Buy the Milviz PC6 and then you can try them both at once. 😀

-B

1 hour ago, captain420 said:

Could you please elaborate on why you think it's not on par with those units?

Does it run in the aircraft panel in the sim?  Or does it instead run on an external device or in a separate window?

1 hour ago, ryanbatcund said:

I'm going to try the PMS GTN against the nxi, and maybe against the RXP GTN - see how they differ etc.

Let us know your results and opinions afterwards.

I did some tests.  RNAV (GPS) RY 36 KFCM full procedure.  I departed RY 18 and armed NAV and VS modes to fly to the IAF, OCEWA.  This is an attempt to see how each GPS flies the Hold in Lieu of Procedure Turn.  This would be a very common approach for someone practicing, getting currency etc.

Again, the WT NXi and RXP GTN 750 did pretty well....RXP has the slight edge because it correctly identifies the type of the approach mins on the GTN as LP+V.  This means Localizer Performance (meaning you must follow the altitudes on the approach plate, however advisory vertical guidance is provided by the GTN and even the nxi showed it).  The PMS GTN did not show the approach mins correctly, and frankly did miss quite a few items.  For each test I attempted to load the approach via OCEWA and simply pressing PROC and selecting the procedure. 
The Nxi and RXP GTN were able to do this.  The PMS showed greyed out options when I attempted this.  I first had to make KFCM as my origin and destination in order to then use PROC to load the approach.  The PMS is far behind the navigational capabilities in the G1000 Nxi and further behind the RXP GTN.  If you just want to go point A to point B with a straight in approach, the PMS will likely do just fine.  That is my short answer here are some example pics.

IAP:

Untitled-1 by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

WT G1000 NXi in the MSFS Cirrus. 

G1000 elected a parallel entry for the HilPT - legal and fine - it did it properly

Untitled-2 by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

Inbound just passed the FAF (IJEYU) the approach mins show as LPV which is incorrect.  I believe WT said this will come some day to the navdata.  Note that there is an advisory glidepath but I am using VS to follow the step down altitudes.  It would not be legal to follow the vertical guidance.

Untitled-3 by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

No Missed Approach contained in the G1000 (but the procs are coming soon per WT)

Untitled-4 by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

PMS GTN in the Carenado Mooney

I was initially unable to load via PROC screen....had to enter flight plan first (not realistic)

Untitled-5 by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

Not even close loading the approach from OCEWA.  A true default presentation with the massive arc ugh!

Untitled-6 by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

Inbound I never even flew to OCEWA....sequenced me to IJEYU off the ground.  Additionally GTN just says APPR should say LP+V for the minimums.

Untitled-7 by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

No missed approach either

Untitled-8 by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

RXP GTN 750 in Aerobask Legacy XP11

Loads via PROC perfectly....shows a teardrop hold entry...again that one works fine depending when I engaged NAV mode

Untitled-9 by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

Inbound again LP+V correct and advisory glidepath shown just coming down

Untitled-10 by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

Missed approach is working as well

Untitled-11 by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

 

 

Edited September 28, 20214 yr by ryanbatcund

Also appears the implementation that comes close is limited to recent 3rd party purchased aircraft models. I believe Ryan and I are either on the same page or very close to it. 

Why after now 13 months, are we still attempting to close in on capabilities that have been  readily available for a few years?  I struggle to comprehend that, whether it is avionics, weather engines, or ATC/STIS/AWOS communications.

Check out the conditions presented in this screen shot and then look at the bottom line in the ATIS.

"Visibility 9, Sky Condition Clear? " 

What an absolute and total embarrassment!

and then look at the bottom line in the ATIS window!

 

Edited September 28, 20214 yr by fppilot

2 minutes ago, fppilot said:

Also appears the implementation that comes close is limited to recent 3rd party purchased aircraft models. 

Probably accurate.  I never seem to get a glide path when I shoot these to LPV mins with the Carenado or Just Flight Arrows.  Maybe JF fixed the Arrows...haven't flown them in a while.

The pm50 products use the default MSFS flight plan system with all the inherent limitations. It is basically a shell or wrapper around the default FPL database.

With the NXi the WT guys designed a bespoke custom flight plan database that is independent of the inbuilt default MSFS system.

Edited September 28, 20214 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

4 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

The pm50 products use the default MSFS flight plan system with all the inherent limitations. It is basically a shell or wrapper around the default FPL database.

With the NXi the WT guys designed a bespoke custom flight plan database that is independent of the inbuilt default MSFS system.

That, and there are numerous positive reasons/differences to consider between each addon.  I was just comparing a common approach I've done irl.

Ryan, thanks for your feedback. I have decided not to get it. Will wait and see if something better comes along or wait for Adobo to fix these issues. 

17 minutes ago, ryanbatcund said:

That, and there are numerous positive reasons/differences to consider between each addon.  I was just comparing a common approach I've done irl.

I also really appreciate the work you've done here.  As a sidenote, I have a special place in my heart for FCM, as my initial ATC training happened there several decades ago during the hiring freeze and federal OKC training facility shutdown.  I spent many a cold winter day parking at FCM and hoping my car would still start when classes ended.

I have been considering the PMS, but I have been spoiled by how well the NXi works, and have been flying aircraft based on that even if I would have otherwise preferred other aircraft that didn't happen to be G1000 equipped.  Hopefully things continue to improve on the navigation front, but recent signs are encouraging.

53 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

The pm50 products use the default MSFS flight plan system with all the inherent limitations. It is basically a shell or wrapper around the default FPL database.

With the NXi the WT guys designed a bespoke custom flight plan database that is independent of the inbuilt default MSFS system.

Just to round out the story... then there is the GTN Trainer based offering which suffers from its inability to connect to the gauges and autopilot in the panel.

Three solutions "under development".. all needing some basic Asobo code changes to properly work.

However, only one of the three (WT) is working "inside the tent"... so who would you bet on right now?  😉

1 hour ago, Bert Pieke said:

Just to round out the story... then there is the GTN Trainer based offering which suffers from its inability to connect to the gauges and autopilot in the panel.

Three solutions "under development".. all needing some basic Asobo code changes to properly work.

However, only one of the three (WT) is working "inside the tent"... so who would you bet on right now?  😉

Well for me the PM50 because it functions well as a pop Window from the toolbar in any aircraft - but I am not overly in need of VNAV/ILS/fancy airliner stuff so am an unusual use case.

6 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

Just to round out the story... then there is the GTN Trainer based offering which suffers from its inability to connect to the gauges and autopilot in the panel.

Three solutions "under development".. all needing some basic Asobo code changes to properly work.

However, only one of the three (WT) is working "inside the tent"... so who would you bet on right now?  😉

Hopefully enhancements and changes that WT create within the core sim for the G1000NXi can then be accessed by the PMS GTN650/750

What better alternative to PMS GTN-750 is there for aircraft not equipped with the G 1000 ?

After using it for a bit in the H145 I decided to go to their website and have a look at buying the full version but the pricing structure made me a choke a bit, will continue using the free version for now.