Thanks for the update Matt.  Updated GNS.....yummy!

20 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

Hey folks, the jabbing is not necessary. Not everyone has their finger on the pulse of everything going on in the sim world at all times. There are differing levels of simmers and involvement as we very often make clear on our Discord, that's totally OK. If folks missed out on some stuff, let's happily loop them in instead.

We always appreciate all of your hardwork and professional response. You're right, the jabbing doesn't help anyone. There's enough of that around here.

Looking forward to your updates.

8 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

The entire Working Title team was hired by Microsoft/Asobo to work full time on MSFS.  Some of their members stopped posting here, probably because they can't talk as freely as they could before they were hired by Microsoft/Asobo. Matt, the lead of Working Title, still posts here at Avsim though.

The G1000 NXi that you download from the marketplace is done by Working Title.  They have been working hard on the G1000 NXi over the last year and have made tremendous progress on it.  From my understanding, Working Title are also scheduled to work on the other Garmin products in MSFS.  And they are scheduled to work on the systems of a few other planes in MSFS, I think the 787 being one of them.  Check their Discord for the latest information, or just search Matt's posts here at Avsim because I think Matt made a recent post on the stuff they were going to work on.

Thank you.  I did not realize the entire team went to MS,  I thought it was just Matt.  When that happened, I guess I expected that incremental improvements would be made across the board with the nav systems in all the default aircraft, especially with the last sim update.  I see now that it appears they will maximize performance to the NXi unit (kind of a test case) and then port that learning over to other units.  I was somewhat aware of this NXi unit availability but simply have never downloaded due to the fact that the aircraft is supports are ones I do not sim with, thus my ignorance.  My apologies if I have offended anyone here, WT does excellent work.

1 hour ago, Mike S KPDX said:

My apologies if I have offended anyone here, WT does excellent work.

No offense at all taken! Hopefully in the future these enhancements will come to avionics in planes you're more psyched about!

Here's the thing. When my daughter in law took me flying in her P28 at the weekend I noticed that she did not use the old GNS fitted to the plane. She said that she couldn't be bothered fiddling with it and instead used an iPad with Sky Demon on her lap. So for extra realism is there any chance of a freeware WT iPad and Sky Demon clone?😂

11 hours ago, MattNischan said:

 There will be other things we will announce later on. 😉

ATC, maybe??

5 hours ago, jarmstro said:

Here's the thing. When my daughter in law took me flying in her P28 at the weekend I noticed that she did not use the old GNS fitted to the plane. She said that she couldn't be bothered fiddling with it and instead used an iPad with Sky Demon on her lap. So for extra realism is there any chance of a freeware WT iPad and Sky Demon clone?

Skydemon is head and shoulders more useful in a PA28 than the GNS for a regular VFR flight. I do the same.

(FYI, if you have a paid version of Skydemon you can actually use it in MSFS via simconnect)

 

12 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

Skydemon is head and shoulders more useful in a PA28 than the GNS for a regular VFR flight. I do the same.

(FYI, if you have a paid version of Skydemon you can actually use it in MSFS via simconnect)

 

Yes but it's £140.

15 hours ago, MattNischan said:

[...]Right now we're a team of only 10 folks: our focus has been exclusively on core-sim SDK work (but you have also seen our contributions in other areas, like the sim altimetry, [...]

Matt,

this particular referene to "sim altimetry" called my attention because, as we know, ASOBO announced a first version of geopotential height variation with temperature, to allow for "cold weather" precison approach operations into airfields aving specific rules for that, and not only.

Apparently the initial implementation wasn't the best one and I really don't know if it was put on hold waiting for additional development or if it's still there with the inherent bugs.

By "altimetry" are you by any chance referring to this particular area of weather modelling ?

 

Thanks for all your work and contributions to make this MFS sim unique !

19 hours ago, MattNischan said:

Proline 21 (and by extension, the CJ4), the Garmin G3000, and the GNS430/530.

Just wondering, do you plan to do the same as the G1000, beta version, that will be available for us to try on the market place?

