Bert Pieke

Vertx DA62 has launched!

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Posted (edited)

@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 by Jocko Flocko

Share this post


Link to post

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!

Share this post


Link to post
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..

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

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!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
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 by Soul Rebel

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

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

Edited by AndiKunzi

Share this post


Link to post
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,

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
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 by rudi0310
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

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,

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

2019-3-11-14-11-36-993.jpg


Interior view eyes pilote on the RNW

2019-3-11-14-11-46-242.jpg


Exterior view : landing & taxi lights ON

2019-3-11-14-12-22-359.jpg


TAXI LIGHT ON at DAY

2019-3-11-14-21-53-290.jpg


Taxi LIGHT ON at NIGHT

2019-3-11-14-22-2-511.jpg


LANDING LIGTH at DAY

2019-3-11-14-22-23-120.jpg

LANDING LIGHT at NIGHT

2019-3-11-14-22-41-787.jpg

 

Did you do an update for this ??

 

Thanks

Patrick

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Neptune said:

Did you do an update for this ??

do you have dynamic lighting enabled under P3D settings?

Share this post


Link to post

What a great product this is! I have a question about P-factor settings though. I'm still slightly confused about what is written about this in the manual. I have P-factor set to max already in P3D (because this is recommended for A2A aircraft). But what settings do I use, combined with the P-factor slider in the DA62 config tool, to get the most realistic P-factor experience?

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, simbol said:

do you have dynamic lighting enabled under P3D settings?

Hi Simbol

yes i have ..!

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/11/2019 at 8:36 PM, Neptune said:

Hi Simbol

yes i have ..!

Also the cessna here is good and illuminate the ground  At day is significant

a screen

 

2019-3-12-11-22-45-97.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Love this plane! Been hooked to it forever since I bought it.

 

I have some strange issues with ILS approaches: sometimes I will loose the glideslope and suddenly plunge to the ground, having to stop AP ASAP. What could cause this?

Otherwise, I really wish the mishandling of power would damage engines. I hope to see this in a next update. 

I have also a question about the de-icing: is the switch working or is it a dummy and is there a difference between normal and high in the in-game TKS efficiency? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Karelpatch said:

ve also a question about the de-icing:... 

 

"Vertx DA62 User Guide. pdf" describes it on pages 34/35.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I look at the DA62.CFG

in the info lights nothing for Landing  Light and noting for TAXI light  ..

here what i have  :

[LIGHTS]
//Types: 1=beacon, 2=strobe, 3=navigation, 4=cockpit            
//light.0 = 3,  -1.23, -16.61, 3.08, fx_navred
//light.1 = 3,  -1.23,  16.61, 3.08, fx_navgre
//light.2 = 3, -17.05,   0.00, 4.85, fx_navwhi
//light.3 = 2,  -1.23, -16.61, 3.08, fx_strobe
//light.4 = 2,  -1.23,  16.61, 3.08, fx_strobe
//light.0 = 3,  -2.3,   0.15, 2.30,  Vtx_vclight
//light.1 = 3,  -2.3,   0.15, 2.30,  Vtx_vclight

 

But there is not : number 5.....landing_light_narrow  in this cfg it's normal ??

some body can explain ??

Why i want this ? because it's a plane for IFR also  and i can landing at night , but with no light in front where you go to the parking ??

 

Patrick

Edited by Neptune

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, kaha said:

"Vertx DA62 User Guide. pdf" describes it on pages 34/35.

I know but there is no indication that the aircraft can be affected by icing in the sim via AS for example.

Is it implemented and if so, is deicing in the aircraft effective or is it just "eye-candy"? That was probably what Karelpatch meant and I would also be interested to have the answer. Nothing in the doc suggests that.

Edited by DrumsArt

Share this post


Link to post

You are right. I did not fly into icing conditions yet, will try tomorrow. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Neptune said:

I look at the DA62.CFG

in the info lights nothing for Landing  Light and noting for TAXI light  ..

here what i have  :

[LIGHTS]
//Types: 1=beacon, 2=strobe, 3=navigation, 4=cockpit            
//light.0 = 3,  -1.23, -16.61, 3.08, fx_navred
//light.1 = 3,  -1.23,  16.61, 3.08, fx_navgre
//light.2 = 3, -17.05,   0.00, 4.85, fx_navwhi
//light.3 = 2,  -1.23, -16.61, 3.08, fx_strobe
//light.4 = 2,  -1.23,  16.61, 3.08, fx_strobe
//light.0 = 3,  -2.3,   0.15, 2.30,  Vtx_vclight
//light.1 = 3,  -2.3,   0.15, 2.30,  Vtx_vclight

 

But there is not : number 5.....landing_light_narrow  in this cfg it's normal ??

some body can explain ??

Why i want this ? because it's a plane for IFR also  and i can landing at night , but with no light in front where you go to the parking ??

 

Patrick

Same here. No taxi nor landing lights visible.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now