Vertx DA62 has launched!

[Soul Rebel 38]

20 hours ago, MatzeH84 said:

Your CPU is quite weak, I must admit..

Anyways, try moving the slider to the left, not right.

Thanks for your reply @MatzeH84 

I tried moving the slider to the full left (and other several positions) but It didn't work for me.
I also downloaded the latest Nvidia drivers for my graphic card, I uninstalled the DA62 and Prepard 3D following the instructions that I found in this forum. I did a fresh installation again and I am having the same problem, that is very sad because I really like this model created by Sean.

I am not sure if the problem is the CPU from my laptop, if I try to lower the flaps It takes a long time to do it and if I move my mouse over the G1000 the knobs got green even when my mouse is out of them. And If I fly the aircraft I got about 50 fps and the movements are very fluent...that´s driving me crazy because I can't find the problem.

[Jocko Flocko 49]

@Soul Rebel Try this little trick I *STILL* do with P3D v4.4. After P3D 4 has finished loading, right click your taskbar in Windows and select Start Task Manager. Under the processes tab if you sort by memory you'll see 'Prepar3D.exe' right at the top. Right click on it and select 'Set Affinity', simply uncheck one of the processors and hit ok. Then repeat the same process as before but this time after selecting 'Set Affinity' select *ALL* processors. It's worked for me and my old machine since the first version of P3D v3. I'm running an i7 2600K at 5.2 Ghz with a GTX 1080ti and 32GB of memory, still runs 99% of all games/simulators fine.

Edited March 1, 2019 by Jocko Flocko

[Jocko Flocko 49]

I am seriously also considering purchasing this awesome looking aircraft, however in the past I've never had very good experiences with Carenado's G1000 gauges that are basically the default FSX/P3D GPS dressed up in pretty textures, Carenado's glass panels have never been very smooth, they actually perform worse than the PMDG 737NGX with all of it's complex systems, panels and coding.

How smooth does this product run when compared to the Carenado G1000's? Any input would be very helpful as I really want to buy this plane, it's looks simply stunning inside and out!

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

1 hour ago, Jocko Flocko said:

I am seriously also considering purchasing this awesome looking aircraft, however in the past I've never had very good experiences with Carenado's G1000 gauges that are basically the default FSX/P3D GPS dressed up in pretty textures, Carenado's glass panels have never been very smooth, they actually perform worse than the PMDG 737NGX with all of it's complex systems, panels and coding.

How smooth does this product run when compared to the Carenado G1000's? Any input would be very helpful as I really want to buy this plane, it's looks simply stunning inside and out!

No comparison..

[shivers9 1,174]

4 hours ago, Jocko Flocko said:

I am seriously also considering purchasing this awesome looking aircraft, however in the past I've never had very good experiences with Carenado's G1000 gauges that are basically the default FSX/P3D GPS dressed up in pretty textures, Carenado's glass panels have never been very smooth, they actually perform worse than the PMDG 737NGX with all of it's complex systems, panels and coding.

How smooth does this product run when compared to the Carenado G1000's? Any input would be very helpful as I really want to buy this plane, it's looks simply stunning inside and out!

It is simply the best GA I have ever owned and I expect it will just get better over the next few weeks or months. In fact I have removed all other aircraft add ons. If it cost $89.00 I would say the same. It's that good.

[GerryJ01 11]

5 hours ago, Jocko Flocko said:

I am seriously also considering purchasing this awesome looking aircraft, however in the past I've never had very good experiences with Carenado's G1000 gauges that are basically the default FSX/P3D GPS dressed up in pretty textures, Carenado's glass panels have never been very smooth, they actually perform worse than the PMDG 737NGX with all of it's complex systems, panels and coding.

How smooth does this product run when compared to the Carenado G1000's? Any input would be very helpful as I really want to buy this plane, it's looks simply stunning inside and out!

I have Carenado's CT206H and SR22 with G1000's as well as planes from others with the G1000. I agree with Bert, there is no comparison. I'm not a real-world pilot but the Vertx G1000 matches the real-world Garmin manual pretty well. There is a G1000 Pilot's Guide specifically for the Diamond DA62 (190-01895-00_A).  I bought the plane a few weeks ago and already have over 130 hours on it. Between the Vertx DA62, A2A C182, and MilViz DHC2 Beaver I rarely have any use for the rest of my fleet.  Make sure you check out VNV in the DA62 G1000, it is amazing once you learn how to use it.  There are some good YouTube tutorials.  I also love that when you select a transition for an approach, they are accurately depicted on the map screen as you scroll through the list so you don't have to refer to charts to decide which one to use. 

