Flying 172 w/ G1000 from KSBA to KSMX and trying to use VOR to VOR, or at least minimize the waypoints/GPS usage.

Tracking NNW past GVO VOR (113.8) at 5 NM with it tuned in NAV1 and it showed No Data in the BRG1 display but did show GVO in the NAV 1 tuning section.  At that point NAV2 was tuned to GLJ VOR (111.00) which is about 5 miles NNW of KSMX.  Again, the BRG2 displayed No Data with the VOR at a distance of 30 NM.  Autopilot would not track to GLJ.   I set the AP to GPS and flew to ZIPRR fix which took me almost directly overhead GLJ but never received an data in the BRG2 display.   At ZIPRR I turned back into the ILS Rwy 20 approach for KSMX.  After getting established on the approach - BRG2 still showed No Data for GLG, despite it being co-located at HILDY, which is the the final let down point for the ILS approach. 

Eventually did a touch & go at KSMX Rwy 12 with a nice ILS approach, which worked perfectly down to minimums.  After the T&G - when the 172 hit 500' AGL - suddenly I had data for both GLJ and GVO VORs while headed ESE.  Climbed back to 3,000' and turned 180° to fly the same course I did before the T&G.  Once the 172 was headed NNW I lost the data for both VORs.

Turned back to a 120° heading and both VORs appeared with good data in the BRG1 and BRG2 displays.  

AND - I had the dreaded MFD black screen failure during the climb out from KSMX.

AND - I again found that I can not do a GPS D-> (Direct to) the last couple GPS fixes at both KSMX and KSBA even when those fixes appear on the MFD display and as part of the approach flight plan.  The MFD and PFD both tell me there is no such fix despite both displaying the fix on the screen.  I have had this problem at seven different airports all over the US. 

AND - when I reached 4,000' after taking off from KSMX and acquiring GVO in NAV1 and having a good bearing I turned the CDI to fly to the VOR, which was about 10° to starboard of the then current heading.  The AP proceeded to make a 350° degree turn to port to get on track and then oscillated 20° either side of the direct heading once it brought the nose back around (going counter clockwise) to point at GVO.  I took three full minutes for the AP to make the wrong way turn and settle on the proper course.   

It is hard to believe that MS/ASOBO was not aware of all these strange behaviors and even harder to believe they wanted to release the product and really annoy serious fans and optimists such as myself.  I've been so looking forward to a flight simulator, which did not require constant attention to "minor bugs" and all kinds of fine tuning.  I enjoyed FSX but it was a technical challenge and would cause me to not fly it for months at a time.  (PS - I have been a hard core computer systems programmer and performance manager since 1969 and I do love a technical challenge - BUT - this is really getting  on my nerves!)

It is a good thing I enjoy hand flying low and slow along the beach and in the mountains. 

The first GPS I had in my sailboat in 1995 worked better than the G1000 in FS 2020!

Edited September 22, 20205 yr by TacomaSailor

I’m convinced that despite a very enthusiastic and capable development team that truly wants to build a great simulator, and has done a spectacular job representing the environment in which we fly...they just lack the aviation experience to take the product beyond basic visual flight at this point.

Are you aware of this activity?  They are building a list of closely screened questions.  By that I mean they screen them and weed out duplication.  However you can respond to a related question, widening the scope of the question. I started one yesterday about the G1000, and later expanded it to all of the Garmin GPS models in the sim.  Please feel free to add a message in there, and by all means vote so it climbs toward the top of the list for consideration.

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/c/community/developer-q-a-questions/172

4 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

I’m convinced that despite a very enthusiastic and capable development team that truly wants to build a great simulator, and has done a spectacular job representing the environment in which we fly...they just lack the aviation experience to take the product beyond basic visual flight at this point.

I believe you are correct.  I exchanged messages with a member of the development team last night as one of my questions at the linked site above was being screened.  He had a couple of "ah ha, I was not aware of that....   " moments regarding navigation of flight plans and where the GPS/AP pick up an approach (IAF).  Currently the sim has that as the waypoint prior to the IAF.

27 minutes ago, fppilot said:

Are you aware of this activity?  They are building a list of closely screened questions.  By that I mean they screen them and weed out duplication.  However you can respond to a related question, widening the scope of the question. I started one yesterday about the G1000, and later expanded it to all of the Garmin GPS models in the sim.  Please feel free to add a message in there, and by all means vote so it climbs toward the top of the list for consideration.

