Big WT G1000 NXi Update

[cwburnett 1,809]

1 hour ago, ark said:

While I understand that is how it works, it is not obvious to me WHY it was designed to work that way. If you have to get within a specified distance to initially capture a GPS course, if you then deviate substantially outside that distance, why would it not make sense for the system to drop back from a GPS course captured to a GPS course armed state?

Would be a good question for Garmin I guess, but if I were to hypothesize, I guess I would say that because you were in capture range at some point, you started getting FD/AP guidance from GPSS, and to arbitrarily stop receiving that guidance would be a 'what is this thing doing' moment.

Realistically in AP, you'll never get far off track, but when hand flying with the FD of course you can get far off track. I would think that if, at some point, the FD were to stop providing you with guidance to return to course, that would be confusing for the pilot - so long as you're in GPS mode, and there is a valid course to intercept the active leg, the FD can provide guidance for that intercept and so there's no reason why it wouldn't do just that. But, of course there's an argument to be made that at some arbitrary point it should stop providing guidance and revert to ROL mode, annunciating that mode failure on the FMA, but I guess from a technical perspective, there's no signal degradation in the GPSS calcs, unlike with a VOR/LOC, so there's not a risk of the FD providing bad guidance, and so they decided to allow GPSS to continue providing FD guidance even when far off track. That's my best guess.

[RobJC 2,073]

Yep, it was the AI pilot. No issues, even with a modded Caravan. Thank you so much, Al! 

[ark 1,295]

22 minutes ago, RobJC said:

Yep, it was the AI pilot. No issues, even with a modded Caravan.

Ah, good to know -- thanks for the feedback.

Al

[cwburnett 1,809]

1 hour ago, RobJC said:

Yep, it was the AI pilot. No issues, even with a modded Caravan. Thank you so much, Al! 

So we have a bug when AI pilot is on then? Just trying to confirm your finding here so we can add it to our backlog.

[Sigwolf 222]

1 hour ago, RobJC said:

Yep, it was the AI pilot. No issues, even with a modded Caravan. Thank you so much, Al! 

In my very limited experience with the AI pilot feature, it has been absolute garbage.  I experimented with it to see if I could use it at times I needed to leave a flight unattended.  I tried to engage it once in level cruise at FL370, on autopilot, on a programmed flightplan, and the AI pilot decided to descend 1700 feet below assigned altitude.  I disabled it, returned to the assigned altitude and route, and engaged it again.  This time, it changed the AP altitude to FL378 for no reason.  I turned it off and haven't bothered since.

[ark 1,295]

When flying an NDB approach with the G1000NXi the GPS notation inside the white circle on the HSI said LPV.

Al

Edited September 28, 2021 by ark

[RobJC 2,073]

One question I have relates to the ATC telling me to change altitude. With VNV set I get repeated calls to drop my altitude, but the VNV does not do it until I reach the TOD. I am not sure how to fix this, or even if there is a fix, but it seems the call to drop altitude is too early from the ATC, at least given where the TOD is indicated on the map. If it cannot be fixed, or makes no sense to fix, no biggie. I just wanted to ask. 

[jrw4 626]

Rob, IRL ATC would simply issue a clearance that was something like "Cessna 123AB proceed direct OJIUE. Cross OJIUE at or above 3500. Cleared for the GPS runway 31 approach" at KMDT. At that point, you do exactly that: turn in the direction of the initial approach fix, activate the approach in the NXi, select NAV mode, and begin the descent using either VS or FLC mode. Unless ATC appends the words "at pilot's discretion" to that crossing altitude clearance, they're telling you to undertake that descent at the optimum rate for your aircraft, whatever that is. I used to figure something like 500-1000 fpm in a single engine prop plane, but clearly it's faster in a jet. You would not wait for the aircraft to intersect an arbitrary flight path angle sometime later.

Descent VNAV as implemented in the NXi is handy for VFR flight where descents are always at the pilot's discretion (unless you're out of gas), but not so much under IFR where ATC has its own priorities.

 

[RobJC 2,073]

13 minutes ago, jrw4 said:

Rob, IRL ATC would simply issue a clearance that was something like "Cessna 123AB proceed direct OJIUE. Cross OJIUE at or above 3500. Cleared for the GPS runway 31 approach" at KMDT. At that point, you do exactly that: turn in the direction of the initial approach fix, activate the approach in the NXi, select NAV mode, and begin the descent using either VS or FLC mode. Unless ATC appends the words "at pilot's discretion" to that crossing altitude clearance, they're telling you to undertake that descent at the optimum rate for your aircraft, whatever that is. I used to figure something like 500-1000 fpm in a single engine prop plane, but clearly it's faster in a jet. You would not wait for the aircraft to intersect an arbitrary flight path angle sometime later.

Descent VNAV as implemented in the NXi is handy for VFR flight where descents are always at the pilot's discretion (unless you're out of gas), but not so much under IFR where ATC has its own priorities.

Thanks John. That makes sense. So much to learn! 

[ark 1,295]

4 hours ago, ark said:

When flying an NDB approach with the G1000NXi the GPS notation inside the white circle on the HSI said LPV.

Al

Here is the pic I forgot to include with my post above:

Al

[cwburnett 1,809]

5 hours ago, ark said:

When flying an NDB approach with the G1000NXi the GPS notation inside the white circle on the HSI said LPV.

Al

Yup, approach flag types are coming in SU6, so a few weeks away and that will take care of it.

[abrams_tank 7,450]

So I think I read a comment (can't find that comment anymore) from someone that said the G1000 NXi for MSFS is better than the default G1000 for X-Plane. Is there any merit to this? Is this true?

[pmplayer 9,575]

Does this new NXI update fix this VS glitch thing ( 99,xxx ) what happens with the MilViz Porter if the ( last build ) NXI is not deinstalled from the Sim ?

Or is this a MilViz update thing ?

 

cheers 😉

[bobcat999 8,498]

17 minutes ago, pmplayer said:

Does this new NXI update fix this VS glitch thing ( 99,xxx ) what happens with the MilViz Porter if the ( last build ) NXI is not deinstalled from the Sim ?

Or is this a MilViz update thing ?

 

cheers 😉

I believe that is on the list to be fixed by WT or Asobo in the upcoming sim updates.

[ryanbatc 12,990]

9 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

So I think I read a comment (can't find that comment anymore) from someone that said the G1000 NXi for MSFS is better than the default G1000 for X-Plane. Is there any merit to this? Is this true?

Not quite yet....but as the man said... probably will be on par with it come SU6...still missing things like Missed Approaches etc.

There is one minor annoying thing I ways experienced in the xp11 version.  It treats IAFs as Fly Over waypoints.  Meaning the G1000 will compute a heading that takes you directly over the IAF...it may even do that for subsequent waypoints in the approach procedure....it was something really wonky but it's been a while since I've used that product.

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by ryanbatcund