LarryD

Never once in my entire career as an air traffic controller did I ever check out an aircraft to see if they had proper equipment. It was not my responsibility, and, I probably would have been called on the carpet if I did what you said happened. But not only that, since the ground controller actually controls everything on the ground, it would not even be a safety hazard as he is the one that ensures safety. I was there to keep moving aircraft safe. We're not the equipment police. That belongs to another branch of the FAA.

My Cousin Vinny also worked. First, watching Marissa Tomei walk back and forth took my mind off of responding. Second, Joe Pesci was the guy that got Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons together. So, instead of thinking about a response I would later regret here, I pulled up my Spotify and listened to some "Big Girls Don't Cry" and "Sherry". Now who want's to ruin a good mood with a negative post after listening to that WHILE watching Marissa walk across the porch. Not me! 😁

GOOSFRABA.......GOOSFRABA......GOOSFRABA. Heck yea......say that three times slowly before you post, and you won't feel the need to. Perfect!

Thank you so much. I'll make sure to do that.

Not totally following what you are saying here. Could you please go a little deeper and expound on this statement?

Just went on GitHub and put it in. We can now just wait and see if they'll fix it.

I do have the G1000 mod, but, when I did my test, I did not have it activated. After I activated it, I then have the same results as you, total FP time, not leg time. So, default MSFS G1000 is LEGS. Working Title Mod is Total Flight Plan. Therefore, it is a "semi-easy" fix. We just need to request the Working Title Mod team provide an option as to how one would want the ETE to display, LEG or TotalFlightPlan, and then the user could choose.

ETE is providing me the time to the next waypoint. Once I pass, it resets, and then gives me the time to the new next waypoint. It is not providing total FP route time.

So I went ahead and added that feature for you. 🤭 Look above the MFD on the G1000 and you will see ETE. The number next to it will give you the time it will take to get to the fix you are currently navigating to.

Clearly it's no bother as this is why the forums exist and we participate. But don't be so sure the problem won't happen again, because as mentioned, the fanning out of radials becomes even more exagerated the further you are from a VOR. So if you are 40 miles away from a VOR and it looks centered, hitting the NAV button with CDI is going to make a hard turn depending how far off centerline you are, The closer you are to the VOR, the less distance to the centerline. Should it happen, let it ride. It will eventually center and all will be well. It's UGLY for sure, but no harm done.

That may very well be the case in a real airplane, but both MSFS and the XPlane simulator G1000 both turn to and track the tuned in radial when putting it in APR mode.

Seriously this time, I get that. But, and this is a sincere question here......wouldn't allowing the GPS to fly it actually keep the aircraft centerlined better than by hand anyway? The computer is making "fine tweaks" constantly, where hand flying requires the eyeball to watch a needle and then respond accordingly. You are still watching the needle as you say to ensure everything is flowing properly. Should something start going amiss, the "backup" in this case IS the shift to hand flying. I am NOT a pilot, I just play one in my basement, but I would like to now know if hand flying the final 5 miles to the runway is the norm, or if it is simply a preference from the pilots that learned the uncoupled technique in the days before modern avionics and just feel more comfortable doing it that way.

But after the "hard turn", does it settle out and end up having you go direct as expected? I tried your scenario, and sure enough, a hard turn began, but after several back and forths, it finally settled in on the radial. So this is what seems to be happening. Radials extend out from a VOR. The further you are from the VOR, the farther you can be from the EXACT centerline. So your needle looks centered on the radial on your instrument, but in reality, the plane may not be EXACTLY on the centerline. Again, the farther you are from the VOR, the farther from the centerline you can be. Now when you engage NAV, it tries to find the centerline, it sees its "over there", and commences a turn to fly toward it and interecept it at some preprogrammed angle and then gently turn into it, just like a plane slides into the localizer. That initial turn is the "hard turn" you see. But if you engage APPR instead, and this is just a guess here, the programming is designed to "ease" its way back to the centerline rather than "get there now", so the initial turn is much gentler. On my test, both NAV and APPR centered me on the radial, with APPR doing in gently and NAV with the hard turn.

Yes you did. You paid $60.00. Anything over that was not for the flight simulator but for extras. And to quote part of an article from Aviation Today..... FAA-qualified full flight simulators can cost $10 million. Full-time equivalent (FTE) Level six and seven trainers without motions still cost up to $1 million. And you paid $60.00! You truly weren't expecting it to work like a million dollar simulator right out of the box, were you? If so, problem identified. I also noticed you use the word SHOULD a lot describing what everyone else SHOULD have done. Say this to yourself. I SHOULD have waited to buy this $60.00 product until I knew that it would meet my expectations.

