You can't change the basic avionics panel of the TBM (a version of the the G3000).

47 minutes ago, ark said:

I thought the TMB 930 used the G3000; is there an option to use the G1000 with this a/c, or am I just confused. 😃

Well you now have me confused. I always thought I was using the G1000 mod with the TBM 930. Obviously not. Thanks fellows for putting me wise to this! Still curious though why the G3000 should be acting up as I experienced at EGGD earlier today.

2 minutes ago, powlcown said:

Well you now have me confused. I always thought I was using the G1000 mod with the TBM 930. Obviously not. Thanks fellows for putting me wise to this! Still curious though why the G3000 should be acting up as I experienced at EGGD earlier today.

There is a screen mod for the TBM that you might want to try.  In the real world there is a TBM 910 that uses the G1000x panels but, the TBM 930 uses a variation of the G3000x.

I've thought a lot about the merging mods debate. My view is that there are two distinct types of mod. One is the utility/systems mod which improves the utility of all aircraft that share certain facets - a glass cockpit of a certain type, or common systems. I do not think that lighting, flight models or generail aircraft behaviour should be considered automatically to be mergable, whatever pressure is applied to do so, because they are about interpretation.

The nearest analogy that comes to mind is the provision of equipment for a painter/artist and the work that comes out of the utility of that equipment. Two or more artists might acquire identical canvases, palettes, paints and brushes, but it would be almost unheard of for them to "merge" their works of art. Similarly, two composers might use the same software or score paper, but they would never share their compositions.

The excellent Working Title G1000 mod is a utility, very well designed, that has utility for multiple other projects. But it so happens that you do not actually need to merge that mod. You can if both parties choose to, but both mods can live in the community folder and they compliment one another and do not generally clash.

Now take two different interpretations of one aircraft. One team has a preference for a certain handling, and another team or individual has a different approach. Both are valid. They both share identical cockpits, but one has different lighting, or brighter lighting, and the other doesn't. One has very sensitive controls - the other does not. Very quickly we get into a conundrum about which team or author holds sway.

For that reason I am skeptical about merging every mod in sight. In the end you get something that is either in danger of being designed by committee, or one assertive person on a team pulls rank on others, or pushes his or her own agenda. Without intending to, this can lead to conflict and might actually lead to a merged piece of work that would be better off as an individual team or person effort.

Most utility mods do not need to be merged because they can reside in tandem with other mods but in a separate folder., unless there are "competing" mods, in which case it is better to let the user to decide which one to use On balance I think it is healthy to keep other mods separate unless there is a clearly demonstrated point in merging them. To me, having to temporarily move one mod to make another work is no hardship, and people are in any case already working on being able to use two similar mods living side by side while remaining independent if the end user so desires it.

 

Edited October 14, 20205 yr by robert young

To add to Robert's point - paramount really is compatibility. So many mods are conflicting, and then a patch comes out and everything is back up in the air (pun intended)

Guys,

This is  fascinating conversation which really bears following.

I have a couple of questions however.

1, where can I find these mods (G1000/G3000) specifically, 

2. Are all you guys or teams, only working on default aircraft or systems,

3. Have you a specific list of which mods affect which aircraft, and,

4. When the SDKs are finally finished and workable, with 3PDs actively introducing new aircraft (hopefully) how will this affect your ongoing development. 

Given the new (for me) information regarding just the Garmin units, it opens up a whole new world particularly as further development introduces new features to these panels.  

One other thing, if RXP and Flight1 introduce the GTN750/650 combination, will it be compatible and just slot in the same way as the (for instance) RealAir Duke Turbo and Phenom 100/300, or will that take serious redevelopment work on your part or by RXP and Flight1?

Keep up the assumed, LOL,great work guys

Tony

1 hour ago, himmelhorse said:

One other thing, if RXP and Flight1 introduce the GTN750/650 combination, will it be compatible and just slot in the same way as the (for instance) RealAir Duke Turbo and Phenom 100/300, or will that take serious redevelopment work on your part or by RXP and Flight1?

Keep up the assumed, LOL,great work guys

Tony

These units only slotted in for use as a pop up 2d panel. To get them to work in a virtual cockpit required a lot of extra work to integrate. 

