On 2/15/2023 at 7:57 PM, turner112 said:

Without knowing what else might be missing, I have to again stress that many XP users NEED basics to be fixed far more than they do experimental aircraft, F14s, and lectures about why the Vision jet sucks now.

Please elaborate how a very specific feature in one of a million available different avionics sets consitutes a "basic".

 

 

40 minutes ago, turner112 said:

Funny you should mention it. For years I've been saying the 3D panels should be done in such a way that average users can change avionics, e.g. switch out a DG for an HSI. And developers could make individual instruments that could be installed into panels.

Check out Thranda's aircraft which have customizable and extensible avionics.

On 2/15/2023 at 12:57 PM, turner112 said:

If LR doesn't read the room I think they're going to lose more of their dedicated user base.

So much this. I really would like a quality alternative to what I fly now, but I think there may be too much technical debt in XP, at least in its current iteration, for this to be the case for me.

If a not (yet?) implemented Garmin G1000 NXi is all what is missing, I'm not worried ... There are so many other REALLY important aspects in flying ...
 

Edited February 19, 20233 yr by flying_carpet

On 2/19/2023 at 5:19 AM, flying_carpet said:

If a not (yet?) implemented Garmin G1000 NXi is all what is missing, I'm not worried ... There are so many other REALLY important aspects in flying ...

I have an Aviatek G1000 hardware setup and the only reason I bought MSFS2020 a few weeks ago is the Working Title G1000nxi. It’s not perfect but it’s light years ahead of what X-Plane comes with. X-Plane still flies more realistically but for G1000 procedures and autopilot training MSFS is very good. LNAV/VNAV comes very close to the real thing. I’ve got about ten years and 2500 hours behind the real thing in the Cessna Caravan and SkyCourier. LR needs to catch up.
 

 

Edited March 19, 20233 yr by BigC208

Apart from that you quoted wrongly (because I never wrote "I have an Aviatek G1000 hardware setup .....Cessna Caravan and SkyCourier. LR needs to catch up.") - do you seriously do training with the Working Title G1000nxi? What if you learn/train with it something what doesn't correspond to the real G1000nxi and crash because of that? What will you tell the FAA (or your local authority)? "But I have trained with the Working Title G1000nxi ..." I'm afraid, they will laugh at you. I rather suggest to use the original - it's not that expensive and worth the price of doing correct training.

4 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

do you seriously do training with the Working Title G1000nxi

I've not looked in great detail, but as far as I can see, the main difference over a standard G1000 is the synthetic vision. avionics types aren't actually included in a type rating as far as I can tell, could be wrong, but I haven't seen anything that specific, and if there was actually a "G1000nxi test" I'm pretty sure they would be charging a lot more then 55USD for an official trainer.

I don't actually understand the big deal, they aren't that hard to use.

4 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

I'm afraid, they will laugh at you.

this whole game of trying to differentiate "other sim" from XP on a few avionics updates is maximum

tbh.

For what it’s worth. Yes. One is coming eventually.