Hi everyone,
I love the SWS Kodiak 100 a lot, it is my favorite aircraft so far without a second thought! I am a simmer wants to implement the aircraft and their systems as close as possible as they occur in real life. But sometimes having a reasonable flexibility is no harm at all.
I wish that we could customize the avionics in the cockpit and chose them as we wish (as long as it does not look an awkard combination). I recently purchased TDS GTN750Xi, and thinking to use it in my favorite aircraft, Kodiak 100. But thereās no such a combination of both Garmin G1000Nxi and GTN750Xi. It just does not fit and itās not meaningful.
However, if thereās a chance that we could remove the whole G1000Nxi, and instead, replace it with a set of Garmin G3X Dual 10.6" Landscape avionics, one for left seat and one for the other, it would be amazing to place a GTN750Xi in between! And that kind of configuration seem to be quite reasonable in real life scenario. If you own the aircraft, you can customize the avionics as long as it makes a good combination. Actually, thereās a great example of the combination of G3X and GTN750/Xi in the video attached down.
For the developers of SWS, Iām asking if that is really a chance that they can provide to us. Or any other reasonable combination along with GTN750.
PS: Here is the link to the video I mentioned
Greetings,
BuÄra
Personal Comments and Observations
The G3X is the black sheep of the Garmins in the sim, being the sole GA glass FMS not refreshed by Working Title, with no official plans to improve/revamp. Even adding the 750 doesnāt address those shortcomings, and I use that combo in other SWS products as well as other maker planes.
6 Likes
Yeah, no you donāt. The G3X is ābrokenā, and SWS is stuck in the middle.
But, you can certainly wish for itā¦
And thereās been some slight hints from Matt at WT the G3X might be addressed sooner than originally planned (which was implied to be not, or at least, not for quite some time.).
2 Likes
I see your point. If it is not going to work with the default Garmin that comes with MSFS, than they need to do a good representative of a Garmin on their own, which would not be worthy for them.
1 Like
why would you want to replace a very well working g1000nxi is beyond me.
3 Likes
Because entering the flight plan is much more easier with GTN750. There are some mods that is replacing the G1000Nxi with GTN750, but the main frame and the buttons of G1000 is still there. Itās just replacing the display. Maybe the easiest solution would be completelty remove the MFD and replace it with GTN750, keep the G1000 PFD. I donāt know whether it is going to co-operate well.
What about replacing it with WT Garmin 3000/5000 PFD?
Replacing any of the FMS requires at least a Bezel change. The G3000 would require placing GTCs somewhere in the cockpit, which arguably is an order of magnitude more effort laden than a bezel change.
1 Like
Iām all for ending the uttery misery that the current G3X is in the sim with a decent realistic model of the G3X. but AFAIK IRL the G3X is not supported by Garmin for any config other than single engine piston planes. They do not want to screw with their own market for much higher priced certified avionics for much higher priced turbo-prop planes after all. So I guess the G3X in a Kodiak 100 would never happen IRL.
A G1000 costs about 55,000 $ for a turboprop. For a single engine piston still about 30,000 $. A G3X for experimental single engine piston planes like the RV-14 costs about 4,300 $ā¦ G3X are incredible value for the experimental crowd, but a Kodiak 100 exists in a very different world.
2 Likes
Thanks for clearing the air for me.
But thatās the shortcoming of the MSFS G1000. Putting a flightplan into the real G1000 is a treat. Why? Because you can simply plan your flight at the PC and load it into the G1000 with an App, either on PC or on your smartphone. And even if you do it manually, all you need to do is turn two knobs and press enter. The real G1000 is such a well thought out cockpit, the GTN canāt keep up at all, its benefit in the sim is the touch surface, thatās all. For a ālittleā money plus there is even a keyboard available for the G1000 ^^ What we currently have in the sim is maybe 20% of the real G1000 capability 
The G1000 is a cockpit, not just two screens. You either do G1000 or you donāt. There is no point in mixing their products at that level. You could possibly ADD a GTN, but that would just make your plane heavier for no benefit. It might add redundancy though.