We do have a microwave, Instant Pot, and an air fryer. My backup would be a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with a banana or apple for dessert.

Interesting you suggest this. Working Title has a G1000, G3000, and CJ4 apps current. Recent discussions have hinted at future groundbreaking projects. I am almost wondering if AVSIM would be a good place to actually give them their own forum where those of us interested can following everything the Working Title Group is putting out. Just a thought instead of info scattered in so many different topics. I don't even know which message to look in anymore when I want to find something that has been said concerning their work.

A little unsure as to the reason you are disengageing the AP at the FAF. As long as the RNAV fixes are programmed in, the AP is going to keep you going straight to the runway threshold. I know the vertical guidance is not working correctly in the G1000 yet for RNAV approaches, but that is easily handled by stepping down altitudes via the approach plate all the way down to MDA. Although not as easy as simply hitting the APR button and monitoring as on an ILS, RNAV approaches are certainly doable and very safe, and actually keeps you a little more involved due to the altitude step down. Don't see any reason to avoid them.

You can have two keys assigned to the same task should you desire it. Put "a" in the 1st column. Put "b" in the second column. Hit "a" or "b" and, voila, task accomplished.

HI Bert: When you enter the autopilot dive, have you ever quickly switched to the exterior chase camera, and took a look at what percentage your trim was at? Since you dive immediately after entering AP mode, I would love to know what percentage your trim reads. Next time that happens, take an exterior look and let us know. Or better yet, take a look before you hit the AP. Might give you a warning before it happens.

First off, feel free to "spill the beans" about what you have in mind for upcoming projects. 😁 You mentioned "near to medium term" . Is that (one week to one month) or (six months to two years)? The reason I ask is because what your group is doing is just so cool that it does give us regular users something to look forward to in the future. I'm sure part of any hesitation to spill beans of future projects and set timeframes is due to expectations being set and then criticism coming from the community when they don't pan out as expected but I promise I won't be one of those. 🤭 I know you probably still won't be willing to reply to the above questions, but this is something I would be very interested in knowing, just from an educational point of view. When you get a request to add a feature or make a change, how do you know whether it is something that is easily doable within your scope or something that is NOT doable due to the application construction. For instance, you were able to make a change to the MFD and show the map HEADING UP. But the little airport depiction on the map is still rotated as original (north up). Or, the PFD loads flight plans that come in from an external application, but to date, the MFD doesn't follow suit. Are all of these issues fixable by your group, or are some of these issues only fixable by Asobo due to some deep internal compiled executable buried in the program? Great job by the way!

DUPE

I know that there are some on this forum that feel these types of posts should not be responded to. The reason I disagree with that is these post get displayed on the search engines, and then some newcomer hears about MSFS, does a search to read about it, stumbles on this, no one responds, and goes away thinking it's the truth. So here is my take on this comment. You at least stated "for me" which might be the most important two words of your entire post. Because for many of us, MSFS is far more than a C172 VFR simulator. And by you saying that, it means 1) you truly are here just to try and stir the pot, or, 2) you just do not have a complete understanding of what IFR is. I'll assume #2. For the record, IFR flight is NOT turning on an autopilot and letting the plane fly itself while you take a nap or read a book. Most of the aircraft included in MSFS have the required equipment that the FAA requires for an aircraft to be certified for IFR flight, and that equipment works just fine in MSFS 2020. Just because at this time, "some" of the avionics do not work as well as their real life counterpart, does not mean the pilot cannot still conduct an IFR flight. If you want to use it a C172 VFR simulator, go right ahead. In fact, that is now how I primarily use it myself. But should you find yourself in IMC conditions (google it), you can absolutely finish your flight IFR with any type of approach, be it ILS, RNAV, or (heaven forbid 😁) a VOR approach.

Yes. I've had both speed and altitude freeze just as you. I used the alternate guages above the PFD as my backup to finish the flight.

Yes. Along with all of the other G1000 issues which Asobo says are going to be addressed in Update #9, most likely sometime in December. Good strategy to attack the G1000 issues at the same time rather than piecemeal.

Agree. Sorry about that!