GNS integration
-
First of all, I love, love, love the Starship. The cockpit is something else, and from the manual to the actual plane, you can tell that there's a lot of passion poured into this beautiful plane. It's been a joy to learn, and I can't wait to get some more hours in tonight.
One headache I have with it, though, is the choice one has to make between the internal FMS and the GNS. I play a lot of OnAir in conjunction with third party ATC services, and following a GPS route or SIDs/STARs is important to me. The seamless switch between these two systems works great! However, whenever you switch to the GNS, you (obviously) lose a lot of functionality on the MFD. No more maps, stepping through the flight plan, VNAV calculations, or progress page (unless I'm missing something here?).
Which leads me to my (hopefully not unreasonable) request: Would it be possible to add an optional toggle in the EFB that enables a more complete integration of the GNS into the Starship’s cockpit? Of course, this isn't quite realistic or true-to-life, but it's such a shame that you have to sacrifice the outstanding presentation of the default systems for modern GPS capabilities. Maybe just drawing a map and listing the legs in the progress page, without any interactivity such as direct-to's or adding/removing waypoints, would be a nice compromise.
If this would be a lot of extra work, disregard my request. As I said, the switch between these two systems already works flawlessly, so this would really just be a QoL, low-priority item. I'm only asking because I truly think this is by far the most gorgeous cockpit out there, and I die a little inside whenever I have to interact with the late 90's UI of the GNS.
Thanks for all the love and detail put into this aircraft. This is my first Black Square addon and definitely not my last!
-Snickers
-
Thank you for all your kind words. This is a very reasonable request, but unfortunately, it is not possible to the best of my knowledge. Since the WT GNS maintains its own flight plan in its own memory and format, it's not possible for me to access. However...
I think the headlining feature of Starship v1.2 might give you some functionality that will make your experience more enjoyable. In MSFS 2020 and 2024, you will now be able to import flight plans into the FMS. Assuming whatever software you use can export a *.pln file, you will be able to import this at the start of your flight. If you're using MSFS 2024, this is made even easier by importing or creating your flight plan in the MSFS EFB, and then using the "Send to Avionics" option at any time during the flight.
I hope this is something you might be looking forward to, since it was no trivial matter to get working. Hopefully it can be an alternative solution for your very valid request.
-
Hey everyone, first and foremost, I love the plane, it's absolutely amazing and made me return to flying again... Thank you so much for your work Nick... I have a quick question following the GNS integration...
Is it expected, that when I change to GNS as AP NAV SRC during the flight, that GNS's flight plan gets deleted? It happened to me on multiple flights, and what I'd like to have ideally, is to set GNS and Starship's FMC for mostly the same flight plans, differences being departure, and then approach... Fly the departure on GNS, then switch to FMC for cruise, and then, if destination has only RNAV for example, fly that again using GNS as source... but having to redo the flight plan, or doing direct to and then selecting the procedure makes it a little tedious. Basically I'd just like to know if it's working as expected, or if GNS should hold it's flight plan when selected as AP source.
Thank you!
-
Hey everyone, first and foremost, I love the plane, it's absolutely amazing and made me return to flying again... Thank you so much for your work Nick... I have a quick question following the GNS integration...
Is it expected, that when I change to GNS as AP NAV SRC during the flight, that GNS's flight plan gets deleted? It happened to me on multiple flights, and what I'd like to have ideally, is to set GNS and Starship's FMC for mostly the same flight plans, differences being departure, and then approach... Fly the departure on GNS, then switch to FMC for cruise, and then, if destination has only RNAV for example, fly that again using GNS as source... but having to redo the flight plan, or doing direct to and then selecting the procedure makes it a little tedious. Basically I'd just like to know if it's working as expected, or if GNS should hold it's flight plan when selected as AP source.
Thank you!
@FidoCZ I have discussed this in multiple locations on this forum before. Unfortunately this is a limitation of the WT GNS that doesn't exist with other GPS units, for whatever reason. I have brought this to WT's attention, and I have spent a substantial amount of my own time trying to rewrite portions of their code to fix it. Unfortunately, I have no further progress to share with you at this point.
-
Thank you for a quick reply. And thanks for all your work and for trying to fix it. It's not that big of an issue, I'm thinking about GNS more as a backup anyway.
Now that I'm thinking about it, would it be possible (if it's not too difficult technically) to implement more modern TDS GTN 650? Dunno if I'm saying the type correctly, but basically the smaller one from TDS, I believe it's same form factor as GNS 430...