[BobP 56]

I'm working my way through the G1000 and plane systems. It is very smooth and the functions, so far, work as described.

Currently my only question concerns the width of the flight plan  white line. It's much larger than I'm used to, it there a graphics setting I could adjust.

P3Dv4.4, Nvidia Geforce 1070 with 8 gig, 4K monitor (30hz) , 3840x2160x32,graphics scenery objects settings middle of the run, texture resolution (4096X4096),AA 4xMSAA,

Is there a forum for this add on? Thank you in advance.

Bob

[Jocko Flocko 49]

Thanks for the tip fellas, just bought this beautiful machine and man is she ever a work of art! Going to spend the night reading up on the G1000 and it's operations. 🙂

Cheers guys!

[Soul Rebel 38]

On 3/1/2019 at 8:09 PM, Jocko Flocko said:

@Soul Rebel Try this little trick I *STILL* do with P3D v4.4. After P3D 4 has finished loading, right click your taskbar in Windows and select Start Task Manager. Under the processes tab if you sort by memory you'll see 'Prepar3D.exe' right at the top. Right click on it and select 'Set Affinity', simply uncheck one of the processors and hit ok. Then repeat the same process as before but this time after selecting 'Set Affinity' select *ALL* processors. It's worked for me and my old machine since the first version of P3D v3. I'm running an i7 2600K at 5.2 Ghz with a GTX 1080ti and 32GB of memory, still runs 99% of all games/simulators fine.

Thank you @Jocko Flocko for your reply.
Yesterday I solved my problem, It seems it was due to a bad installer. I downloaded It again with a good internet connexion and installed it again with my antivirus off and now It works very well, even with the code limiter set at 50%.

I have flown it this morning and it's an awesome model, I highly recomend it!

Edited March 3, 2019 by Soul Rebel

[AndiKunzi 62]

Great aircraft!
G1000 works well, but would be even better with SIDs (DPs), STARs and airways.
The rest is just awesome!

Edited March 3, 2019 by AndiKunzi

[somiller 694]

On 3/3/2019 at 6:10 PM, AndiKunzi said:

Great aircraft!
G1000 works well, but would be even better with SIDs (DPs), STARs and airways.
The rest is just awesome!

AndiKunzi,

Take a look at https://www.fsaerodata.com/

fsaerodata updates the P3D navigation database, including addition of SID's and STAR's. Note that a subscription to Navigraph navigation data is required.

I have subscribed to both, and so far I keep my P3D database current with each new update (approx. every 28 days), however, if one were to so choose, one could do a short term subscription just to get P3D updated once, and then stay with that updated database indefinitely.

One note of caution: I have noticed some anomalies using fsaerodata/Navigraph with the DA G1000...namely glide paths for some RNAV LPV approaches are not intercepted at the proper altitude/distance from touchdown point. At some airports, the glide path is intercepted at a point that makes descent angle quite severe. I have notified Sean at Vertx, but so far as I know a fix is not yet available.

Kind Regards,

[BobP 56]

On 3/2/2019 at 4:03 PM, BobP said:

I'm working my way through the G1000 and plane systems. It is very smooth and the functions, so far, work as described.

Currently my only question concerns the width of the flight plan  white line. It's much larger than I'm used to, it there a graphics setting I could adjust.

P3Dv4.4, Nvidia Geforce 1070 with 8 gig, 4K monitor (30hz) , 3840x2160x32,graphics scenery objects settings middle of the run, texture resolution (4096X4096),AA 4xMSAA,

Is there a forum for this add on? Thank you in advance.

Bob

This is what I'm seeing:

https://mbworld.org/forums/site-administrators/730565-bob-photo.html#post7697143

 

Bob

[rudi0310 82]

On 3/4/2019 at 7:26 PM, somiller said:

One note of caution: I have noticed some anomalies using fsaerodata/Navigraph with the DA G1000...namely glide paths for some RNAV LPV approaches are not intercepted at the proper altitude/distance from touchdown point. At some airports, the glide path is intercepted at a point that makes descent angle is quite severe.

