A game for gamers

Discussion Hub General Discussion
328

@HalberQuacky

If I read this correctly, because this gauge is capable of 1 feature, regardless how bad or good the others are, it is then supposed to be “the most complex avionics in any sim”.

In taking the comparaison with the NXi and PMDG/FSLabs/Tolis, the above is like saying:

“Compared to the space shuttle [PMDG+FSLabs+Tolis], Tesla [NXi] is the most sophisticated vehicle [Avionics] man can ever pilot [in any sim], only because it has an autopilot for hands free driving on the road, which is something the space shuttle doesn’t have”

Notwithstanding the RNP/AR capabilities of the NXi:

  • What is the accuracy of its GPWS?
  • Is the TCAS passing the industry standard 250 TSIM tests like the RXP? (Which is RXP code and not Garmin just to make this clear)
  • Is it capable of RAIM checks?
  • Does it also has the authentic Garmin navigation bugs and other navigation and flight plan sequencing specifics capabilities? (1)

I might be wrong of course, but I’m lacking the words to explain what I think about the claim that a single NXi gauge, even if it has a fully working 1:1 RNP/AR feature, is the most sophisticated piece of avionics when comparing with a complete and highly authentic simulation of an entire Boeing or Airbus computer systems and avionics, like they are implemented by PMDG, FSLabs and Tolis to name a few.

And on the RNP/AR specifically, you might want to read this too (2):

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/570395-kpsp-no-rnav-approaches/

RNAV (GPS) approaches can use the curved path RF leg type, but you won’t find any of these in the existing WAAS GPS databases as none of the Garmin panel mount GPS units support the RF leg in their AFMS. They have the software to perform the RF leg type, but until the FAA approves the use these legs with the GPS for part 91 operations, Garmin can’t include them in the database. At that point, Garmin would have to update the software to enable the RF leg to be used and issue a new AFMS to go with the ability.

The poster child is the RNAV (GPS) X RWY 24 at KCRQ. You can find the RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 24 in the database, but not the X. At one point, the Y included the RF leg, but this prevented the procedure from being in the database, so the X was added that just has the RF leg feeder route and it was removed from the Y so it could be put back in the database.

Garmin did a white paper on the subject of flying the RF leg and demonstrated that with a minimum of training that it could be flown by pilots with all levels of experience.

Those procedures are RNAV (RNP) AR or authorization required approaches. Unless the aircraft is certificated for RNP AR, which the GTN alone would not be, the approaches are required to be excluded from the database. Further, RNP AR approaches are subjected to additional database scrutiny and validation testing. That usually requires a separate, RNP AR qualified database with all the RNP AR approaches included for the coverage area.

If you want to know more, Google “FAA AC 90-101A”.

Rich Boll

Wichita KS

(1) yes there are also bugs and actually, thanks to the RXP solution, and astute customers, we’ve helped Garmin identifying a real bug affecting the real Garmin GTN with potential hazardous outcome in the real world…

(2) you can enable support for RF legs in the Reality XP GTN in the AFMS settings, like you’d do at the FBO with the real unit… It just needs the approach to be in the database.

329

I’m still thinking myself what it being said here is for a stock sim (or will be). Note the context “A game for gamers”. When you have a sophisticated unit in development that has a goal to emulate a near 1:1 of the real deal and be part of the stock sim can you really keep saying “a game for gamers”?

330

Sorry can’t edit my post because the topic is in “slow mode” so here is additional material:

http://static.garmincdn.com/pumac/190-01007-A4_02.docx

The Garmin GNSS navigation system complies with the equipment requirements of AC 90-105 and meets the equipment performance and functional requirements to conduct RNP terminal departure and arrival procedures and RNP approach procedures including procedures with RF legs subject to the limitations herein. Part 91 subpart K, 121, 125, 129, and 135 operators require operational approval from the FAA.

For reference, here’s an FAA Approval Guidance document for RNP approaches.

Another interesting read about the RNP approaches.

[…] it’s important to understand that if your airplane is equipped with, say, a GNS530W or one of the new GTN boxes (with an appropriate AFM supplement), you can fly RNAV SIDs and STARs based on RNP-1 criteria. And you can, of course, fly en route segments that require RNP-2 accuracy.

It is vastly different having a goal to emulate, and delivering a true 1:1 authentic simulation. This doesn’t lessen the effort in any way, but it is not the same for a simple reason: where do you draw the line between how much it resembles to, and how much it works exactly the same.

In other words, when using for example a RXP GTN, you know that everything you do on the unit is exactly how you’d do in your aircraft later on and this is real simulation and training, using a simulator for what a certain number of simmers are using it for. You wouldn’t want to take the habit using an avionics in the simulator in the way it is, only to discover later on in the real aircraft everything you’ve learned to do on the simulator is not working the same and is actually so much distracting you from piloting than it starts causing a problem.

And I believe @N6722C said it better that I could: it will be stock ONLY because MSFT pays for it, not by the sheer virtue of the gauge itself. This also doesn’t lessen in any way the fact they are doing though.

331

Infinitely more primitive. If that sublogic version was anywhere near its successor FS-II (3-4 years later) this is complete mythology. There was no aviation, no volumetrics, no AP, no ATC, no flightplan. You did not need a flight plan, because you had only fixed routes. FS-II was a program that came on a floppy disk. If you want to go back to that, feel free, but don’t spread this kind of nonsense here please.

332

Oh I know, I have your 650 / 750 for the other sim.

PS: Crossfill when? :slight_smile:

333

Unfortunately I can’t comment on planned features or future products. :slight_smile:

334

Understandable! Have to admit pretty cool being able to ask right from horse’s mouth.

335

Regrettably, you have completely missed the point. I never said it was better.

336

These early sims on home computers were less serious.. maybe you romanticize.. everything was better in the past.. this does not count for software !

337

Well, apart from graphics and sounds, this buggy arcade with console interface is a step backward to any other Sim from the past.

338

Anyone remember this?

339

@Maki152
Anyone remember this too? :thinking:

“We got to get this right with you guys first, and by you guys I mean the people that really have been propping up this thing for the past 35 years”

340

Yeah, I saw that.

341

Yeah, seems like the reality happened after that lofty promise. The absolute top gripe of everybody after the launch was miserable performance. At launch there were 60k users on Steam alone, it dropped pretty quickly to around 5000 concurrent users. In that sense, and in hindsight promising to “make right with you guys first, before we make it accessible to [others]” was really unrealistic.

342

To be fair this happens with all Steam games, updates to Steam games too.

343

That seems like a different world, when everyone was a lot more Civil to each other, and there was a level of respect and good manners present in the Flight Sim Community, and the Forums & ways people communicated,

Seems like a different world - It was certainly a different Generation of a more respectful community.