4 hours ago, jcomm said:

Apparently the initial implementation wasn't the best one and I really don't know if it was put on hold waiting for additional development or if it's still there with the inherent bugs.

By "altimetry" are you by any chance referring to this particular area of weather modelling ?

There were some very unexpected issues with the data source used in the first implementation that only surfaced when it went live. However, we and the team ironed that out in the next two updates (a hotfix and then some smaller things in the next SU). We also worked with the folks who do vPilot and other online ATC clients to understand how a non-ISA atmosphere works and how best to adapt other all the other sims' data (which can only do ISA atmospheres) and vice-versa to make aircraft separations consistent between platforms.

You've been already flying in non-ISA atmospheres in live weather for a few versions now, and your altimeter will be affected accordingly. You can see this error by looking at simvars PLANE ALTITUDE (which is just geometric altitude) vs INDICATED ALTITUDE (which will only exactly match when the atmosphere is ISA and/or you are at station elevation).

15 minutes ago, bendead said:

Just wondering, do you plan to do the same as the G1000, beta version, that will be available for us to try on the market place?

That's the prevailing thought right now from the team, although we can't fully confirm that just yet as there are some non-technical hurdles involved yet to be cleared. So we'll let folks know.

17 hours ago, MattNischan said:

Hey folks, the jabbing is not necessary. Not everyone has their finger on the pulse of everything going on in the sim world at all times. There are differing levels of simmers and involvement as we very often make clear on our Discord, that's totally OK. If folks missed out on some stuff, let's happily loop them in instead.

Well, this is the post of the week for me.  As a forum post, what an absolutely brilliant attitude and perfect example to set.   

It can get too heated sometimes over simple questions and differing points of view.
With all of the issues going on in the world at the moment, I really wish we can continue to show each other this level of understanding and tolerance. 

27 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

There were some very unexpected issues with the data source used in the first implementation that only surfaced when it went live. However, we and the team ironed that out in the next two updates (a hotfix and then some smaller things in the next SU). We also worked with the folks who do vPilot and other online ATC clients to understand how a non-ISA atmosphere works and how best to adapt other all the other sims' data (which can only do ISA atmospheres) and vice-versa to make aircraft separations consistent between platforms.

You've been already flying in non-ISA atmospheres in live weather for a few versions now, and your altimeter will be affected accordingly. You can see this error by looking at simvars PLANE ALTITUDE (which is just geometric altitude) vs INDICATED ALTITUDE (which will only exactly match when the atmosphere is ISA and/or you are at station elevation).

That's the prevailing thought right now from the team, although we can't fully confirm that just yet as there are some non-technical hurdles involved yet to be cleared. So we'll let folks know.

That's great !  Wasn't aware of it - will try to check those "simvars". Are they available through the DevMode screens ?

Edited March 25, 20224 yr by jcomm

1 hour ago, MattNischan said:

We also worked with the folks who do vPilot and other online ATC clients to understand how a non-ISA atmosphere works and how best to adapt other all the other sims' data (which can only do ISA atmospheres) and vice-versa to make aircraft separations consistent between platforms..

Matt while we have you here, would love to get more thoughts/insights from you about the flight-model physics, CFD, and airflow improvements put into SU8, coming in SU9 and beyond. Perhaps from the perspective of the WT CJ4 and how these will benefit that aircraft, or any of the default aircraft in MSFS for future updates.  Your team might only be involved with the avionics aspects of the default aircraft, or will/are you guys also contributing to improving the flight models of these in the future?

Edited March 25, 20224 yr by lwt1971

21 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Matt while we have you here, would love to get more thoughts/insights from you about the flight-model physics, CFD, and airflow improvements put into SU8, coming in SU9 and beyond. Perhaps from the perspective of the WT CJ4 and how these will benefit that aircraft, or any of the default aircraft in MSFS for future updates.  Your team might only be involved with the avionics aspects of the default aircraft, or will/are you guys also contributing to improving the flight models of these in the future?

Sorry all, those would be questions for Seb and for the developer Q&As! I can't really comment, other than to say that it's very, very cool stuff Seb is doing, and we're enjoying seeing the features and updates.