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/c/community/developer-q-a-questions/172

I did know about it have been hoping these ever so obvious problems / deficiencies would have been reported by others  - that is so lazy on my part.  I will try to participate in the problem reporting.  I spent so many years detailing technical computer (mainframe) problems that I have been trying to avoid it in my retirement.  But, if I'm going to whine - then I guess I have to make the effort to provide professional problem reports so they can be resolved.   See you there! 

Hello all,

This link is to an xbox forum.  I do not have xbox, I do not want xbox and I really dont want to join xbox in order to have any kind of input into a forum.  This is probably unreasonable but it is the way I feel, partly because it was released for PC as well. Fact of life I guess.

Secondly, I wonder how far or what progress, if any, is being made by RXP and  Flight1 with a GTN750/650 update for MSFS. The release of those programmes would fix most of the problems displayed by the default G1000.

The same query applies to Mindstar  for those who actually want to stick to the G1000.  Mindstar, to my mind has been an excellent product, particularly when compared to any default G1000.

This is not to say that there does not appear to be a need to fix and then upgrade the default G1000 (Sorry, this is an incredible understatement) 

However, the G1000 is not the only problem with this platform and there would appear to be lots of room for improvement in many areas of this sim.  I have every confidence in MS/Asobo actually fixing a lot of this but, as been oft said before, 3PDs will be the ultimate saviours of this platform. (not that it needs saving LOL .. just needs fixing)

Tony

 

I agree with most of the comments on the G1000.  I have been trying a simple flight which should be an easy task, but seldom succeeds:

1.  Select the Cessna 172 with Garmin 1000.  Go to Tri-Cities, KPSC, and select runway 21R.

2. Select NAV mode with course set to 210 degrees and HDG synced to 210.

3. Take off from Tri-Cities (KPSC) RWY21R and climb to about 2000 ft.

4. Turn on the autopilot, and select heading mode.

5. With heading mode on, change the heading to 300 degrees and continue climbing.  (Note - I use Little Navmap to monitor my flight.)

6. Change heading to 030 degrees.

7. Climb to 4000 feet, then turn on ALT mode on the autopilot.

8. Fly until the green arrow says the plane is above the ILS glideslope.

9.  Turn to a heading of 120 degrees.

10. When the ILS path (course set to 210 degrees) is almost reached, turn to 160 degrees. 

10. Select APP mode on the autopilot.

Ideally, the localizer and glide slope will be captured and the plane will descend for a landing on runway 21R.  This works very will using P3D v4.5 or 5.0.  However, with FS2020 several types of failure usually occur:  a) the heading is not captured by the autopilot, and if this happens the plane banks steeply, descends rapidly and crashes, b) the ILS localizer is not captured, or c) the glideslope is not captured.  Sometimes it is possible to manually fly to the correct heading and the autopilot will take over.  Usually this is not the case.  Note that the AP and HDG modes will appear on the display, but the plane does not obey.

I have also tried the Cessna 172 without the Garmin 1000 and the Beech Baron.  All behave the same.

I have installed the latest patch to FS2020, and the latest GeForce driver.  I am using a CH products yoke and rudder pedals, which seem to work well as long as I do not turn on the autopilot.  I do not understand why the Garmin 1000 works so well with P3D, and yet fails so badly with FS2020.

Jim Kaye  

9 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

Hello all,

This link is to an xbox forum.  I do not have xbox, I do not want xbox and I really dont want to join xbox in order to have any kind of input into a forum.  This is probably unreasonable but it is the way I feel, partly because it was released for PC as well. Fact of life I guess.

That's not exactly true. Nowadays Xbox is Microsoft's brand for all gaming-related services, including PC gaming - so as a user of MSFS, technically you do have Xbox. I understand why you want to have as little interaction as possible with the MS online services (I avoid the MS store like the plague), but the forums work very well for me, I just log in with the username/password that I use inside MSFS. 

The user comments on the forums contain a lot of noise (a lot more than on avsim), but there are still many users that put a lot of effort into their posts and are worth reading.

And it's the official way to interact with the development team. I think they're doing a good job at involving the community, for a project this size it's more than you can typically expect. No doubt they could do better still, a developer blog with meaningful articles would be a nice addition, and clearer and faster feedback on open issues would be appreciated too. 

Anyway, not meaning to convince you otherwise, just wanted to share the general impressions I got while using the official MSFS forums. 

Edited September 23, 20205 yr by pstrub

pstrub,

OK you have actually convinced me.  I was under the impression that was a forum just for XBox and as you said, I have no desire to get involved with that system.

I shall have a bo peep at it.

