For Some Time - No More Glass Cockpits Please

[flyerkg 62]

My favorite setup for simulated flight is a balance between digital and analog - TBM 700 or Beechjet 400  B737-300, B757. I have mostly flown older trainers and a Cessna 172 with G1000 and TCAS. I could adapt to everything all in one or two screens, but it's not my greatest interest at the moment. 

[kapitan 90]

29 minutes ago, captain420 said:

Actually that's not true, glass cockpit is much more advanced. They have to get the avionics and technical side of it right. It's the side that you don't see.

Its geometry, maths

If you have a rectangle (screen) and inside you have 2 more squares that occupy 70% of that screen, the amount of artwork in an analogue (dont call it "steam" thats for trains) is huge, photography and giving a reallistic look of the original cockpit.

And the Garmin MFD is made by a third party, plane developpers just put  them in and the synch with the plane parameters is simple. In analogue each instrument must be configured, and many times include a Garmin as well

For the user, classic planes are in memory, while theres is no standard glass cockpit in memory of people. So when you present a Glass, nobody will say: "the flap handle is unrealistic and a bit to the left from the original plane"

nobody says that because they dont have memory of Glass as a "standard" 

You can present a Glass in any imaginary way and people will take it as granted. With analogue there is memory, photographic, and that is what most of us crave for

Edited August 22, 2020 by kapitan

[FPStewy 538]

37 minutes ago, VIPERGTSR01 said:

Hmm, they seem to work fine for me. 

yea, I think if it's a VOR you can course correct but the ILS are locked in.

[VIPERGTSR01 22]

Ah okay, I haven't used ILS on the analogue 172 yet.

[raymar 969]

1 hour ago, kapitan said:

You know why they did it?

From a cockpit design perspective, Glass Cockpits are easier to make, just throw two big MFDs and the rest of design work is very little. So when I see a payware with Glass...I know (few hours went into it to make the cockpit)

Also in analogues the overall cabin frames require research and high photography

Maybe you could take a few minutes and forward your research over to Carenado.  They have been wishing they had a more complete G1000 for several years now. Bet they didn't know it only takes a couple of hours to do those panels.  

Maybe they could take a few minutes and add synthetic vision to their basic (only) G1000 in the C-182 with your help

[kapitan 90]

If you are glass cockpit builder hurt feelings, sorry friend. But Glass are a thumbs down for simulation pleasure and if you are in this business consider some analogues also. 

By the way I love Carenado and have bought many of their crafts, and none of Glass developers. Its about taste yes, but remember even today most people learned to fly or flew professional for many years with analogues. They are not history yet!

[RamonB 449]

1 minute ago, kapitan said:

If you are glass cockpit builder hurt feelings, sorry friend. But Glass are a thumbs down for simulation pleasure and if you are in this business consider some analogues also. 

By the way I love Carenado and have bought many of their crafts, and none of Glass developers. Its about taste yes, but remember even today most people learned to fly or flew professional for many years with analogues. They are not history yet!

You clearly didn't understood what Ray wrote: Your claim about making a glass gauge in a couple hours is disingenuous at best, and shows you don't know squat about programming, let alone a PFD, MFD or CDU.

BTW: if someone knows about Carenado airplanes is Ray, after all he has reviewed most of them.

[kapitan 90]

3 minutes ago, RamonB said:

You clearly didn't understood what Ray wrote: Your claim about making a glass gauge in a couple hours is disingenuous at best, and shows you don't know squat about programming, let alone a PFD, MFD or CDU.

BTW: if someone knows about Carenado airplanes is Ray, after all he has reviewed most of them.

thanks, i noted it down. So...

Edited August 22, 2020 by kapitan

[raymar 969]

13 minutes ago, RamonB said:

You clearly didn't understood what Ray wrote: Your claim about making a glass gauge in a couple hours is disingenuous at best, and shows you don't know squat about programming, let alone a PFD, MFD or CDU.

BTW: if someone knows about Carenado airplanes is Ray, after all he has reviewed most of them.

Hey. Long time no hear.  I have been over at Aerofly FS2 for the last few years.  Would love to hear what has been happening in your world the last few years.  email me.

[Rimshot 1,182]

Nothing wrong with glass, but as I also asked in another thread, are there no airspaces displayed? Or have I not fiddled with the knobs enough?

I do like old steam as well though. They will come, I'm sure.

[norman_99 209]

And here I was thinking I’m the only person that favours analogue over glass.

Firstly, it’s more challenging. Following the magenta line is easy. Teardrop NDB approaches and DME arc’s with nothing but an RMI actually test your skill level. I’d actually even prefer an old school GPS every now and then too. Maybe a KLN89B or the dreaded Trimble 2000. I’m probably an outlier her, as most people don’t even want 530s now the touch GTNs are available.

Just as importantly, I want each aircraft to look and feel different. To almost have a personality if you will. When every aircraft I get in has a big Garmin PFD/MFD it takes the variety and fun out of having different aircraft. Analogue gauges inevitably have unique layouts, different brand/model instruments & radios. I remember absolutely loving the DA Cheyenne partly because they chose model some different models of instruments that hadn’t been seen before (including the Trimble).

Once devs start porting over their products, I’m actually hoping Carenado make their B200 & C90 available. Sure, there’s newer and fancier (and arguably better) models around, with Pro Lines and big Garmins,  but I just gotta have me some steam.

[ThrottleUp 630]

2 hours ago, kapitan said:

The two gigantic MFDs occupy nearly the whole monitor, and its interior graphics are FS4 quality. So by staring at them all the time you are using FS4 hahah

I think you refer to the synthetic vision on the displays? They are amazing and would really help with SA during hard IMC in real life. In the real world I would always choose glass since its reliability is a universe away from steam gauges and their dreadful spinning motors, vacuum mechanisms etc. So failure prone. 

However I also agree with you that it can take away the "feel" of a plane. Almost every GA and bizzjet cockpit picture today looks the same - and in many cases they ARE the same with just software adjustments made to cater for that particular airplanes performance.

Even more so in a home sim restricted to a monitor -  seeing the SAME branded displays again and again in different planes can make it a bit boring. With steam theres an element of individuality. So yes, would be nice to see more planes with old skool panels.

As much as I like glass I prefer the dial display of speed and alt vs the tape style. I have seen glass displays that can do this, just change the format. With a needle on a dial you can tell in a second the airspeed for example just from its position on the dial. I miss that kind of feedback from a tape. Like everything its just a matter of getting used to tape I suppose (which also has it strengths like showing oncoming dangerous speeds in yellow and red). 

[Ricardo41 5,965]

2 hours ago, captain420 said:

I love the modern all glass cockpit planes. Looks so clean and high tech! I don't care for the steam and analog gauges.

Same here, happy that MSFS is leaving the old geezer world of steam gauges behind. Give me a Malibu Meridian with the Garmin autoland. 

[ryanbatc 13,092]

If the glass worked I'd love them. These displays in the new sim are about as useless as tits on a bull

[ryanbatc 13,092]

If the glass worked I'd love them. These displays in the new sim are about as useless as tits on a bull