There are differences between countries, the following details mainly apply to US National Airspace and FAA rules:

If you end up much too high above runway at the end of the approach, or flight path angle needed is very high, it might be a "circling approach" type. While you might be familiar with the "usual" straight-in approaches, there are also many circling approaches in use: The approach is terminated performing a circle-to-land maneuver under VFR conditions, not straight in. As long as there are no restrictions at the approach plate, it is the pilot in command's choice which circling maneuver to fly, choosing the side with lower obstacles or terrain, for example.

One possible reason for circling approaches: Terrain profile might be too steep. RNAV (GPS)-D approach at KEGE is such an example. This approach (final heading is 251 deg) ends abt 2700 ft above airport elevation, nominal only 0.5 nm away from threshold. To use rwy 25, aircraft has to perform a complete 360 deg maneuver, for rwy 7 it is 180 deg. Minimum Descend Altitude for both is 9220 ft (all aircraft categories) (Circling minimums are referenced to airport elevation, not Touch Down Zone Elevation like a Decision Altitude).

At start of the circling, stay at or above this altitude first. After that, the pilot in command is allowed to start a descend as soon as needed to perform a "normal" landing, at his own decision. Again, the circle-to-land is a VFR type maneuver, requires visual meteorological conditions available.

Some other reasons for circling approaches: need to use a different runway due to tailwind, approach serves more than one runway, runway course differs more than 30 deg from final approach course (due to terrain/obstacles for example), descend needed for straight-in after Final Approach Fix exceeds 400 ft/nm.

To identify a circling approach as such at the plate: The approach plate shows a "circling" type Minimum Descend Altitude only in this case, no Decision Altitude (Decision Height at older plates). And there is a letter instead of a named runway in the approach name. One example is the "D" at KEGE, see above.

As always, there might be differences/exceptions depending on the issue date of the plate (rules changed with time).
 
Of course I do not exclude that the DA-62 might have issues with single approaches. In this context, it is interesting that real aviation in many cases has the same problems like flight simmers. One short example, the following is a quote from public FAA pilot training materials (2017), not a dicsussion between flight simmers: 
"Charting/Database Inconsistencies: It is important for pilots to remember that many inconsistencies may exist between aeronautical charts and airborne navigation databases. Since there are so many sources of information included in the production of these materials, and the data is manipulated by several different organizations before it is eventually displayed on RNAV equipment, the possibility is high that there will be noticeable differences between the charts and the databases..." 
Remember, flight simmers use the same data sources...

Cheers
 

Edited March 5, 2019 by rudi0310

[somiller 694]

Rudi,

Thanks for taking the time to provide input regarding RNAV glidepaths.

...AND your videos of the DA62 are really great. I watched all of them and picked up many tips!

An example of the problem I have encountered is KTOL - RNAV 25. The Jepp (Navigraph) approach chart for this airport shows a DA 878 feet, and DH 200 feet. This approach shows a GP intercept at 5.2 miles from runway threshold at VUGCO, at 2400 feet. In my attempts flying this approach with current fsaerodata/Navigraph data, I end up approx. 1 - 1.5 miles from the end of the runway before intercepting the GP at 2400 feet.

Another example is KDFI - RNAV 12. The chart for this approach show DA 1100 FT. and DH 393 feet. The result for this approach is exactly the same as KTOL - RNAV 25.

I have found MANY airports with exactly the same result. Not all airports, but many.

Interestingly, if I fly these approaches with Carenado PC-12 using RXP GTN 750 (AIRAC 1803), or PMDG 737 (FMS data using current Navigraph AIRAC) they work correctly.

Rudi, I'd be interested to hear your experience if you were to try these approaches. Both airports are stock P3Dv4.4.

 

Kind Regards,

[Neptune 7]

Hello.! My problem is the illuminat Taxi or RNW  it's in dark  black out  fabulous plane i use every days but i night .......!

 

see my screen :

 

Exterior view

Interior view eyes pilote on the RNW

Exterior view : landing & taxi lights ON

TAXI LIGHT ON at DAY

Taxi LIGHT ON at NIGHT

LANDING LIGTH at DAY

LANDING LIGHT at NIGHT

 

Did you do an update for this ??

 

Thanks

Patrick