1 Like
Yeah that really bums me out that thereās no high fidelity G1000 in MSFS.
Whatās āhigh fidelityā? Working Title aimed for at least an 85-90 percent 1:1 functionality of the NXi to the point where the real-world manual is referenced for use, rather than writing a sim-specific one. Chances are, if thereās a function thatās not enabled, the average G1000 real-world operator isnāt using it often, if at all.
2 Likes
Iām confused, whatās missing from your point of view from the G1000 Nxi as implemented in say, the C172 (G1000)? I was just using it last night, seemed pretty complete to me. But Iām not a real G1000 user. My experience is more on the 430/530/175 realm. And even there, Iām no expert. I can get myself around, but Iām not a super user of the in-depth functionality.
About the only thing I would like (and was one of the first to ask WT for it) is Virtual Pathways - think of the old FSX Training Mission where you had to fly through boxes in the air which defined your flight path. Garmin has it for landing assistance and it comes in especially handy at fields that have no instrument / precision approaches or aids. But thatās what Visual Approach is for. Even Virtual Pathways only draws a path, it doesnāt account for obstacle clearance, same as VA. So really, I donāt miss anything from the NXi that I would need on a regular basis. Virtual Pathways would be useful to the Kodiak, but as I said, VA gets the job done and itās still the PICās job to make sure not to intersect with anything untoward on the way down.
3 Likes
I donāt think thatās really fair. The GTN is next gen tech over the G1000. The G1000 is the same era as the GNS units. The GTN is tech wise the same era as the G3000/5000. Needless to say the newer stuff has different and newer features. But as you point out they serve completely different purposes of which the OP didnāt seem to grasp. The GTN replacing a GNS sure no problem. But a G1000 is all or nothing.
The real GTN750 has a ton of functionality as well, sure, but it remains a navigation device only. It canāt provide you with information concerning the flight or your aircraft, the G*000 devices do that. They are cockpits, as said, the GTN is a GPS device. You donāt need the GTN in a G1000 cockpit, it allready has all that. And while it doesnāt have the touch screen functionality it has a couple of buttons and knobs that can be used almost as quickly as that touch stuff, even quicker if itās bumpy. I donāt like touch screens anyway. Most times they look disgusting, filthy, dirty. And if youāre thrown about the sky you really got to fight to hit the right place with your sweaty fingers. Against that the G1000 is a pleasure
Yeah I know all of that already. You said the GTN canāt keep up but in the aspects where the G1000 and GTN have commonality which is the only fair things to compare the GTN is better in many aspects. If you want to compare the G1000 full cockpit suite with GTNās same era sibling then you need to compare the G1000 with the G3000/5000 as they are also full cockpit suite avionic solutions. The difference is noticeable because the newer units have age on their side.
I see now why you made the statement as you donāt like touch screens. Well I canāt help with that. It reminds me of similar discussions about the virtues of steam gauges vs glass.
Something to keep in mind is that the Kodiak has only ever been sold with the G1000. It was type certified in 2007. Itās not an old aircraft where youāre going to see owners do a bunch of different upgrades and changes over the years.
1 Like
Why not use the World Map then - itās the equivalent of planning on an external device and loading the plan into the G1000. It only gets hokey with STAR and Approach transitions sometimes get mixed up plus any airways will get turned into waypoints, itās a perfectly good way of getting the en-route waypoints into the device. And itās the only way of getting the custom waypoints loaded that you often need for bush flying.
I have a dual rotary encoder set up to mirror the real unit functionality. It works very well, but even if you donāt have the hardware to do that, WT allows you to use your keyboard to type directly into the flight plan page using your keyboard.
And finally, I canāt think of too many Kodiak flight plans that are really going to be that long! Its missions tend to be shortish (well, the fun ones anyway - spending several hours flying 300nm IFR in the Kodaik is just dull compared to all the other things you can do with it)
