The upcoming Flight1's Cessna Mustang will have it ...http://mustang.flight1.net/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=54Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

But will it actually capture the glideslope? The reason I ask is because RealityXP already has an excellent WAAS GPS that can be installed in any plane, but you can't capture the glideslope due to FSX's peculiarities.

>But will it actually capture the glideslope? The reason I ask>is because RealityXP already has an excellent WAAS GPS that>can be installed in any plane, but you can't capture the>glideslope due to FSX's peculiarities. Absolutely the AP can capture the GP (Glide Path) And it does not rely on the Garmin trainer either. Stay tuned on the Mustang site for some more pictures in the next few days showing just that.Jim Rhoads

>is because RealityXP already has an excellent WAAS GPS that>can be installed in any plane, but you can't capture the>glideslope due to FSX's peculiarities. That's not too cozy because without ability to capture the glideslope you effectively don't have WAAS, at least you are missing its key features.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

>>>is because RealityXP already has an excellent WAAS GPS that>>can be installed in any plane, but you can't capture the>>glideslope due to FSX's peculiarities. >>That's not too cozy because without ability to capture the>glideslope you effectively don't have WAAS, at least you are>missing its key features.>>Michael J.>http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpgWhoa there, I'm not sure I agree with your assertion. Just because you can't fly a WAAS approach hands-off doesn't mean that a non-coupled, hand-flown ability to get into an airport that would otherwise (pre-WAAS) be off the menu is not worth something. There are many airplanes out there (in RL) that have a GPS that can do WAAS (typically, an upgraded Garmin GNS430 or 530), that is not hooked up to the autopilot (typically, because of cost). But, the pilot can still "get into" an airport that has a WAAS approach, with minimums that are below what that airport previously offered with VOR/etc. approaches.This is not to say that I'm annoyed that I can't fly coupled approaches with the RXPx30W products - but I can still use WAAS to my advantage.Dave B.

I seldom fly coupled approaches anyway-they are boring.Maybe why I never noticed a problem with the Reality xp product?-I haven't really kept up but never noticed a problem.However, the above product looks great. I flew a Columbia 400 with a g1000 a few weeks ago-my first experience with the g1000. If the above product duplicates it which it appears it does I will be in hog heaven along with many others that I know are waiting for this.GeofaMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

>Whoa there, I'm not sure I agree with your assertion. Just>because you can't fly a WAAS approach hands-off doesn't mean>that a non-coupled, hand-flown ability to get into an airport>that would otherwise (pre-WAAS) be off the menu is not worth>something. That is true, but his mentioning of "coupled" could mean something yet different. For example if AP can't be coupled does it mean at least I get correct FD cues? In other words could FD be coupled? If not it would be rather disappointing in some high end GA airplane with Flight Director capability, then you are left with flying raw signal which is of course possible but not what folks in some Cessna 210 or a Malibu typically crave to do.By the way, pour yourself a glass of wine and watch this video (not WAAS related) ...http://mustang.flight1.net/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=55Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

That does look nice, but on my video player there is a lot of shimmer around the gauges. Does it shimmer like that in the game? Any know if GPS will have current DEP/ARV procedures and the ability to update them?Also would be curious to know how flight plans will be loaded. Can you pre-load them or will we have to enter each one manually?I not a big fan of small biz jets but I might have to make an exception here if a lot of the systems are modeled.

No, the shimmer is not the same in-game. The video actually amplifies it some. I will check the Codec settings to see if better filters can be applied.

>However, the above product looks great. I flew a Columbia 400>with a g1000 a few weeks ago-my first experience with the>g1000. If the above product duplicates it which it appears it>does I will be in hog heaven along with many others that I>know are waiting for this.Hi Geof,"Duplicate" is a strong word for anything that is simulated.Replicate might be a bit more appropriate and realistic in simulation terms. Also keep in mind the G1000 in the Mustang is specific to it with features that will not be found in other G1000 units.Regards,Jim

I'll take replication too!Anyway looks great-really looking forward to your release.GeofaMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Did I see a mic cable or something that looked like a curly mic cable moving to the right of the pedestal, as if to swing a little?

Yes you did. :D Jim Rhoads

>I seldom fly coupled approaches anyway-they are boring.>>Maybe why I never noticed a problem with the Reality xp>product?-I haven't really kept up but never noticed a>problem.>>However, the above product looks great. I flew a Columbia 400>with a g1000 a few weeks ago-my first experience with the>g1000. If the above product duplicates it which it appears it>does I will be in hog heaven along with many others that I>know are waiting for this.>>>Geofa>My blog:>http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/Yep sometimes in our community some of those beautifull aircraft comes along with the attention of those little details on all fields!I'm for sure Flight one will set the benchmark very high.The first aircraft in a long time that really gives that special excitement of an upcoming release...Great stuff.http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign.jpg