only imagine their latest release will be up to scratch.

Leonard

[N400QW 205]

Thanks everyone, I had an idea that the Flight1 Mustang would be recommended, mostly positive reviews thus far. Will definitely have a look at it, but willbe keeping an eye out for the Eaglesoft release. I had the Citation X in FS2004 and it was brilliant then, so can only imagine their latest release will be up to scratch.

Leonard

Thanks Leonard, we aim to provide completed projects that folks can buy and fly without relying on someone to patch it for us.. B) 

[stretch1365 40]

Have you looked at the Lionheart Creations L24b.

 

I have it and it works very nicely. OK it's old school flying, but it does have a realistic autopilot and fuel system, so they say, but never having flown one in real life what do I know! It's a bit quirky but good fun.

 

Like the OP I wanted a nice Biz Jet and wasn't too impressed with the Carenado offering. They seem to be making aircraft that are nice to look at, but at the same time all have the same avionics inside. Cheaper to develop a standard panel and import it into different airframe's I would think, just my opinion and I may be wrong.

 

There are some quite good tutorial video's on Youtube regarding the Lionheart Learjet. Maybe worth watching those before purchasing your Biz Jet. At least you will see what it fly's like.

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

Like the OP I wanted a nice Biz Jet and wasn't too impressed with the Carenado offering. They seem to be making aircraft that are nice to look at, but at the same time all have the same avionics inside. Cheaper to develop a standard panel and import it into different airframe's I would think, just my opinion and I may be wrong.

 

 

This is where I would disagree... It is the effort by Carenado to introduce advanced avionics that is causing all the difficulties...  Programming a fully functional FMS is not a small task..

[N400QW 205]

Programming a fully functional FMS is not a small task..

Bert, that statement says it all.

The question being asked, and the gripes by their customers, in every thread we've recently seen is why market an aircraft as having a functional FMS/Avionics package and not deliver on the claim?

We and other devs know that we darn sure have to deliver.. B)

[stretch1365 40]

What I was getting at is that all the aircraft with functioning FMC's whether fully functioning or partly functioning are similar to fly in my view. You program the FMC and click Vnav, Lnav and off you go. Sometimes it is nice to get back to grass roots and fly VOR to VOR to get from A to B. 

 

While I don't doubt that Carenado have put in a tremendous amount of work to get their FMC's working, if all their Biz Jets contain the same Avionics package, then it doesn't really matter which one you buy the flying experience is going to be about the same. 

 

For this reason I have gone back to exploring many of the older generation of airliners, like the CS Tristar, the 707 and 727 and the LearJet already mentioned. The justflight F27 flies beautifully with no FMC, and the sense of achievement is greater on arrival. Oh don't get me wrong, I have the 737, 777 and MD11, but haven't taken them up in a while now, and yes I can program the FMC correctly before you all start commenting,

 

But then we all want different things out of our simming so there is room for all. It truely is amazing that we really have so much choice in my view.