1 hour ago, cwburnett said:

I am literally using the SDK right now...

They have good reasons to wait until the SDK is completed for obvious reasons.

One thing is that the C++ gauge code is missing.  Sounds like a fun project.

bs

Edited September 4, 20205 yr by bean_sprout

3 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

As best I know, you do have to ACTIVATE the approach for this to work in MSFS.

In the real world, you are able to LOAD only, as you described.

Flew the approach into KSTP this afternoon and still no cigar.  Returned to RST, loaded the approach, then activated it.  Just stayed on ENR.  Flew from Minneapolis to Lee's Summit, Missouri and same same.  Activated the approach after the last waypoint and it returned to that waypoint.  Activated once more and it took me to the FAF instead of the IAF.  Just killed AP on both approaches and flew her in.  I like this DA62.  Flies real nice.

Is there a way to change the tuning increment/channel spacing on the COM radios?  Thought I did so the day before yesterday but for the life of me could not find the setting today.

Edited September 4, 20205 yr by fppilot

16 minutes ago, fppilot said:

Flew the approach into KSTP this afternoon and still no cigar.  Returned to RST, loaded the approach, then activated it.  Just stayed on ENR.  Flew from Minneapolis to Lee's Summit, Missouri and same same.  Activated the approach after the last waypoint and it returned to that waypoint.  Activated once more and it took me to the FAF instead of the IAF.  Just killed AP on both approaches and flew her in.  I like this DA62.  Flies real nice.

Is there a way to change the tuning increment/channel spacing on the COM radios?  Thought I did so the day before yesterday but for the life of me could not find the setting today.

Does the GS indicator light up?

OK, try my local airport CYCD in the C172 G1000.

Flightplan CYCD to CYCD

Load Approach RNAV R16 Y via HADER

Once over the water, autopilot NAV and ALT at 1400 feet

Activate approach, and watch the GS indicator come live, it should be roughly centered on the scale (this is not real world behavior)

Edit... I just tried it without activating the approach and it worked the same.. 🙃

After PESGU (on final) press the APR button on the autopilot

At ULDAT, the GS indicator will make a small jump and then it will guide your airplane down the glidepath..

Issues:

- The GS indicator lights up way too early

- If you are flying above 1400 feet, the GS indicator is low and you cannot intercept the glidepath

- The CDI stays on ENR the entire time..

 

Edited September 4, 20205 yr by Bert Pieke

2 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

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

As I was aksing you specifically, that's fine. 🙂

You said you're an instructor and have personal experience on some of those planes. So even if it comes down to personal experience a little, your word still has some value.

5 minutes ago, tweekz said:

As I was aksing you specifically, that's fine. 🙂

You said you're an instructor and have personal experience on some of those planes. So even if it comes down to personal experience a little, your word still has some value.

I'm long time simmer so I can interpolate my real experience into the sim. Some real pilot unable to do so and with real life approach nothing will seem realistic to them ever.

We have about 7 different 172 in club where I teach. Several of them "N" model, one "P", one "M", one "S", and one "B". My students always feel different about each of them. Some would prefer one 172 over another. I totally understand their choice; however, for me all 172 sort of handle pretty much the same. But this is because I have extensive experience flying them.Plus I know some of those  for years with all theirs quirks, bells and whistles. So it's all about perceptions.

So out of all airplanes in the game I only flown 172,152, SR22 and Bonanza. Carbon, Savage, Shock ultra fall close to Citabria and Decathlon that I'm familiar with. Baron is out of my league because I have only flown Seminole, Duchess and Traveller, but hey - two of them also Beechcraft 🙂 Closest thing to TBM I flown was Piper Malibu. I also have extensive experience with all kind Pipers and Mooneys. I proudly flown all models of Arrows: 180, Hershey bar, T tail, turbo and etc. So most of low wing  in the game remind me of Cherokee. In fact I learn to fly in Cherokee not in 172! I have never flown any Dimonds or any light sport aircraft in the game. So which airplane you want me to express my opinion ?

5 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

So which airplane you want me to express my opinion ?

Wow, interesting stuff. I can see why you are an instructor, you like to explain things. 😄

I'd just like to know which of those aircraft you think are closest to your RL experience and what you think about their strengths and weaknesses specifically.

40 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

So which airplane you want me to express my opinion ?

Feel free to write a novel, but it's not really necessary. 😄 

I'd be interested in your opinion of the 172.  Strong and weak points, anything that needs to be fixed (although we can't fix the "classic" analog gauge version).  

