Bendix/King KAS 297B Altitude Selector
-
@Black-Square said in Bendix/King KAS 297B Altitude Selector:
I've implemented true altitude preselect and arming in the Starship, because the Starship's avionics are so radically different that I don't expect anyone to have prior hardware solutions that they expect to work with it.
Some months ago you said above that the native MSFS autopilot lacks any sense of vertical speed arming and you'll experiment with it before the major update to the TBM. Have you found a remedy for the Starship but was it not apt for the TBM?
I'm worried if the real solution eventually comes. It's not only the TBM but also Bonanza/Baron that need the fix. -
@Black-Square What about making “Require Altitude Arm” an EFB option that defaults to off?”
-
Unfortunately, the other reason the Starship was a compliant host for this new feature was because I am in control of all the avionics. In my other aircraft, autopilot behaviors are swapped in and out with the GPS units, and several of them have slightly different behavior compared to the others. I would have to separate my autopilot into its own instrument, dynamically toggle the intercepting of native events (I believe I've seen this done, but never tried it myself), and then make sure it works correctly with every GPS combination. It's not impossible, but it would be a lot of work. I will continue to think about the best way to accomplish this, don't worry. Thank you for the suggestion, though!
-
@Laurreth said in Bendix/King KAS 297B Altitude Selector:
Please don't fix it so hard that it stops working with the regular input binds though, because that works great as is. Doing the unit "realistically" would result in a situation like with the SWS PC-12 where it's an absolute kludge in terms of usability since you're forced to use the mouse for anything altitude-related whereas the current implementation in the TBM "just works" with the default binds on, e.g., the Honeycomb Bravo using the "select AP ALT/VS" and "plus/minus" binds for all major operations.
I wholeheartedly disagree, I've used a lot of time to bind the inputs for Honeycomb Bravo, logically and systematically so that you never need to use the mouse. Even though the KAS 297B is possible to use as it is, it's obvious from a UX standpoint that it does not currently function as the unit is intended by its original manufacturer.
-
@Black-Square I understand that this might be quite low on the list of what that can be prioritised, and I must admit that even after reading one of the documentations I've found online for the real unit, I'm not really sure how it's supposed to work :) ...if you however would like to revisit this unit at one time, I would be very interested in testing, and do my best to provide some feedback on how to map it to hardware.
-
I hope it doesn't come across like I am ignoring these requests. This is actually quire high on my list of items to fix in many of my aircraft. Unfortunately, it's not just a matter of "putting in the hours" like many other features, for reasons I explained above regarding usability, hardware, 3rd party GPS units, and backwards compatibility. All of these combine to make for a very ugly proposition unless you control all of the autopilot environment, which is why I have only implemented my own solution in my Starship so far.
That being said, could you explain why you consider VS mode to be "INOP" with the current implementation? I take that claim very seriously, as I do not want anyone to consider any part of my aircraft to be "INOP", as this is nearly claimed in my advertising materials for every one of my aircraft. As it currently stands, the lack of altitude arming should only prevent you from setting a desired vertical speed before you intend to climb/descend. While this is imperfect, I have found that it has only the most negligible impact on my workload while flying the airplane. If you are encountering more issues than that, please let me know and I can look into them or discuss further.
-
Oh no!
That's not what I meant!
Sorry I caused possible misunderstanding.The current implementation is definitely NOT "INOP", nooooo way!
I CAN do VS descent/climb if I want & need.
So I choose the word "pretend", (not "regard" or "take") which means "do something NOT TRUE".What I meant was that there is little quirks that we all know in this 99% perfect simulation, so that I "pretend" such situation as if it was a 100% perfect simulation. Kind of every simmers' role-play you know. ;-)
I am happy enough to hear that this is high on your list and looking forward to fly the Starship!
-
I understand! Thank you for explaining. I hope you didn't take my message to be accusatory either, by the way. I really take the claims in my marketing to heart, so I just wanted to make sure that I was not running afoul of my own promises in someone's eyes. Indeed, I will continue to think about how this can be done, but I do not have any immediate solutions that I would be willing to deploy retroactively. Usually the way this works for me is that I design something new (Starship), with a new solution (altitude arming), learn how my users interact with it, and then find a way to work that polished solution back into my older products, if possible.
-
Hi All,
I wanted to let you know that I have been true to my word and applied my knowledge from the Starship to the KAS 297B. I have a solution now that functions as described in the manual, but can also still be used with native hardware bindings and the old functionality, if so desired.
This means that you will be able to use the KAS 297B, as seen in SteveO's videos (as discussed in another thread on these forums), with altitude arming, vertical speed arming, vertical speed synchronizing, control-wheel steering, and pitch adjustment with an associated rocker switch. The only exception is that altitude capture will automatically arm when a climb or descent is initiated in the direction of the selected altitude. This is a core MSFS limitation, as altitude capture is set wholly on or off in the aircraft's configuration files. It's possible that I will come up with a creative solution to this too in time. I will include this change in the TBM 850, and my Baron Professional and Bonanza Professional, which will be officially announced soon.
Thank you again for your discussion here, as it helps me prioritize new features, and gives me the insight to design them in a way that will not disrupt current users with my updates. Without you guys, I can't count how many features would not exist that I have become very proud of in my aircraft!
