19 minutes ago, Jazz said:

I actually think that is a good non-feature to add for some users and aircraft. Best thing about it is that you can easily pretend it isn't there. I had forgotten about it until you brought it up.

What others? I'm genuinely word not allowed and wish to know.

The problem is, the developer thought every non-feature suggested by users was good. As a real-life pilot flying with the unit, I can't afford to put myself in a situation where I'm not sure what's real and what's not when I'm in the clouds IFR because I've been flying behind a psuedo-unit in the sim, which I realize is not an issue for most users. For me it could be life and death. And as I said, I gave up on paying attention to it several years ago.

Edited December 26, 20232 yr by IslandSimPilot

36 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

The PMS is the easy choice, because of this.  The few extra features that have been added by the dev are certainly not a negative; they're there to fill in the capability of a few basic tools that a real-world pilot would have available in Foreflight or other tools.  It's silly to act as though these things are bothersome

The original poster specifically said that he wanted to use the most realistic unit: "I values the closest to the real model." Giving him the correct answer isn't silly.

TDS all the way.... Maybe there will be some changes someday...

PMS for me as it is compatible with Navigraph charts, have WTT options and weather radar, I wish it get more features, the more the better.

Well this is interesting coming from a lot that screams they want authenticity and wont fly a plane cause the wiglets are to narrow.

Its Christmas guys. No reason to get mad.

The answer is simply. You want the closest to the real thing...get the TDS. Just be ready to live with some outdated data.

Want something close, but with neat features that make simming maybe more fun and easy. Get the PMS.

Also, if you use Navigraph a lot, then there is a lot of good reasons to use the PMS version.

Still does not make it as real as it gets. That is the TDS.

Yours to decide how real as it gets you want it to be.

Its still just MSFS no matter how effort we put into it.

It sure as been a fun year though right. After all this time, this thing is finally getting pretty good.

Merry Christmas everybody and happy flying.

Off to buy FlyTampa Toronto so I can fly my new 737-600 from Montreal to Boston and Boston to Toronto and so forth.

As if I can afford a 737-600. . 😉

Ron

 

 

 

 

Edited December 26, 20232 yr by Ron Lefebvre

I don't have anything to add to the comparison, but I wonder how those who prefer the TDS deal with finding charts that comport with the outdated Garmin databases. True, the waypoints don't change that much in any one AIRAC update, but how do you know whether a key waypoint or approach procedure has changed until you're in the middle of flying it? This would be doubly troublesome if one were flying in an online environment like VATSIM, where the controllers don't have access to the outdated charts either.

Yes, there are individuals who have access to updated Garmin databases in one way or the other, and apparently they were successful in porting those over to the Trainer environment, but most flight simmers don't have this luxury. How often does the TDS database get updated and is there a charge involved?

Many thanks and best wishes to all.

Clearer, higher resolution, more realistic screens and operation in the TDS.    But if Navgraph updates are important to you, you'll probably want the PMS.

I own the full versions on both.   I use TDS 90% of the time. But if I want to take advantage of the WTT/autopilot stuff, I use the PMS.

Edited December 26, 20232 yr by JYW

4 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

Here's the thing: the SIM'S navdata is updated fairly regularly.  This means that on every update, a slew of additional radio navaids gets decommissioned / deleted from the sim.  Many small airports that used instrument approaches relying on those navaids therefore end up getting new RNAV procedures, to replace the lost procedures based on VOR or NDB (pretty rare these days).  

But, if you're flying the sim with a GPS database that's a year out of date, you don't have those new RNAV procedures.  You HAVE, however, lost the radio navaids from your sim.  So, you're kind of out of luck if you're trying to get into one of these airports IFR.

The PMS is the easy choice, because of this.  The few extra features that have been added by the dev are certainly not a negative; they're there to fill in the capability of a few basic tools that a real-world pilot would have available in Foreflight or other tools.  It's silly to act as though these things are bothersome; they're certainly easy enough to not use if you don't want to.  🤷‍♂️

Some folks get off on complaining just about anything. 😉

2 hours ago, jrw4 said:

I don't have anything to add to the comparison, but I wonder how those who prefer the TDS deal with finding charts that comport with the outdated Garmin databases.