Edited October 15, 20205 yr by robert young

2 minutes ago, robert young said:

These units only slotted in for use as a pop up 2d panel. To get them to work in a virtual cockpit required a lot of extra work to integrate

Robert,

Thanks for your reply mate.

I note that the RealAir Duke had a seamless integration and it definitely was not a 2D popup.  Probably the most simple installation I have ever come across. and it just replaced the stock instruments.  Brilliant. This is not to say that it did not take a lot of extra work to integrate.  RealAir simply got it perfectly right. The only draw back was the inability to accept the latest navigraph information.

The Phenom GTN installation was a totally different story, and, as you may well be aware, was almost useless without Bert Piekes' assistance.

I further acknowledge that RXP and Flight1 GTNs have nothing to do with you and my question was probably a silly one. I think I was trying to say that for most prior GTN users, once introduced into MSFS, it would automatically replace the stock Garmin units.  I do not know if this would apply to the default aircraft though.

Finally, this thread started a little research for me, but I cannot for the life of me, find a download link to anything other than Working title Mods.  Could you please give me a link to your version and a list of aircraft that it is applicable to.

Regards

Tony  

  

1 hour ago, himmelhorse said:

One other thing, if RXP and Flight1 introduce the GTN750/650 combination, will it be compatible and just slot in the same way as the (for instance) RealAir Duke Turbo and Phenom 100/300, or will that take serious redevelopment work on your part or by RXP and Flight1?

I am not sure that question can be answered, as asked...

There are several aspects to this:

1. Will the 3rd party GPS units be able to integrate with the aircraft systems in the airplane?

eg.  will they be able to steer the autopilot in GPS mode?  Will the HSI or PFD display the appropriate readouts?

2. Will the 3rd party GPS units be able to physically integrate into the cockpit panel? Will they fit and look right, and will the buttons and knobs work?

Much is yet undefined.. 😉

Think of it, as bringing your personal aircraft into the maintenance facility,  and say: "Can you rip out the existing avionics, and install this fancy new avionics package, and make it look pretty and functional in the cockpit, and make it work correctly?"

The first answer you would get is: "How much are you willing to spend?"  🙂

Bert,

I just acknowledged that this was probably a silly question.  I am assuming that if and when RXP or Flight 1 do introduce the GTN750 we will have much the same install problems as we had in P3D. I am just wondering if they will also install into the default aircraft or will the default aircraft have to be modded to accept that installation. 

In saying this, I believe that once 3PDs get stuck into aircraft integration, I will probably abandon the default aircraft anyway except on an occasional basis.

The answer to your last though, is "not a lot" lol I am still saving up for REX Weather. 

Tony

Wow, this is a great discussion and I missed some of it because I had the temerity to focus exclusively on paying work during the day today.  Let's see if I can catch up!

My partner in crime @cwburnettdid a great job explaining the philosophy we're operating under:  Working Title, ourselves, are not necessarily aiming to be a giant mod-umbrella.  We're a handful of folks who get along, have a fairly high degree of skill in their various fields, and are focused on roughly the same areas of improvement:  avionics and systems modelling.  We've added a few people as we've gone along but are not trying to become a huge project like FlyByWire.  Another partner in crime, @MattNischan, has noted that he spends a lot of time at his day job managing a team of engineers and he has no desire to do the same in his free time, and pretty much the exact same thing could be said for me.

That having been said, we are also highly cognizant of the dangers of having too much sprawl and the potential conflict between mods that are developed by disparate groups, especially given the nature of how these things work with MSFS.  What growth we have had has pretty much been either from picking up folks who have contributed heavily to existing work to the point where it made sense to bring them in (like @ZeraKnight on the MSFS forum, who I don't think has an Avsim account, but who was doing some amazing work on the G1000 UI) or projects that have had a high degree of overlap, or potential overlap, with what we're doing.  This latter is why as soon as I saw both what @aznricepuffhad done with the G3000 and the quality of his work I reached out to him to see if he'd be interested in joining us.  And, already, we've been able to contribute features to the G3000 and work from the G3000 is going to be coming to the G1000 soon.

