4 minutes ago, ErichB said:

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. 🙂

At present, the 3rd party aircraft (Carenado) also use the Asobo provided avionics, so that puts even more pressure on the base product being a bit more than half decent...

Lets hope that Asobo can upgrade the Garmins to a more robust level.  I think they bit off more than they could chew.. just look at the long list of default aircraft.. many of them with advanced avionics in the cockpit.. Very ambitious effort!

For now, I am keeping faith.. but it is hard to be patient, especially when there is little specific feedback from the developers who I hope have not all been reassigned to the XBox launch 🙂

The aspect of these discussions that troubles me is the conflict between throwing daggers at say Carenado for being too focused on the appeal of eye candy, and paying too little attention to aviation related details and testing, and defending MSFS development when they have clearly done the same...

9 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

At present, the 3rd party aircraft (Carenado) also use the Asobo provided avionics, so that puts even more pressure on the base product being a bit more than half decent...

Lets hope that Asobo can upgrade the Garmins to a more robust level.  I think they bit off more than they could chew.. just look at the long list of default aircraft.. many of them with advanced avionics in the cockpit.. Very ambitious effort!

For now, I am keeping faith.. but it is hard to be patient, especially when there is little specific feedback from the developers who I hope have not all been reassigned to the XBox launch 🙂

+1²
(Means I strongly agree. Readers, please do not rip at me.  Of course I know 1² = 1 lol)!

Meanwhile, improving the avionics as an issue has not climbed the list over at the Q & A site for questions to the developers.  I linked that site earlier in this topic)

Edited September 23, 20205 yr by fppilot

5 minutes ago, fppilot said:

The aspect of these discussions that troubles me is the conflict between throwing daggers at say Carenado for being too focused on the appeal of eye candy, and paying too little attention to aviation related details and testing, and defending MSFS development when they have clearly done the same...

Well, here is a conspiracy theory for you...  We know that Carenado was involved with Asobo early on..  What if Asobo said:  "You guys are successful at building airplanes, we trust you to develop the avionics for us.."

That would explain much.. 😉

2 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

Well, here is a conspiracy theory for you...  We know that Carenado was involved with Asobo early on..  What if Asobo said:  "You guys are successful at building airplanes, we trust you to develop the avionics for us.."

That would explain much.. 😉

Oh No! Say it ain't so......

Someone should shoot Garmin an email and suggest that they try out the product that has their logo on it licensed in MSFS and think about how it represents their brand.

I suspect Asobo will get a lot of "help" on improving the default G1000/G3000/G3X after that.

I don't think Asobo or the current Microsoft team know anywhere near enough about IFR flight to produce a marginally functional Garmin setup.  And with the VOR system being decommissioned around the world in favor of GPS based navigation, the bar on the systems in a new sim vs FS9 or FSX must be set higher.

The Natives are getting restless.

21 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

Someone should shoot Garmin an email and suggest that they try out the product that has their logo on it licensed in MSFS and think about how it represents their brand.

Someone already has, sort of...Their social media folks are aware for sure from several comments and tags on YouTube and Instagram posts.

8 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.

??? Minutia ???

I can think of nothing so fundamental to VFR as is the ability to reliably capture the signal and display the bearing to a VOR.   Asoboo did not include DME and I cannot make the ADF work so the three most basic navigation aids are not working.   Are we to fly VFR by watching the roads go by 3,000' below us?

Edited September 23, 20205 yr by TacomaSailor

38 minutes ago, TacomaSailor said:

??? Minutia ???

I can think of nothing so fundamental to VFR as is the ability to reliably capture the signal and display the bearing to a VOR.   Asoboo did not include DME and I cannot make the ADF work so the three most basic navigation aids are not working.   Are we to fly VFR by watching the roads go by 3,000' below us?

It’s not the end of the world friend.  Not worth getting uptight about.   Patience.  Or use P3D for now.  Plenty of aircraft choice 

I have used VOR successfully in this MSFS using the C172 

22 hours 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

Thank you for pointing it out. I will vote for all Garmin related questions, since this is a pressing issue, in my opinion.

51 minutes ago, TacomaSailor said:

Are we to fly VFR by watching the roads go by 3,000' below us?

Well technically, yeah you should absolutely be able to. Or by dead reckoning a course based on aircraft performance and winds aloft...but seeing how hit and miss live weather in the sim seems to be, that might be difficult. But that’s a topic for another thread 😉😂

23 hours 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.

Youre kidding, right? MS is a trillion dollar company, they couldn’t hire one consultant from PMDG? C’mon

1 minute ago, mjw8899 said:

Youre kidding, right? MS is a trillion dollar company, they couldn’t hire one consultant from PMDG? C’mon

Ok...what am I missing here? Replace “PMDG” with “Garmin” and we are making the exact same point. 🤷‍♂️

1 minute ago, mjw8899 said:

Youre kidding, right? MS is a trillion dollar company, they couldn’t hire one consultant from PMDG? C’mon

Apparently not.

In a recent podcast they were gushing about all the free community feedback on the aircraft handling and performance and saying "there is no one who has flown all of these aircraft" and making it sound like there was no way they could have every gotten feedback on their planes.

Guess what guys, there are these people called test pilots, who you could actually hire to fly the sim and provide feedback on it, instead of depending on free "feedback" from the community.....