Yeah the reality is that the procedures don't change much. I don't fly with the GTN 650 in the sim but if I did it would be TDS hands-down. The way to deal with it is just to check when the procedure was last updated (which is shown on the chart) and then check the waypoints in the approach that's loaded in the GTN unit, which you should always do anyway. I'd be surprised if you actually came across an out-of-date approach in the unit, though it is certainly possible.

56 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Some folks get off on complaining just about anything. 😉

No, some people have a different opinion. Nobody was complaining; a question was asked and that question was answered. You however do love stirring up the pot for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

1 hour ago, mryan75 said:

the reality is that the procedures don't change much.

Perhaps in the aggregate, but in the US, at least, there have been very substantial changes in the enroute environment over the last few years, especially with regard to low altitude route structure. Have a look at the region in western NY, PA, and OH, for example. The FAA is in the midst of converting that VOR based infrastructure over to satellite-based navigation, in a program called MON. This document

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/acf/media/Presentations/14-02-Discontuation_of_VOR_Services_Briefing-Mendez.pdf

suggests that 30-50% of the VORs in the continental US will be retired by the end of the decade and that has implications for the placement of IAFs for approach procedures, as well as many enroute fixes in the Victor Airway system that will be replaced by random waypoints as well as those on Tango Airways.

So I don't know how one would define "change much", but the rate of change is certainly going to be higher than normal in the US for a while. Does it matter, if one is tooling around tor fun and learning? Probably not, but if one is trying to match up real world procedures with readily available charts, there are certainly areas where that's going to be challenging with elderly GPS databases.

 

Edited December 26, 20232 yr by jrw4
Use of word "retired"

5 hours ago, mryan75 said:

The problem is, the developer thought every non-feature suggested by users was good.

This is not true, I've seen people asking for many features that he says he won't add because they are not in the real device. He adds some useful features that are not in the real device as optional features one can enable, but not everything people asks for.

11 minutes ago, jrw4 said:

Perhaps in the aggregate, but in the US, at least, there have been very substantial changes in the enroute environment over the last few years, especially with regard to low altitude route structure. Have a look at the region in western NY, PA, and OH, for example. The FAA is in the midst of converting that VOR based infrastructure over to satellite-based navigation, in a program called MON. This document

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/acf/media/Presentations/14-02-Discontuation_of_VOR_Services_Briefing-Mendez.pdf

suggests that 30-50% of the VORs in the continental US will be retired by the end of the decade and that has implications for the placement of IAFs for approach procedures, as well as many enroute fixes in the Victor Airway system that will be replaced by random waypoints as well as those on Tango Airways.

So I don't know how one would define "change much", but the rate of change is certainly going to be higher than normal in the US for a while. Does it matter, if one is tooling around tor fun and learning? Probably not, but if one is trying to match up real world procedures with readily available charts, there are certainly areas where that's going to be challenging with elderly GPS databases.

 

Yeah, they're definitely making changes regarding the decomissioning of VORs and such, but the TDS databases are usually not more than a year behind as I understand it, if even that.

Just now, Alvega said:

This is not true, I've seen people asking for many features that he says he won't add because they are not in the real device. He adds some useful features that are not in the real device as optional features one can enable, but not everything people asks for.

I'm not arguing with you, but that makes even less sense and is typical of the developer in question. So basically he decides what goes in the unit and what doesn't, because he most certainly has added features that are not in the device. Bottom line is, it's not a GTN 650, it's a PMS 650. Which is fine if you have no interest in accuracy. I've just never liked it once he started adding random stuff.

8 minutes ago, mryan75 said:

once he started adding random stuff.

What's the random stuff? If the answer isn't pink giraffes and bunting I'm going to be very disappointed.