I've talked privately with the person who's doing the GNS 530 mod when they reached out to me to ask about possible conflicts with some of the common code we both wanted to modify, so we're at least coordinating even if that's not an official Working Title project.  Similarly, as @cwburnettnoted, we've been trying to coordinate work with the folks who are doing mods for individual planes.  We haven't talked about extending to any plane mods beyond the CJ4 (except possibly the Longitude due to high degree of similarity) and we're not actively recruiting for other folks to join us.  But we definitely encourage folks who are working on mods that could benefit from collaboration to reach out to us, and it's been gratifying when folks have.

For @himmelhorse's question about where such mods can be found:  due to the pace at which we develop and the pain it would be to update a lot of different hosting sites, we as a group are only distributing our stuff from github at the moment.  We have automated release processes which build our code and post releases to github when they're ready, and people can use the existing github features for watching a project to get notification when new things happen.  We also have active discussion threads on both Avsim and the MSFS forum and often post on reddit when something new is released, as well.  We don't yet have much (anything?) by us on flightsim.to, which seems to be what a lot of the community have gravitated to as a "main" mod site, again mainly because the effort keeping up to date when we update multiple projects sometimes multiple times per week would be troublesome but as things stabilize we might start posting things there.  At it is we seem to be finding plenty of users with just what we've been doing. 🙂

(I have also made a suggestion to the folks at flightsim.to that it would be amazing for them to do a little integration work with github so we can ping an API when we have updates and our listing there would automatically update as well.  It hasn't happened yet, but should that happen I think you'll see our stuff on there a lot more quickly, and probably the work of other developers who are mostly github-focused at the moment.  If you want to point anyone from flightsim.to to this post/thread to signalboost that suggestion it couldn't hurt. 😄 )

About whether we're only working on default planes and systems at this point:  "yes, but".  The work we've done on the G1000 has been done in a way that will allow it to be used both in the default planes and in any third-party planes that use the default avionics.  The same will likely be true of the G3000 and the G3X Touch mods when they are release-ready.  We try to aim for maximum possible compatibility in this area.  And if RXP or F1 come out with a shiny commercial G1000 I'll be as happy as anyone and use it in as many planes as I can because it will probably be better than anything we can do with the default instruments -- BUT its worth nothing that just because those products come out doesn't mean that they are immediately integrated into every plane.  You need to specifically code support for a third-party avionics system and if that's not present integrating with them is a lot harder.  So I think there's a role for the sort of work we're doing even after those systems arrive, because not every plane will be able to use them... and not every person will want to use them, either.

Phew.  I hope that's useful info.

(And if you're working on a mod and think we could benefit from collaborating, give any of us a shout, we'd be happy to chat.)

 

Edited October 15, 20205 yr by kaosfere

Rob, this is a really good overview, and I am in awe of what your guys have already done!

But back to Tony's question...  There is a substantial difference between fixing the default avionics and ripping them out and replacing them with 3rd party avionics.  (As you have just explained..)

I am not sure it is obvious to the casual users how different these two projects are.. 🙂

Edited October 15, 20205 yr by Bert Pieke

Not only that, Bert, but we have absolutely no clear evidence that Flight1 has even started looking at the SDK. Knowing this, it could be a year or more before we see or even hear any details about high end 3rd Party GTNs are being worked on.

Therefore, I think our best bet is to continue with these User Mods and make the best of them for now.

Adding the engine components to the G1000s that are airplane specific and expanding those as we find uses, and adding new features to the G3000 is very exciting to me.

Ray

Kaosfere,

re your last, I do not think I will be any kind of asset to you or your organization mate.  I have trouble finding Google LOL

Thank you so much for your lengthy and helpful reply ... I shall proceed to Github asap for your next update. I do actually have the update prior to our latest MSFS update and that is working well.  I have to admit to some confusion as I thought we were talking about something other than Working Title.  That is a graphic example of why I may not be any sort of asset to you LOL

I also know that RXP and Flight 1 are not automatic integration into any sort of aircraft instrumentation. In fact, apart from the RealAir Duke they are somewhat difficult to incorporate into anything, Well, that at least, applies to me and I would still be trying to work out how to get out of my cave, if it were not for Bert Pieke, who has been a wonderful asset to the community.

I shall muddle on with gratitude for your response

Tony