Request: better navigation suite
-
I know this topic already came up but I wanted to emphasize that for me - while I enjoy Starship from a novelty and systems perspective - I find the lack of a modern and reliable (!) navigation system frustrating.
There are primarily two reasons for that:
- The usability of the (real) 430 is just awful, compounded by the placement in the cockpit and the lack of a good camera view for it (the latter I can fix myself of course).
- Maybe I am doing something wrong but for me the 430 is just buggy as hell. It will (randomly?) insert approaches I actually did not select, when deleting waypoints I often end up with duplicates and so on. Case in point: I now tried the same flight three (!) times (LGKR - LGKF) and each and every time the 430 did something which resulted in me switching to HDG mode and flying the route "by hand". While some of it is definitely error on my part I never had the problems with the G750 in the TBM for example.
While I understand the dilemma of wanting to stay close to reality with the equipment and also the effort of integrating third party solutions I still would love to see another nav solution down the road.
-
As you said, I've discussed this in plenty of places with plenty of people by now, so I hope you won't mind if I take this conversation in a slightly different direction than the previous ones. I would like to learn about the use cases involved.
What exactly is it that you want to do with Starship that the original equipment can't do for you?
I've just spent almost two weeks implementing flight plan importing from all the usual 3rd party applications, so loading routes with hundreds of waypoints, SIDS, STARS, and approaches should now take only seconds. Is it LPV vertical guidance that you're missing? Is it procedure turns? Holds?
There have been no shortage of surprises for me with how my users are flying Starship, because it seems to differ tremendously from my other aircraft. As I've said elsewhere, I can only describe it as a "Screens + FMS = Airliner" effect. I'm curious what you're looking for, because I am much more aligned with my users who removed the GNS 430 from the flight deck on day one, and have no intention of ever using it.
-
I can only agree with Nick. There are so many options for the obvious. Once in a while I would like to be different, to understand limitations and to work with them. Even when I read SID/STAR in the above message I get a cringe already as it is already creeping back to the usual. I have stayed completely away from the flight plan import thread as I am not interested. I could support it only if the possibility existed e.g. to load routes via the Floppy Disk. If not, I won't use it.
On the other hand, Nick has to balance authenticity and passion, with other factors important to him. It's not easy and I don't wish to be him. But, for me personally, keep it authentic. Adding only historically accurate capabilities. Otherwise, what is the difference between 1,001 other airplanes and this one!? What would be the point!?
-
Obviously it's just my opinion: I love using the Starship with its aged instrumentation.
I only bring the GNS430 closer to give it the 2 enters at startup and then I could throw it out the window.
So far the 80s systems have not betrayed me and I like studying them.Then every day I make super technological "flights" with the Airbus: from the "old" 300 to the hyper modern 350.
Modernizing the Starship would be like reproducing a Flyer in carbon and replacing the original 20Hp engine with a turboprop and variable pitch propellers.
Ciao
-
I think, Nick, that in a way you're a victim of your own success. What I mean is that you – and Starship – have become a flagship product that's widely talked about in the community as something exceptional. Naturally, that draws in people — let's call them, politely, weekend virtual pilots coming from the Airbus A320 or fans of the magenta line — who are used to systems they already know.
None of them will bother with NDB approaches or go looking across the globe for places where they can still try flying them correctly — and have fun doing so. The very idea of forcing automatic flight plan transfers into an aircraft from the 1980s seems, in my opinion, a bit over the top.
Personally, I’d go in the opposite direction: I’d try to enchant those who have no real grasp of navigation-based flying and encourage them to dig deeper and learn — something that Starship puts within easy reach. That way, there's a chance they'll discover the real, romantic side of aviation, which so often involved doing quick mental math in the cockpit.
And for all those looking for a modern aircraft with modern navigation systems — they can find that in MSFS too, for example in the form of the Cirrus SF50. Starship here is 80 stuff, demanding and knowledge focused.
Cheers,
-
@Black-Square I fly a lot in the alps and the RNP capabilities the GNS brings is very nice to have. However, interfacing with it is horrible in a sim, mouse and rotary knobs is just not a good mix. To make these flights work, a gtn would be awesome, even if it is not the real thing. But hey, taking off from gras without damage is also not a real thing with Starship.
The option would just make life easier for people like me and as it's an option it would not take away from anyone else.
I don't really see the downside.
For most people the native starship navigation suite will do the trick in the first place.
But I am also happy if that's not gonna happen and I fly the Dukes there. I just whish it would be possible
however, am not sure if that is what you asked
-
I think, Nick, that in a way you're a victim of your own success. What I mean is that you – and Starship – have become a flagship product that's widely talked about in the community as something exceptional. Naturally, that draws in people — let's call them, politely, weekend virtual pilots coming from the Airbus A320 or fans of the magenta line — who are used to systems they already know.
None of them will bother with NDB approaches or go looking across the globe for places where they can still try flying them correctly — and have fun doing so. The very idea of forcing automatic flight plan transfers into an aircraft from the 1980s seems, in my opinion, a bit over the top.
