Just found this. Someone posted this in PilotEdge discord. As a temporary solution in MSFS, if you are willing to spend a very little bit of money (think something like $10) and use a bit of DYIing, you can have a very nearly perfect, nearly fully IFR and PilotEdge-capable ‘study-level’ G1000 unit in MSFS and can use it with almost all planes that should have one. You will be able to file both /G and /L, whereas without this solution in MSFS you are able to file /L only with the amazing Working Title CJ4.
The solution, while it works, does not look great visually and reminds you that it’s an ugly band-aid, but it does work, as evident below:
I glad to see WT working with Asobo. I’ll assume they will only handle the avionics stuff as that is what they have been doing.
I do have a couple concerns though. Will we now only see updates to the Garmin’s, CJ4 and whatever when Asobo puts out World & System Updates?
And WT had just gotten Charts implemented into the CJ4 with help from Navigraph, but will that now end being that there may be a conflict of interest with NavBlue?
This is a big question mark. The WT guys shared on their Discord that they’d had a very productive meeting with Navigraph about charts. And this was after their announcement of joining the platform as a partnet. It left me confused as well, as their Jeppesen charts are the direct competitor to NavBlue.
During the interview with WT it sounded like WT might make Charts available on other aircraft but the chart info would come from NavBlue. I would think Navigraph would be ■■■■■■ if that’s the case. I checked out NavBlue’s website and saw that they are part of Airbus.
The part that confuses me is this post, which was made on the WT Discord AFTER the announcement that they were now part of the MSFS team…
Sometimes all cool things come at the same time.
Last week @Matt (nishmaster) [Z-5] and I had an interview session with the awesome people at Navigraph to discuss Working Title, Charts integration and sim things. It was a lot of fun.
We also want to thank Navigraph again for being so helpful during development of the integration and their genuine interest in our work and WT during the interview.
Personally, I would far prefer have the option of NavBlue OR Navigraph. Basically, forcing NavBlue charts on us is essentially shutting Navigraph out of MSFS.
Let’s not worry about the sky falling when there hasn’t been a single announcement that NavBlue maps are being forced upon anyone.
If you allow me to make a guess; I would guess that NavBlue will be implemented as the standard maps provider, seeing that MS/Asobo have a contract with them (and thus will be free to use for all sim pilots), and that users with a Navigraph subscription will be able to inject those, just like you can inject Navigraph nav data into the sim right now.
Right now they only supply the nav data. According to Jorg in the Q&A, they’re in negotiation with NavBlue to use their Charts+ service, which is the service they sell to airlines to display charts on the FMS of real planes.
I have been in touch with Garmin, and they are going to have a software update to their real world systems which replicates the shortcomings of their simulated systems in MSFS20. This way real world pilots can learn to navigate the pitfalls of the simulation by practicing in the real world.
Same. I don’t know if it’s their nav data or the way it’s interpreted / parsed by Asobo before inclusion in the sim that’s the issue. But I know the data in the sim is laughably bad in some cases. I would think it’s the latter, because if the data were that bad IRL, there would be a lot more plane crashes.
Personally, I’ll stick with Navigraph / Jeppesen data if possible. It’s proven itself to not deliver me nasty surprises on approach.
The problem with Navblue is inexplicable. The latest AIRAC from Navblue finally shows one of my homefields accurately - it has VOR and RNAV approaches for both runways. But the information is only selectable in Little Nav Map. And when I import the Flight Plan into MSFS, it only gives me a Direct - Direct dropdown choice in any IFR plan.
But using Navigraph data? No problem. MSFS gladly gives me all the VOR and RNAV choices in dropdown, and imports the Little Nav Map plan to the T.
I just don’t get it. Navblue is what’s undoing a lot of IFR flights. It’s not the only factor (the inexplicable routing logic by the built-in Flight Plan on Arrivals is another), but it sure has a huge impact.
I haven’t used stock data in several months, but previously 2/3 RNAV approaches at my local airport were missing in the stock data. And if you followed the RNAV approach on the one “working” one (I use that term loosely), it would land you about a mile past the end of the runway into Lake Ontario. Only the single ILS approach at the airport actually worked as intended. Unless they intended it to be used by float planes. lol
With Navigraph data, there’s no problem. 3 RNAV + 1 ILS, and they all work fine.
I initially used Navigraph because I was flying in the States and the navdata there was so poor.
I recently upgraded my computer so I reinstalled MSFS, and just recently discovered forgot to reinstall the Navigraph data. I’m mostly flying in Europe so I really didn’t notice much of a drop off.
The fact that the stock data didn’t include most of the smaller Muni and GA airports that I fly out of a lot, is a reason I’m using Navigraph data.
What’s still missing are the Visual Approaches. The latest Garmin GTN 650/750 from Flight1 had them. But that was only for FSX/P3d.