Cheers mate

Tony

11 hours ago, snglecoil said:

they just lack the aviation experience to take the product beyond basic visual flight at this point.

And you know this how? Have you reviewed the resumes of the team members?

These are default aircraft on a sim that's been out for about a month.

To be honest, I would rather have the development team focus on building a stable platform and not focus on minutia within the G1000.    They need to focus  resource in particular on building out the SDK, so that the third party community can do what they have always done best.  

 

I think kicking them for not having aviation experience is silly. They are game coding specialists, not pilots or avionics specialists.

4 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

And you know this how? Have you reviewed the resumes of the team members?

These are default aircraft on a sim that's been out for about a month.

When you know, you just know...

...oh and the fact interviews with the development team have stated as much.

2 hours ago, ErichB said:

To be honest, I would rather have the development team focus on building a stable platform and not focus on minutia within the G1000.    They need to focus  resource in particular on building out the SDK, so that the third party community can do what they have always done best.  

 

I think kicking them for not having aviation experience is silly. They are game coding specialists, not pilots or avionics specialists.

Yeah, but what we are talking about is not G1000 specific minutia.  It is basic, generic functionality that is common across almost any modern GNSS navigation system...and when I say modern, I'm talking about standards set with the release of the Garmin GNS units in 1998...22 year ago. What I'm talking about is a standardized, generic feature set and workflow that should be common (shared code) across any GPS nav unit in the game at a minimum.

I'm not kicking them for not having aviation experience. They have proven their coding skill by delivering a level of sophistication in a "digital twin" of our world that no one was expecting. What is missing can and should be added by consulting people who do have the knowledge. This is where the failure lies at this point in time. I suspect they will close this gap with time. From Jorg's own words, a project gets to the point where it is not everything you want, but has enough to release something. That's where MSFS lives right now, with the idea that this is a 10 year commitment from the team. 

I agree that building a platform for 3rd parties to provide minutia in spades is very important. But it is not the panacea that everyone believes. The RealityXP and Flight 1 Garmin trainer-based plugins that people are clamoring for are locked into whatever stale nav data is included from Garmin. Want updated data for use on Vatsim, Pilot Edge, etc? There's a subscription for that...and not from Navigraph. You can get it from Garmin at $450-550/year or as low as $130 for a single US only nav update. If you want the absolute highest fidelity system simulation, then that's an option. Asobo doesn't have to go to that depth, however, to deliver an outstanding experience and value. The ingredients are all there, the visual representation of the units, the NavBlue data updates...they just need a little input from some who understands how it should work and a little more time in the oven.

It's all because MSFS2020 is a very immature product that was released months too early. Come back in 12-18 months if you want hardcore IFR/GPS simulation out of it.

5 hours ago, ErichB said:

 

I think kicking them for not having aviation experience is silly. They are game coding specialists, not pilots or avionics specialists.

Did you really mean that...?

This is a Flight Simulator we are taking about.. surely they have access to real world IFR rated pilots..

Personally, I would hope that they can find a way of working with the Garmin company to upgrade their "Garmin branded" avionics.. I would happily pay for a factory authorized upgrade 🙂

Edited September 23, 20205 yr by Bert Pieke

14 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

Did you really mean that...?

This is a Flight Simulator we are taking about.. surely they have access to real world IFR rated pilots..

Personally, I would hope that they can can find a way of working with the Garmin company to upgrade their "Garmin branded" avionics.. I would happily pay for a factory authorized upgrade 🙂

Well, I kind of do.   Historically,  we have never had default aircraft worthy of their real world counterparts, not even to mention their avionics stacks.  I agree however, that if you are going to produce a sim with the majority of aircraft being equipped with G1000 avionics, that there should be at least a half decent piece of virtual equipment.  But I think that's exactly what we got.  Half-decent. 🙂

To be fair to the development team, I don't think they had any say on the shortened release timeline.  That was a Microsoft business decision and as far as I'm concerned has nothing to do with the ability to code avionics properly.  I simply think that in the order of priority, given the shortened release timeframe, they did the best they could.   From the start, they were also clear that alot more needed to be done and that they are committed to doing that.  

It is somewhat frustrating yes, but I'm pretty sure that everything will be sorted, either by the very talented flightsim community itself, or ultimately by Osobo.

I have managed so far,  to avoid becoming frustrated with what's missing and to focus entirely on what is available.  Some days, I still don't know where to start.  There is alot to see in VFR if we just stick to more basic flying.  For everything else, there is still P3DV5 (which I have now uninstalled)

Edited September 23, 20205 yr by ErichB