3 minutes ago, raymar said:

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

Ray,

My impression is that both are still waiting for the SDK to be upgraded to the point where they can use it.

From that point of view, I heartily endorse your comment regarding the User Mods and these guys seem to be a very switched on and competent 3PD.  

I will just add, again, that the SDK is paramount for 3PD enhancement of an aready very competent flight sim platform.

12 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

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

Hence my confuddlement mate.  I thought we were actually talking about something entirely different to Working Title, and I do not regard mine good self as a casual user.  I am just living in a totally and permanently state of confusion. A logical extention of old age mate.

Regards

Tony

48 minutes ago, himmelhorse said:

My impression is that both are still waiting for the SDK to be upgraded to the point where they can use it.

This is very much my impression as well, based on recent comments from one of the RealityXP developers on the official forum.

2 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

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.

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   

Thanks for those kind comments. It was Sean Moloney who did the GTN integration and I agree he did a brilliant job. V2 of my Turbo mod should be released within one day so I would wait for that as it has lots of improvements on V1. The links will be published along with the post announcing the release.

Edited October 15, 20205 yr by robert young

5 hours ago, robert young said:

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.

👍

I think this is worth restating. As @kaosfere mentioned, our goal is really to promote compatibility rather than trying to do everything ourselves. Our vision is for our G1000 to be able to be used in many different interpretations of aircraft that rely on the default G1000 panel - including Robert's excellent Turbo Bonanza and The Frett's normally aspirated G36. We know we can't do it all and we don't want to manage dozens of projects anyhow.

What we do want is for mod developers to adhere to a practice of minimizing their footprint on the simulator by thoughtfully modifying only files that are specific to their creation, making their own versions of shared files that they need to modify that might impact other aircraft or systems and most importantly to communicate and coordinate efforts to ensure that users can install multiple mods without conflicts.

While right now only the G1000, G3000, G3X and CJ4 are Working Title Projects, we have been in extensive communication with many other developers working on other aircraft or aircraft features (like lighting), to ensure that if our mods are installed side-by-side, no conflicts arise and they work seamlessly together.

This won't always be possible, but the more conversations the better. And there are some utility level features that have wide applicability. For example, our team is hard at work rewriting the flight plan manager to enable better flight plans, better approach activation, improved direct to capabilities, flight plan imports from simbrief and more...many of these features are likely portable and could be deployed in other mods, for example the FlyByWire team might benefit from this as an underlying utility.

In any case, merging and compatibility are separate objectives, and our hope is for as much compatibility as possible - that means mod developers need to take a little extra time to really understand the implications of what they're putting in their community folder package.

2 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

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

Actually, surprisingly similar. Not to spill the beans too much on what is to come for the various Working Title projects, but coming in the near to medium term are areas that could be considered to be entirely new instruments or systems totally from scratch.

Yes, has it been a great deal of reverse engineering to figure out and understand the underpinnings of the base libraries, but something like a RXP or Flight 1 Garmin is totally possible today, at high performance, no WASM required, with the right techniques.

Our goal is to eventually get to or exceed third party fidelity, removing as much Asobo code as is required or practical along the way, all developed in the open and available for all.

26 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

Our goal is to eventually get to or exceed third party fidelity, removing as much Asobo code as is required or practical along the way, all developed in the open and available for all.

You've got a lot of users cheering you on  🙂🙂

Moving Maps/charts???

Rewrite the Mixture Control system???

11 minutes ago, raymar said:

Moving Maps/charts???

We've prototyped charts already in the CJ4. Definitely coming.

The G1000 and 3000 already have pretty much re-written maps and better maps are coming to the CJ4 also. 👍

Oh. My! I’m dreaming about a turbo Mooney with a working Mixture and GTN 750. 

16 minutes ago, raymar said:

Rewrite the Mixture Control system???

That's more of a problem...much deeper in the sim. 

1 hour ago, raymar said:

Oh. My! I’m dreaming about a turbo Mooney with a working Mixture and GTN 750. 

As Matt said, a GTN is totally doable, but... without a custom model it wouldn't make much sense. If someone modeled a new cockpit for an existing plane with the frames for a GTN, it could definitely be done. I'd personally love a new interior panel model for the Bonanza, Baron and Mooney with a TXi and a GTN750. But now I'm just dreaming, we gotta get the stuff we're already working on done first!

Edited October 15, 20205 yr by cwburnett

Hey Working Title Team,

I have a suggestion for your consideration.  Enlarge the Engine Status area in the MFD by one more soft key width.  This will enable all the data to be larger and therefore easier to read with a quick glance while flying.  Also, as more data is added using the additional soft keys that data can also be more or larger.  The area is practically wasted anyway.

Bigger the better (the old pilot with weak eyes once told me).

Regards,

Ray

45 minutes ago, raymar said:

Hey Working Title Team,

I have a suggestion for your consideration.  Enlarge the Engine Status area in the MFD by one more soft key width.  This will enable all the data to be larger and therefore easier to read with a quick glance while flying.  Also, as more data is added using the additional soft keys that data can also be more or larger.  The area is practically wasted anyway.

Bigger the better (the old pilot with weak eyes once told me).

Regards,

Ray

I think the focus should be on making it realistic.  Whatever width it is in real life, it should be in the sim.

2 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

I think the focus should be on making it realistic.  Whatever width it is in real life, it should be in the sim.

Yeah, we're striving mostly for accuracy to the real thing, with some reasonable concessions to the realities of the way folks are interfacing with the unit and how they're very different from real life.   That said, the next version should have a much more detailed collection of settings and if there's enough demand for "enhancements" and they don't take time away from the core mission they might be able to find their way in as options for folks who want them.