9 minutes ago, Adrian123 said:

But, there is the DTO option also.

 

But.. does it work correctly in MSFS?  Not yet, I would say.

4 hours ago, cwburnett said:

These changes can be incorporated into the sim without having to modify the core sim files. Instead, you can create copies of the files you want to modify and create a package for them in the Community folder.

Not to start an argument but you make these changes sound as if they are easy to do for common folks. My question is why don't the makers of the sim just fix the problems and post the fixes on line then users can place a copy in their own "Community folders"? This is like buying a new car and under the hood you find a box with all the parts that make up an engine. You just put them together and then you can drive home. I don't think that would go over so good!!

Edit: Just wanted to add that it is great that you guys are trying to help out with this problem.

Edited September 4, 20205 yr by shivers9

2 hours ago, fppilot said:

That clearly did not happen for me yesterday, and as Bert identified from the approach plate the intercept altitude was 2500 AGL.  I was at that altitude well before the FAF.

You should download the shared cockpit mod and check it out together.

9 minutes ago, shivers9 said:

Not to start an argument but you make these changes sound as if they are easy to do for common folks. My question is why don't the makers of the sim just fix the problems and post the fixes on line then users can place a copy in their own "Community folders"? This is like buying a new car and under the hood you find a box with all the parts that make up an engine. You just put them together and then you can drive home. I don't think that would go over so good!!

Asobo has this on their fix list... but in the meantime, some smart individuals are making freeware adaptations (as we have all benefited from in the past).  If this were coded in XML, I would be having a look myself.  But Java is a foreign language to me..

So, I am as frustrated as anyone that the avionics were released in the incomplete state they are in, but am "patiently" waiting for someone, Asobo or 3rd parties to release something better.  Ideally, Asobo would partner with Garmin and offer a 100% simulation of the G1000.

🙂

Edited September 4, 20205 yr by Bert Pieke

1 minute ago, Bert Pieke said:

Asobo has this on their fix list... but in the meantime, some smart individuals are making freeware adaptations (as we have all benefited from in the past).

Understand. In case you missed it I had done and edit to say thanks probably while you were typing. LOL

This should be a learning phase and doing the work to improve the SDK.

Regards

bs

31 minutes ago, shivers9 said:

Not to start an argument but you make these changes sound as if they are easy to do for common folks

No argument, I think we're actually on the same page. It isn't easy, just easier than P3D. I guess my point was that the OP suggested that 3PD's were somehow out of the loop and couldn't make products for MSFS. My point was that, as a total non-developer noob, I was able to work on the avionics with one week of experience in MSFS.

"Common folks" shouldn't have to edit aircraft.cfg files or any other code at all. I'm not arguing that at all. I was just responding to the notion that somehow 3PDs have been locked out of building planes and avionics.

To the question of whether I'm happy with the default avionics - I am not. They don't work right. I've said that from the beginning.

To the question of whether I feel like the 3PDs can't make better avionics - I disagree. They can. And should. And soon. In a couple months, the number of freeware/community avionics and fixes is going to be huge. If the group I'm working with gets the G1000 90% true to life by October, who's going to buy a $50 payware version? They can sit around and wait for a perfect SDK if they like, but...I'm not sure the community will wait for them...my patience with default avionics ran out in about 5 days...from the tenor of this forum, many others are in the same boat. The first solution(s) to market will win the market, whether freeware or payware.

BTW, I have NO IDEA what RXP, Flight1 and others are doing, so I'm not directing any of this at them. For all I know they're days away from a release. I love my RXP 750 in P3D. I'd buy it today for MSFS if it were available, so please don't take my comments as bashing any of our 3PDs that are actively working on products for MSFS.

36 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

Ideally, Asobo would partner with Garmin and offer a 100% simulation of the G1000.

I can't even imagine how'd that up the immersion factor of this sim!   And we need some GTN touchscreen avionics options in there too! (turning dials to find a frequency or waypoint/airport is so last century) 

44 minutes ago, dobee51 said:

You should download the shared cockpit mod and check it out together.

It is really hit-or-miss, because as far as I can tell, the navdata is incomplete and so not all of the RNAV approach procedures have the vertical guidance data in-sim, so sometimes the vertical guidance/gs doesn't even appear even though the published approach has vertical guidance...makes it really hard to troubleshoot whether the problem is with whatever goofy steps we've tried to cobble together to get an approach activated or if the problem is with the nav data. I haven't had the patience to test each possible combination with an approach I know to work....but that'd be the way to nail this down. Honestly, I think we might get a fix for this before we learn the 'wrong' process...

In the other thread on this topic, someone was saying that vertical guidance is working for approaches into KDSM and KCID (if I remember correctly), so those might be good places to test the different methods...

Does it work if I just load?

Does it work if I load and activate two fixes before the approach starts?

etc...

5 minutes ago, cwburnett said:

BTW, I have NO IDEA what RXP, Flight1 and others are doing, so I'm not directing any of this at them. For all I know they're days away from a release. I love my RXP 750 in P3D. I'd buy it today for MSFS if it were available, so please don't take my comments as bashing any of our 3PDs that are actively working on products for MSFS.

The RXP 750 was THE thing that got me out of 100% tubeliner flying.   While I'm loving all the VFR exploring I'm doing with the GA's right now....I'd like to actually plan flights with the GTN to fly from place to place...like in the TBM for dashes to the next place to explore...then back into a slow flyer depending on the the mission.  While not impossible, I'm so comfortable with the intuitive interface of the GTN 750 that it's like an extension of my brain when it comes to navigation. 🙂

Even if the Modding community comes up with a really good alternative, I'm in a place in my life where I can afford to pay a payware dev for their product just to support them and help them stay in viable the community.  And from my experience, RXP is top-notch, very engaged in the community, and will get my business if they put out the 750 for this version of flightsim.

 

Flight1 is waiting on the SDK to be published.

Cheers

bs

2 minutes ago, Steve Dra said:

RXP is top-notch, very engaged in the community, and will get my business if they put out the 750 for this version of flightsim.

You and me both.

1 minute ago, bean_sprout said:

Flight1 is waiting on the SDK to be published.

I am literally using the SDK right now...

Maybe while they're waiting some of these devs will go back and finish the version 5 installers they said were on the way  months ago. Thinking specifically of my Milviz Otter.

3 hours ago, Chock said:

Gotta love the way people buy a 200 quid yoke, and then put the thing on GPS nav mode. 🤣

Or a $600 set of rudder pedals.

1 hour ago, tweekz said:

I'd be interested in your judgement in that regard.

I can list airplanes I like but I'm afraid other pilots won't agree 🙂