I searched and saw that VNAV was martially implimented in GA aircraft, but that dates back to mid 2020. Does VNAV work at all in the TBM default?
If not, thanks. I’ll stop trying.
But if it’s meant to work, I have mt FMC handling my NAV, but when I enter altitudes on waypoints, the aircraft never budges.
Should ALT be on? I assume the VNAV should be on. What should be in the Alt value box? The altitude I’m cleared to? And then VNAV will try fly to the alt on the FMC waypoint, but not above my clearance altitude?
I;m also guessing the VS and FLC are both off when you want the FMS to fly to the waypoint alts?
Working Title was hired by MS-Asobo to revamp the Rockwell-Collins ProLine and the G1000, 3000 and G3X series to as close 1:1 real life functionality.
To that end, download the Working Title G3000 below. It has Advisory VNAV.
There will likely be QoL improvements to G3000 in the near future, but for the moment, all hands are on the G1000Nxi launch next month. The G3000 will eventually receive the same treatment.
Thanks for that. I believe I have the Working Title G3000 installed. I’m not sure what “Advisory VNAV” means. If I have an altitude set for a specific waypoint, will the aircraft try to fly to it? I did notice that I got some white altitudes set if I skipped some waypoints. Blue is true. So the blue ones, I entered. The white ones, the Garmin entered. Is that what is meant by advisory?
Advisory means if you have an altitude restriction entered then, provided you have turned on VNAV in the G3000 menu (under Flight Plan), the MFD will show the Top of Descent marker on the flight track and some useful info about how long it is to ToD and what vertical speed you need to achieve once you get there, in order to make the restriction. You, however, will have to do the VNAV bit yourself (either via AP or manually), setting the Altitude to descend to and V/S if using AP. At the moment the AP will not follow the vertical path.
No, Advisory VNAV will not provide primary guidance vertically with AP enabled during enroute. It’s still a manual process by the pilot.
What it does is provide you with a visual idea of whether at current climb/descent rate and speed, will you arrive at the altitude restriction(s) declared at the next waypoint on the plan. You can then adjust accordingly VS to match the desired glideslope to get to arrive at that waypoint fix at the declared altitude.
Click,
I am confused. Are you saying that if we do not download and install the Working Title as an addon, the default, stock Navs will continue to be semi functional and will never reach the desired real life functionality ?
…
If that is true and WT is contracted by and working for Asobo, then one would think that the code would be given to Asobo and be Included in mandatory updates and not as a optional addon ?
My understanding is that most or all of the WT addons’ content will be added to the game at some point. They started developing them long before having an official agreement with MS/Asobo.
From following Matt and other WT team comments here and elsewhere, the base approach is to override the sim code through WT mods, which is more efficient and agile than attempting to rewrite the underlying base code.
Edited to add: Some context to the above - if you think about it, why can the WT CJ4 do things that none of the other WT mods can? Including fully functional VNAV and other procedure legs? That’s because WT build a separate flight-planning/routing/logic (and by extension some AP improvemetns) inside the mod that literally override the base sim everytime the Mod is loaded. Literally entire new modules that override what in many cases is legacy sim core code that otherwise would have to be rewritten and then parsed to serve all NavUnits. Those changes in the CJ4 will have to be paralleled in each and every other NavUnit that WT is committed to fixing - namely, G1000 (now NXi), G3000 and eventually the G3X Touch. There is no commitment to the 530/430 at this time. That’s one big reason why it can’t be integrated into sim code. See below for the rest.
That being said - one of the developments to formalize WT’s mods as being Official is to change the delivery model from Working Title Aero website and/or GitHub to Marketplace. Per Matt’s latest comments, that will begin with the G1000 NXi either with or shortly after Sim Update 5.
By delivering it as a Marketplace option, it preserves the agility of Working Title to make changes and deliver it timely (on demand) as they have today with their Community Mod model - instead of being beholden if they were integrated into the sim code, which typically does not deliver changes except on a fixed Cadence schedule (which is now every other month).
That being said, Marketplace packages have the inherent characteristic of being optional. That may be the price to be paid for all the other “pros” this approach takes.
Thank you for the reply.
I understand the logic which bypasses MS/Asobo having the responsibility to effect a Fix for something that some of us feel should have operated correctly in the core, however, I understand offloading all those fixes/enhancements to a 3rd party, for sure.
…
Now if we add those addons to fix a nav aid included in the core program, the responsibility in the event of huge loss of frame rate or other mishaps will be the responsibility of a 3rd party marketplace update instead of the core program folks. I get it… it really does make it easier for the owner.
…
The bottom line is that we all still love MSFS and hope some of the current operational annoyances get fixed or enhanced.
I want to be clear - I’m not promulgating that as the position of MS-Asobo or Working Title in any way shape or form.
It might be worth your time (and potentially peace of mind) to either follow Matt’s postings here on the board or spend some time in WT’s Discord server where the WT Team freely and openly express their informed opinions and responses to not only their product but their involvement in sim core development.
WT and MS-Asobo are at the same table, per Matt. And judging by Jorg’s continued endorsement over various communications channels (notably Dev Q&A streams), that’s not a one-sided perspective. They are not operating in silos.
WT isn’t just about the NavUnits - they’re also leading the charge to make aspects of the SDK more accessible and efficient to all developers, especially in the instruments space.
I would say there isn’t a plan here to make one party more or less accountable. It is as the announcements said at the beginning - a Partnership. This one is very visible because it affects so much of the experience. But it’s fair to say there’s other aspects similar to the task and efficiency sharing happening with other 1st parties like Gaya and the scenery / world updates.
Thank you for your reply.
I’ll take a look at your suggestions. I appreciate your time and effort to answer so many questions.
I may have been a bit off topic too, apologies for that.
It is a lot of hard work for all the teams for a product that we all just love… MSFS, Thank You !