Graeme Wright

It may have been a hex edited version, they (Garmin and anyone concerned about software copyright) get toey about that. If you got hold the standard Garmin subscriptions off the net there was a trick people were doing which allowed you to update the database to most recent version in the Garmin trainers. If it was a legit nav or obstacle db which the user had updated their own trainer with legitimatedly, then it was probably removed based on copyright, since the subscription license it was obtained under is obviously an agreement directly between Garmin and the subscriber. It can be done for sure, but you need to either have a real Garmin unit and subscription to the database updates to go along with it, and that's not very cheap at all for just simming (more than what you paid for your RXP stuff combined). Rumours are that Mindstar are working on a GNS 430 and 530 set which will allow cross fill without additional licensing, and also allow for nav data updates at a reasonable expense and realistic process. So let's keep our fingers crossed.

Thanks for the update Bert, what you've said sounds positive. Let's hope that they can find a solution when they're back on deck which fits within their project bounds and also allows us to make use of the Reality XP gauges as well. It really is a lovely aircraft, and that would be such a cherry on the cake.

Unfortunately it's apparently only referenced by the fuel planner program, it doesn;t actually tie into to GPS http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/52170-twin-otter-extended-preview-fsxp3d/?p=502012

Bert might be able to tell you more about what he'd done. But on my end I was able to get the RXP screen placed in the centre of the Aerosoft GPS, so it looked like it was set up correct, the buttons obviously didn't work but you could see the screen and you would be able to interact with it if you have the hardware as you say. The downside was that it bled down over the other radio stack. Most noticably for me the bottom of the RXP panel would show over the top of the display for the DME. Must be the tightness of mapping from the texture area for the panel or something. So maybe if you had an external hardware unit which displayed radio stack and DME information it might work for you, if you could live with see bits of the RXP buttons and dials covering over the DME in the twotter.

For me it's not a deal breaker at all, I've purchased the aircraft straight up on release and am flying it. It's just that since Aerosoft have chosen to feature a Garmin 530 in the panel, and it'd just be that much nicer to be able to swap it out with one that operates true to life so that we can make use of it in a truer sense. But as you say too, I think if they chose not to have a GPS at all then it may have in fact been even less of an issue and not poked the bee hive so to speak. I'm not going as far as saying they should do the whole 3D panel overlay like RealAir, Carenado, MilViz, their own Katana has, (it'd be tremendous for sure, but I certainly understand Finn's point there. They have no contact with Reality XP, and the birdges to cross in liasing with folk like Marcel or other developers well versed in it already obviously aren't there) but just that it'd be great if they were able to make a panel version where it was blank space so that we could actually add in an RXP 530 or mixed stack if we wanted to. The up side to having such a panel like that as well would be that be deault it'd be clean of any GPS unit at all, so you could have an old twotter in the truer sense without any GPS at all. You could probably argue it might save frames without GPS, but I really don't know if they eat as much as some suspect these days. That's just where I'm coming from any way. I'm not bagging them out at all from my end, I think the plane is great, I'm just interested to know if Bert has had any joy talking with Finn in relating to making a panel where it is clean and able to have third party gauges added in, or just left clean so it's more like you say, no GPS at all.

I'll admit I purchased the aircraft as soon as it appeared in online store listing, but I'd been watching the updates in the forums and that as it progressed, and Finn and the guys did seem to be taking a lot more on board so far as requests and the realism of the aircraft (I hadn't purchased in Aerosoft aircraft for a while due to this, and the somewhat negative attitude towards such customers), but I've been really happy with this plane so far. Haven't been able to log too many hours up yet with a six week old hanging off me most of the day, but still I'm happy enough that I've gone through and seen enough to make me quite happy with it. Reality XP would be tremendous for sure, but still aside from that fact, a great aircraft. Don't get me wrong on the yoke in the twin otter either, it is far more livable unlike the amount of stuff it used to obscure in their older beaver. If anyone were to say I don't think I'll purchase it due to the fact the yoke can't be hidden, I'd have to say you'll probably find it's not that bad. I admit that I do use Track IR together with EzDok and three screen surround, so it's not all that bad for me to navigate around. However I'd have to say that the limited amount of gauges hidden by the column (mainly just test and environment system, though maybe VSI and that level depending on where you set head height), and the fact they have done such a good job with the check list feature so you can actually click on items in the list and it will move view those intended items (such as the test switches), it's far short of being a major thorn in the side of any purchase like what yokes may be in other aircraft where they very readily obscure your primary flight displays.

Hi Bert, Have you had better mileage discussing this with Finn at all? I'd tested it out as well, just trying to even get the actual RXP screen to display and click on to use pop-up for interaction, but as you mention there's a bleed over into the DME gauge most notably. Just going on the responses I'd read in the Robin forum, the initial RXP post from Mathijs, and the responses from Finn in AirDailyX, they seem to be quite adamant on no RXP and are actually quite narky about any discussion on it, so I hadn't been game to bring it up at all. Personally I'd be happy to kick in for a small upgrade fee ($20 - $30), if they were to create a second variation of the interior mdl which I could selectively use to then place the 2D based gauges for the GNS, GMA, GTX in that center space. (Be great if they were able to consult with someone like Marcel to get a 3D implementation going without assistance from RXP direct, but obviously that's a hell of a lot more in consulting fees rather than simply flattening a section of an interior mdl file). I'm not sure if others would be prepared to kick in as well, or whether it would just start off a debate on the fact they felt Aerosoft should have just included it by default because others do. But none the less, it would be worth that much to me, and I'd be happy to commit to pre-pay for it. Same would apply to a hide-able yoke, I thought we would have seen that implemented from the requests on the old Beaver, but I think that's even less likely to happen given the work required there. It seems to be a point of view they think it's not realistic enough if hidden, which is a shame. I thought with the whole Web 2.0 era we realised user choice in interface design was the way to go, but at the end of the way what can you do aside from end up arguing with everyone all day long. Graeme Wright