The only true G1000 for me was the Flight1 G1000. Anything else has been a poor substitute. Whether they used their own G1000 or used the inadequate ASOBO one is not relevant.  It's not Flight1 that I tust. Its Garmin I trust. To the credit of Flight 1, they were able to screen scrape the demo software of Garmin.  I still value Caranado's analog gauge aircrafts. 

Edited February 9, 20215 yr by Manny

15 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

It's not a good comparison. Is like saying I did lousy job because someone else did it too

No, it’s saying it has its place. If you want PMDG it’s not for you if you enjoy a bit of VirtualCol then you might like it...

6 minutes ago, Manny said:

The only true G1000 for me was the Flight1 G1000. Anything else has been a poor substitute. Whether they used their own G1000 or used the inadequate ASOBO one is not relevant.  It's not Flight1 that I tust. Its Garmin I trust. To the credit of Flight 1, they were able to screen scrape the demo software of Garmin.  I still value their analog guage aircrafts. 

I agree it was good...the one in their king air was probably the best G1000 for P3D/FSX.

However, have you ever tried XP11?  The default G1000 is very well done...  almost as good as the real one, especially for loading of procedures, airways SIDS/STARs etc.

This is my hope for the Asobo Gxxx units...  they already have the updatable database, but they lack a lot of IAP's (which usually Navigraph has), but more importantly, the Asobo Garmin units just lack a lot...especially in the RNAV(GPS) realm.

Wipers work...

1 minute ago, ryanbatcund said:

I agree it was good...the one in their king air was probably the best G1000 for P3D/FSX.

However, have you ever tried XP11?  The default G1000 is very well done...  almost as good as the real one, especially for loading of procedures, airways SIDS/STARs etc.

This is my hope for the Asobo Gxxx units...  they already have the updatable database, but they lack a lot of IAP's (which usually Navigraph has), but more importantly, the Asobo Garmin units just lack a lot...especially in the RNAV(GPS) realm.

I never went xplane route so I am not aware of xplane stuff.

I trust PMDG even if they redo all the Boeing stuff and and not leverage Boeing code. They have stablished a reputation for that sort of thing. I wish, like you said, ASOBO had done a complete G1000/G3000 where others could replicate. But they have not done and these addone vendors are not adding value to it either. They simply "copy paste" link to it instead. so I hate the G1000/G3000 and refuice to fly any aircrafts using the Gxxxx avionics. 

1 minute ago, Manny said:

I never went xplane route so I am not aware of xplane stuff.

I trust PMDG even if they redo all the Boeing stuff and and not leverage Boeing code. They have stablished a reputation for that sort of thing. I wish, like you said, ASOBO had done a complete G1000/G3000 where others could replicate. But they have not done and these addone vendors are not adding value to it either. They simply "copy paste" link to it instead. so I hate the G1000/G3000 and refuice to fly any aircrafts using the Gxxxx avionics. 

Indeed.  I'm wandering a little off topic here but I have to admit, I don't fly the Gxxx equipped aircraft much either.  I may fly them but I know that (especially when flying online), I'll need to file /A and use VOR/ILS for navigation, and that the RNAV portion will be unreliable.

I was part of a VL3 mod that uses the WT G3X.  And in that mod we/they added a touchscreen Autopilot, just like the real one.  So that's kinda neat!  Anyway it does appear that WorkingTitle (CJ4 etc) is planning a new flight plan manager (the inner works of the navigational portion of the CJ4's FMS) that will transfer to the Garmin units - which is a great thing for us!

ILS works, but I aborted at 50 feet so I could go around and try a manual approach as well...

 

18 minutes ago, Cmcollazo71 said:

No, it’s saying it has its place. If you want PMDG it’s not for you if you enjoy a bit of VirtualCol then you might like it...

I enjoy nither! Also making MSFS "mickey mouse" add on sim is not a good precedent.   

It's easy to fly an approach and land it manually:

 

That's the problem I have with this.  If people buy these thrown together junk add-ons then we will keep getting more thrown together junk add-ons.

1 hour ago, Manny said:

Does the flight plan enroute appear on the MFD? (It's an yes from Chock's screenshot)

Do you feel any difference from the A320 in terms of the flight dynamics when you  hand fly? or does it feel as big and huge as the A787 Dreamliner from Asobo? 🙂 meaning, how different is it from flying the 787? I don't care if they leveraged from the Asobo's 787. But how much they modified and addded to it to make it a 737  is the Q.

I didn't hand fly it much, just rotated and engaged the A/P. One thing that kind of blew me away was when I was descending rapidly, I pulled the Speed Brake back to 50% to keep from overspeeding, and when I looked at the outside view the plane was doing a little s-curve that seemed very realistic to me, like when skiing down a snow slope,

9 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Also making MSFS "mickey mouse" add on sim is not a good precedent.  

It’s a game, there’s always room for whatever floats anyone’s boat... tell me what harm did the Star Wars port overs cause. 

It’s a diversion, something to have fun with, take it too seriously and you take all the joy out of it.

Better to be a kid in awe looking out the terminal window at a shiny airplane knowing nothing other than it flies, than a jaded old timer Pilot counting down the days to retirement...

Edited February 9, 20215 yr by Cmcollazo71

The fact that I can fly this thing based off knowing the PMDG and iFly NG, and manually land it using the HUGS at the first attempt with no problems means it probably isn't a totally realistic representation of a 737 MAX and a bit more like a 'lite NG', but is it worth 20 quid? Yup, absolutely. It's no hardcore simmer's dream, but if you like the 737 it's worth having until a more expensive study one shows up in two years. They probably could have charged thirty quid and I wouldn't have felt hard done by. It's a fun addition to your hangar.

Edited February 9, 20215 yr by Chock

4 minutes ago, Chock said:

means it probably isn't a totally realistic representation of a 737 MAX and a bit more like a 'lite NG'

But wasn’t the whole point of MCAS to try to get it to fly as much as the NGs as possible — so maybe not so far off?

I’m asking, not making assertions.

Well, that's true, it does share the same basic type rating as far as I'm aware. For a bit of Boeing 737 fun it's great, and whaddya want for 20 quid? You can't even get a round of drinks at a bar for that kind of money these days. It's not going to have PMDG and iFly shaking in their boots, but it might give Virtualcol and Carenado something to think about.