No, the issues are in any mode, and exist just as much in 2020 as in 2024, and is why, for example, that we dictated no hot-swap on the G3X Touch.
However, in 2020 there was no variant system that wasn’t tied to liveries really, so if you had multiple cockpit configurations, livery developers would have to make duplicate liveries for each configuration. In 2024 that is no longer the case, to alleviate this issue.
Yeah, I see where you’re coming from, but it’s still a bummer. There’s value in being able to get in the plane and experiment with navigating using various systems in the moment, without having to reload and start over from a prechosen state.
Again, like the G1000, it makes sense with the G3X to not hot-swap. But for smaller, modular, “drop-in” instruments and navigators there is a benefit to being able to do so. I suppose if the navigator is integrated with a digital panel that can be difficult, but for analog panels it seems to work just fine.
New update today, still not there. What’s up with this?
I gave this some more thought. The reason it is cumbersome to pre-select avionics in the menu screen is that with all the possible interior, exterior, and avionics combinations, this will end up being a list a mile long.
For instance, imagine a Black Square Bonanza with the Asobo-favored selection method. With just the avionics packages alone, you’d have a menu with the following combinations to select from:
KX155B, KX155B
KX155B, GNS430
KX155B, GTN650 (PMS)
KX155B, GTN650 (TDS)
KLN90B, KX155B
KLN90B, GNS430
KLN90B, GTN650 (PMS)
KLN90B, GTN650 (TDS)
GNS530, KX155B
GNS530, GNS430
GNS530, GTN650 (PMS)
GNS530, GTN650 (TDS)
GTN750(PMS), KX155B
GTN750(PMS), GNS430
GTN750(PMS), GTN650 (PMS)
GTN750(TDS), KX155B
GTN750(TDS), GNS430
GTN750(TDS), GTN650 (TDS)
That’s 18 options, before the removable weather radar (another 18?), all the exterior options, and colors. Combine that with the horrible selection UI and it’s a recipe for disaster. And it will only get worse as more drop-in avionics packages are developed and added. Variety like this is truly the spice of life!
Meanwhile, the current system implemented by the devs just works. I can hot-swap all day long and I haven’t run into any initialization issues. I can decide at the beginning of a flight whether I feel like this or that package, or change it up in the middle. And then I’m not stuck ending my flight and reloading the physics and the scenery to try something else.
So while I understand that the architecture calls for this, it is not viable from an end-user standpoint. Perhaps it would work if those avionics combinations had their own selection in a better-designed preflight menu.
Yep, I have to agree - the current approach which will maybe sometimes break things that can be fixed with a restart is still much better than the officially approved method which is guaranteed to be a bad experience 100% of the time.
Selecting more than just a single variant, but rather fully configuring your aircraft from the Configure menu would be the way forward to appease both groups - but we’re far from that, I feel.
Even default aircraft fall into this trap, with the DHC-2 Beaver including:
| Cabin | Undercarriage | Avionics |
|---|---|---|
| Cargo | Wheels | GPS |
| Cargo | Wheels | Radios+ADF |
| Cargo | Wheels | Radios |
| Cargo | Floats | GPS |
| Cargo | Floats | Radios+ADF |
| Cargo | Floats | Radios |
| Passenger | Wheels | GPS |
| Passenger | Wheels | Radios+ADF |
| Passenger | Wheels | Radios |
| Passenger | Floats | GPS |
| Passenger | Floats | Radios+ADF |
| Passenger | Floats | Radios |
And that is not fun to browse through, especially with the current carousel-style UI.
Imagine a text only, minimal menu system, with simple drop down menu lists to pick from.
A restart does not fix the issue, unfortunately. This is because the plane itself is deciding which avionics to load at runtime, after the flight loads: i.e. during a non-deterministic time not related to flight init, the timing of which can change based on the underlying plane’s own state reading code and making the hot swap itself go as well as based on user-specific hardware timing.
It’s really a nightmare from an architecture and code perspective, impossible to properly support. I can appreciate the UX challenges here though with highly configurable aircraft.
Just wild then that I (and seemingly no one else in this thread) has ever encountered an issue then. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but it proves my point more that the risk of the “bad method” seems to be so low that it’s better than the current bad UI experience we would get otherwise.
I did years back in one of Just Flight Arrows, the earliest planes I can think of with hot swappable GPS. It would rarely crash the sim during the swap, or lead to a twitching HSI.
How do I select the 172 Classic with Avidyne? I don’t see any variant with it, I just have the GNS 530.
It’s not yet available.
That’s simple and easy to use but won’t cut if for the console users. This is always the argument with the ■■■■■■ UI. We are told PC and console can have different code branches so why force a PC user into using a UI designed around using a game controller for a console. I’d love to see this aspect branch but I can’t see it happening.
The part where this argument falls apart is that the current UI is a nightmare with a controller and WAY easier to use with a mouse, so the concept that they’re tailoring to console users here doesn’t add up. A simplified UI would be great for console users as well.
It seems ironic to me that an interface designed for use on a TV, with a controller, and it’s actually better to use with a mouse.
I know there were a few UI mods for 2020, but I do t know if any exist for 2024.
I know we are way off topic here, but when I played on my Xbox I used a keyboard, mouse, with my flight stick - the controller was only used for walkaround and Xbox startup.
My point is I don’t think it is “designed for use on a TV with a controller.” I think that mentality often (though not always) stems from a “they’re only focused on the console and ruining PC” mentality, which is proven false by many things, including this UI.
That would be my take. The interface is designed to be used primarily on consoles, and the interface would reflect that. No one in their right mind would design a PC only, mouse and keyboard driven interface, to look like that.
The size of the tiles would be attributable to the typical console usage scenario: on a couch in front of a TV some feet away.
No one could convince me this interface was ever designed to be used by a PC user with a M&KB setup. The tiles are very reminiscent of the tiled interface we saw in Windows 8/8.1, before Microsoft reluctantly abandoned it in favour of Windows 10.
A tiled interface “should” in theory be easier to navigate with a console controller, than an interface such as X-Plane 11/12. The fact that they messed up the implementation of the UI in MSFS doesn’t negate the point, it just solidifies the apparent fact that Asobo just aren’t very good at interface design. Unless it was forced on them by Microsoft of course, which is possible.
There are many game sequels out there, where you can see this process has been repeated many times. Typically a game series that started out as a PC only release, then subsequently became multi-platform. A solid example of this would be Deus Ex, and its sequel Invsible War.
But coming back to the Avidyne thing, I don’t think we have had any official word on whether this is an accidental omission, or a deliberate one. Are those avionics not ready for public consumption, or they are and just haven’t been implemented yet.
Oh it adds up alright. Just because they did a terrible job of it doesn’t alter what they were aiming for. Take a look at xplane or any of Microsoft’s office apps. They are keyboard and mouse interfaces.
The IFD sim attachments are in the sim and some folks have already informally modded them into some planes.
The packages with the 172 with the IFD are making their way through ingestion at this time. We apologize for the release note added in anticipation of this happening sooner.
No worries, I’m sure they will be worth the wait.