Hi,

I've just found this forum with an interesting side-by-side comparison. It is in french but most screenshots are self-explanatory:

http://forum.canardpc.com/threads/47639-simus-Le-topic-des-canards-pilotes-civilisés-Flight-Sim-X-Plane-P3D-AeroflyFS?p=11282333&viewfull=1#post11282333

Thank you Bourrinopathe for showcasing this!

 

Looks like something is wrong with Bourrinopathe's X-Plane 530. Mine shows the leg lines and the nearest VOR's and NDB's.

 

 

 

 

 

That's interesting. I was surprised my VOR and NDB pages were empty with Laminar Research GNS.
I'm using the latest Navigraph AIRAC cycle 1711.

I just checked again and the nearest NDB page is still empty.

The VOR and the map pages look OK now. No idea what went wrong.
I was just comparing both instruments, in the same aircraft, with the same flight plan, at the same time, at Twentynine Palms (KTNP).

X-Plane 530/LR GNS 530 - nearest VOR page:

RXP GNS 530 - nearest VOR page:

LR GNS 530:

RXP GNS 530 (different flight plan, same map scale (50nm)):

For whatever reason the scale is off on the GNS from LR - the distance between the aircraft symbol and the top of the blue arc is roughly 30 nm, not 50 (that airport by the 150° marking is Chiriaco Summit Airport (KL77), which is 30 nm away from KTNP).

With the same measurement method (using Google Earth) the GNS from RXP looks accurate (distance from the aircraft symbol to the top of the blue arc equals 50 nm).
I didn't check other scales.

Here's another comparison:

Overall the RXP GNS is also a great improvement when it comes to readability.

Another very useful page that doesn't exist in the LR GNS is the terrain proximity page:

This one alone is a wonder if you're used to fly in Alaska or any remote areas with nasty weather ;)

Of course, those few pictures I was showing are far from highlighting the differences between the two instruments.
I was just sharing first impressions on that French forum.
The RXP GNS capabilities are far beyond what could be shown in a bunch of forum posts ;)
Diving into the Garmin user manual or testing the trainer would give a better understanding of the numerous features.
I'm still overwhelmed by all it has to offer (and actively melting a few neurons in the process) 
 

Edited November 9, 20178 yr by Bourrinopathe
more info and pictures

Hi,

I shall add another difference worth noting: the bezel width / height ratio is the same as the real GNS, and when the gauge renders at ½ of its design size (which is ½ of the size of the bezel bitmap in pixels), the RXP GNS screen pixels renders at a scale of 1:1 with your monitor pixels (no rescale)

The same applies to our GTN.