Personally, I’d go in the opposite direction: I’d try to enchant those who have no real grasp of navigation-based flying and encourage them to dig deeper and learn — something that Starship puts within easy reach. That way, there's a chance they'll discover the real, romantic side of aviation, which so often involved doing quick mental math in the cockpit.
And for all those looking for a modern aircraft with modern navigation systems — they can find that in MSFS too, for example in the form of the Cirrus SF50. Starship here is 80 stuff, demanding and knowledge focused.
Cheers,
@SebAvi said in Request: better navigation suite:
The very idea of forcing automatic flight plan transfers into an aircraft from the 1980s seems, in my opinion, a bit over the top.
I disagree with only this part because this was possible; not "live," but loading routes via the floppy drive.
Otherwise your post is spot on and I agree 100%
-
@Black-Square I fly a lot in the alps and the RNP capabilities the GNS brings is very nice to have. However, interfacing with it is horrible in a sim, mouse and rotary knobs is just not a good mix. To make these flights work, a gtn would be awesome, even if it is not the real thing. But hey, taking off from gras without damage is also not a real thing with Starship.
The option would just make life easier for people like me and as it's an option it would not take away from anyone else.
I don't really see the downside.
For most people the native starship navigation suite will do the trick in the first place.
But I am also happy if that's not gonna happen and I fly the Dukes there. I just whish it would be possible
however, am not sure if that is what you asked
@Dingle I suggest giving this a try — for example, the LOC DME EAST approach at LOWI, or even better, the VOR 34Y at LGKR. You'll see how much fun it is to fly non-RNP procedures, especially in a fast aircraft like the Starship, where everything happens so quickly and you really need to stay a few steps ahead of the machine. It's a completely different experience compared to flying RNP approaches on autopilot. Let's take the Starship on the mission it was designed for
-
@SebAvi I am not arguing that (you are right, it is fun -- especially the circling approach there) and I completly understand your point. I just want don't want to engage in this discussion, as it will not lead anywhere
Nothing I whished for would take anything away from your experience, only improve mine.
-
I'm not trying to discredit your request here OP, I understand you want more advanced navigation capabilities, perhaps you can try a different approach (pun intended) to starship.
There are a lot of general aviation aircraft that are being released today, most if not all with advanced navigation capabilities. The black square dukes with the GTN650/750 upgrade for example. And with so many addons being released with that capability, I kinda sometimes feel like it's the same old same.
Challenge yourself, fly starship all over the place without even the GNS430 installed and enjoy the plane for what it is. Flying to somewhere, then look for a non rnav 1 or 2 STAR, and fly it, if that somewhere only has RNP AR approaches? Go visual and enjoy the landscape. Need to do a hold or procedure turn, practice doing it yourself. Simming is not always about importing a flight plan, pressing control E and when in the air flick on the autopilot and go get something to eat and come back in time for landing. It's a great tool for understanding many things like the basics of navigating using VORs, practicing procedures, seeing what it was like flying things that no longer fly (like the fslabs concorde) It can be a very rewarding experience.
I guess what I'm trying to say is try not to he frustrated with the fact you don't have all the bells and whistles, but try to see it as a way to learn and improve your skills in the sim
-
I think you’re assuming people use these RNAV approaches because of a skill issue. Personally I find flying visual trivially easy. The plane handles superbly, there is nothing difficult about it. I find there is way more to do during the flight when you need to manage the approaches and waypoints, and use all these computers correctly. I’ll fly the visual approaches on short fields that don’t have any real approaches, but it takes a backwater dirt strip to make that really interesting.
Also, when you want to finish your flight in zero visibility, that’s when you want those approaches to work.
-
I think you’re assuming people use these RNAV approaches because of a skill issue. Personally I find flying visual trivially easy. The plane handles superbly, there is nothing difficult about it. I find there is way more to do during the flight when you need to manage the approaches and waypoints, and use all these computers correctly. I’ll fly the visual approaches on short fields that don’t have any real approaches, but it takes a backwater dirt strip to make that really interesting.
Also, when you want to finish your flight in zero visibility, that’s when you want those approaches to work.
@Marionettework said in Request: better navigation suite:
I think you’re assuming people use these RNAV approaches because of a skill issue. Personally I find flying visual trivially easy. The plane handles superbly, there is nothing difficult about it. I find there is way more to do during the flight when you need to manage the approaches and waypoints, and use all these computers correctly. I’ll fly the visual approaches on short fields that don’t have any real approaches, but it takes a backwater dirt strip to make that really interesting.
Also, when you want to finish your flight in zero visibility, that’s when you want those approaches to work.
No, I'm not saying it's a skill issue. I'm saying there can be a rewarding experience when you are challenged with not having all the creature comforts available to you. If you're flying to an airport that only has RNP AR the only option you have is to go visual, hoping that if there are clouds, you can get to a point where you can go visual in the first place.