Hook

3 hours ago, cwburnett said:

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.

👍

see, this is the thing.  The existing 3pd's are going to sit around on their hands until they get an SDK that allows them to drop their existing stuff into MSFS.  In the meantime there will be a whole new crop of 3PD that will just use the capabilities that are already there.  My prediction is that by the time the old guard are happy, there will be products already on the market (or available for free download) that will make it a laughable and ridiculous prospect to charge $140 for an airliner model.  not necessarily because these new products will be better, but because they will be good enough for the vast majority.  

This is a new day.  I see a lot of folks the last few days pining for the Flight1 and RXP Garmin units.  Lets examine that.  These products were created to allow for more realistic GA operation in previous sims, notably because previous sims had non-updateable and incorrect navigation data.  they run off of the Garmin demo trainer programs, which means that Garmin spent the time making sure they work, and also ensures that the sim units are the same as the real units, because its the exact same code, so far so good.  The bulk of the developer time is in integrating the garmin trainer into a sim gauge, linking the gauge up to the sim autopilots (which I imagine is the current hang-up) and providing a framework for developers to model integration into different cockpits.  But now, we have a sim where the nav data is going to be upgradeable, either through Asobo or eventually Navigraph (I'm sure Aerosoft will chime in shortly with NavData pro as well)  So why do most of us need to deal with a Garmin Trainer based gps, when that nav data is dependent on either the whim of Garmin's very periodic trainer updates, or a really expensive real world data plan?  If some JS/HTML script kiddie can make a gauge that does a passable job, it'll be a better option.  The tools available will allow them to do it.  Already.

now, yes.  PMDG's extensive systems modelling and others of its like, which amount to another entire simulation running invisibly in the background, is probably beyond the capability of the SDK as it stands.  But I suspect that Asobo has a 737 MAX model ready to go as soon as Boeing's PR department deems it wise, which will probably be hot garbage, but will also possibly be moddable by users.  if we get a Zibo 737 in MSFS who is going to buy PMDG?  Some of you certainly.  I probably wouldn't, being honest.  That's why it's a new day.  I don't know what is going to happen, but I'm looking forward to watching it go down.

Maybe, but the GTN is an awesome unit.  It's simple and intuitive...compared to the real G1000...which is a PITA imo.  And the sim one is no better (well it's way way worse lol).  

Especially now for simulation, the GTN unit is amazing.  The touch interface is unbeatable.

1 hour ago, Bert Pieke said:

OK, try my local airport CYCD in the C172 G1000.

Flightplan CYCD to CYCD

Approach RNAV R16 Y via HADER

Once over the water, autopilot NAV and ALT at 1400 feet

Activate approach, and watch the GS indicator come live

After PESGU (on final) press the APR button on the autopilot

That worked perfect in the 172.  Thank you.  Big help.  I have shot now four approaches in the DA62 and that has not worked the same for me.  Will take her up and try again tomorrow.  Your instructions are the same procedure I used twice today in the Diamond.

Nice picturesque area....

4 minutes ago, fppilot said:

That worked perfect in the 172.  Thank you.  Big help.  I have shot now four approaches in the DA62 and that has not worked the same for me.  Will take her up and try again tomorrow.  Your instructions are the same procedure I used twice today in the Diamond.

Nice picturesque area....

My friend and I tried some RNAV (GPS) approaches with LPV minimums and we did the exact same setup and the results were different haha.  This was in the TBM

59 minutes ago, tweekz said:

Wow, interesting stuff. I can see why you are an instructor, you like to explain things. 😄

I'd just like to know which of those aircraft you think are closest to your RL experience and what you think about their strengths and weaknesses specifically.

If I fly straight and level, with standard rate of turn 172,152 fit the bill. I also like most of Cubs, really like gyroscopic precession on take off when I raid my tail. However when I attempt to do air work seems all of them fail to some extent real life. Meaning they don't bleed airspeed as expected or rich critical angle of attack as expected. Which funnel in to the old military sim discussions about rate of turn vs pounds you feel on the stick - those proportionally doesn't feel quire right.

1 hour ago, ryanbatcund said:

Maybe, but the GTN is an awesome unit.  It's simple and intuitive...compared to the real G1000...which is a PITA imo.  And the sim one is no better (well it's way way worse lol).  

Especially now for simulation, the GTN unit is amazing.  The touch interface is unbeatable.

GTN's kinda spoil us. 😉

1 hour ago, fppilot said:

Nice picturesque area....

Pretty place, isn't it  🙂