And when the visibility drops to zero, then the challenge comes with making a decision, whether to hold and wait for weather improvement or divert! Part of the fun can also be in planning, seeing what the weather will be like and if you can go or not or choose another airport nearby with precision approaches.
-
I also experienced that, for some reason, the GNS in the Starship is extremely buggy, while I didn't have any problem with any other 3rd party planes with it. It is a fitting way of modernization, especially that there are real world example of integrating it into Starship. I think most of us would be fine if it would work as expected.
I fly in Europe on Vatsim where you cannot really fly without RNAV sids/stars. It is not a "skill issue" like some refer to it, nearly all of the ground based navigation, except ILSes on major airports, are removed, gone. Sure you could ask for vectors, but that would introduce unnecessary work for everyone, instead of just joining the queue.
While I enjoy flying with retro navigation suite (and of course I didn't want unrealistic stuff to be integrated into it), at the same time I also like flying with ATC and it's really hard when the GNS is unusable. Yesterday I had the "not allowed" message multiple times when I tried to switch between the Collins and the GNS,
-
@Marionettework said in Request: better navigation suite:
I think you’re assuming people use these RNAV approaches because of a skill issue. Personally I find flying visual trivially easy. The plane handles superbly, there is nothing difficult about it. I find there is way more to do during the flight when you need to manage the approaches and waypoints, and use all these computers correctly. I’ll fly the visual approaches on short fields that don’t have any real approaches, but it takes a backwater dirt strip to make that really interesting.
Also, when you want to finish your flight in zero visibility, that’s when you want those approaches to work.
No, I'm not saying it's a skill issue. I'm saying there can be a rewarding experience when you are challenged with not having all the creature comforts available to you. If you're flying to an airport that only has RNP AR the only option you have is to go visual, hoping that if there are clouds, you can get to a point where you can go visual in the first place.
And when the visibility drops to zero, then the challenge comes with making a decision, whether to hold and wait for weather improvement or divert! Part of the fun can also be in planning, seeing what the weather will be like and if you can go or not or choose another airport nearby with precision approaches.
@Sunake said in Request: better navigation suite:
@Marionettework said in Request: better navigation suite:
I think you’re assuming people use these RNAV approaches because of a skill issue. Personally I find flying visual trivially easy. The plane handles superbly, there is nothing difficult about it. I find there is way more to do during the flight when you need to manage the approaches and waypoints, and use all these computers correctly. I’ll fly the visual approaches on short fields that don’t have any real approaches, but it takes a backwater dirt strip to make that really interesting.
Also, when you want to finish your flight in zero visibility, that’s when you want those approaches to work.
No, I'm not saying it's a skill issue. I'm saying there can be a rewarding experience when you are challenged with not having all the creature comforts available to you. If you're flying to an airport that only has RNP AR the only option you have is to go visual, hoping that if there are clouds, you can get to a point where you can go visual in the first place.
And when the visibility drops to zero, then the challenge comes with making a decision, whether to hold and wait for weather improvement or divert! Part of the fun can also be in planning, seeing what the weather will be like and if you can go or not or choose another airport nearby with precision approaches.
I agree, it’s fun to do this, and it’s fun to have RNAV approaches supported too. And it will take away Nick’s time from other stuff temporarily, but worth it.
-
Wait, there's a GNS430 in here?
Lol - I know its there but haven't touched it or felt the need to - VLF/Omega was gamechanging at the time and has worked extremely well for me with the exception of the few 'FMS deletes the active flight plan just before the IAF' issues I have experienced. Combined with VOR/ILS and ADF it's all I need.
I get the desire for combining new and shiny with cool quirky airframes, and could maybe see a GTN650 as being handy but there isn't any other location for a scabbed on box in such an integrated flight deck, this is exactly how stuff like this looks in real aircraft.
-
Being on the edge of blasphemy accusation to those who wants to be able to load automatically route is also a little bit over the top (after all its not going to be mandatody).
I love GTN750 but would I like to have it in Strship ? No (many would like but its their own choice/opinion.
Lets see what Nick cooked first perhaps it will fulfill needs of majority, as you never can please all.
-
I'm on the original setup as well. I have nearly finished my ferry from Wichita to Europe via the northern route, and have deselected the 430 from day one, as well as the GPS augmentation on the original system.
VATSIM is a bad excuse in my opinion. While I fly on IVAO, I have never ever had any issues flying classic aircraft with classic navigation methods online. I have flown over the pond with the A2A Stratocruiser navigating by stars and weatherships, flown the 707 with INS and radio navigation, and was never turned down by ATC. Sure working an aircraft which is unable for certain procedures increases workload on both sides (hold over...), but also the fun factor. Because it's different and not the same as other aircraft, packed in a different shell. On the Dukes I'm simulating a personal aircraft that has been updated to the latest avionics (and would love to get rid of this RNAV receiver).
For the Starship the original equipment is fantastic. Simbrief route import via floppy would be nice, but that's all.Of course, only my personal opinion.