-
Thank you for all your kind words. This is a very reasonable request, but unfortunately, it is not possible to the best of my knowledge. Since the WT GNS maintains its own flight plan in its own memory and format, it's not possible for me to access. However...
I think the headlining feature of Starship v1.2 might give you some functionality that will make your experience more enjoyable. In MSFS 2020 and 2024, you will now be able to import flight plans into the FMS. Assuming whatever software you use can export a *.pln file, you will be able to import this at the start of your flight. If you're using MSFS 2024, this is made even easier by importing or creating your flight plan in the MSFS EFB, and then using the "Send to Avionics" option at any time during the flight.
I hope this is something you might be looking forward to, since it was no trivial matter to get working. Hopefully it can be an alternative solution for your very valid request.
@Black-Square said in GNS integration:
I think the headlining feature of Starship v1.2 might give you some functionality that will make your experience more enjoyable. (...)
This is great, thank you! I've been using a workaround involving PMS's GTN750 ingame widget to get my flight plans from Simbrief loaded, but that solution came with some oddities. I appreciate it and look forward to the update!
-
@FidoCZ I have discussed this in multiple locations on this forum before. Unfortunately this is a limitation of the WT GNS that doesn't exist with other GPS units, for whatever reason. I have brought this to WT's attention, and I have spent a substantial amount of my own time trying to rewrite portions of their code to fix it. Unfortunately, I have no further progress to share with you at this point.
This is also happening to me, which is why I stopped flying this otherwise wonderful plane for now.
It's no fun to redo all the routing multiple times because it is glitchy and just forgets the flight plan altogether. I'm not sure how it is a limitation when no other plane with GNS built into them can remember flight plans.
As an alternative I'd be happy to have any way to fly SIDs and STARs, anything would be more "realistic" than having a GNS unit that just forgets everything.I fly in 2020, I cannot change the flight plan in flight, so the 1.2 is not really a solution for me it seems.
@Black-Square I'm not a plane developer, just curious, is this issue connected to the fact that there are 2 GNSes in the plane? It seemed to me that the flight plan deleting happens after the change of Nav source.
-
This is also happening to me, which is why I stopped flying this otherwise wonderful plane for now.
It's no fun to redo all the routing multiple times because it is glitchy and just forgets the flight plan altogether. I'm not sure how it is a limitation when no other plane with GNS built into them can remember flight plans.
As an alternative I'd be happy to have any way to fly SIDs and STARs, anything would be more "realistic" than having a GNS unit that just forgets everything.I fly in 2020, I cannot change the flight plan in flight, so the 1.2 is not really a solution for me it seems.
@Black-Square I'm not a plane developer, just curious, is this issue connected to the fact that there are 2 GNSes in the plane? It seemed to me that the flight plan deleting happens after the change of Nav source.
@racerzeroone said in GNS integration:
I'm not sure how it is a limitation when no other plane with GNS built into them can remember flight plans [...] I'm not a plane developer, just curious, is this issue connected to the fact that there are 2 GNSes in the plane? It seemed to me that the flight plan deleting happens after the change of Nav source.
That's correct. The limitation with WT's avionics is actually two issues that combine to conspire against us. The first issue is that the flight plan is not retained while enabling/disabling (swapping) units. This is somewhat of a bug, because I have found perfect combinations of things that will allow them to retain their flight plans in other aircraft. The second issue is that WT does not provide a method for enabling/disabling the autopilot in their GNS, which is why two units are necessary, unlike other 3rd party GPS developers
Like I said, I have brought this to them on multiple occasions, and tried to fix it myself in their code, but they are busy with other things, I presume.
Lastly, I know this is not the most helpful comment from an aircraft developer, but I have been quite surprised by the insistence many of my Starship pilots have on using SIDS and STARS. From my perspective, it seems strange that the same people who champion "accurate and realistic" simulations would also insist on doing something that the real aircraft cannot do. Most turboprop pilots avoid SIDS and STARS completely until they are forced to use them in the busiest of airspace, so I have just found the behavior to be surprising, especially when compared to my other aircraft with similarly high performance.
-
@racerzeroone said in GNS integration:
I'm not sure how it is a limitation when no other plane with GNS built into them can remember flight plans [...] I'm not a plane developer, just curious, is this issue connected to the fact that there are 2 GNSes in the plane? It seemed to me that the flight plan deleting happens after the change of Nav source.
That's correct. The limitation with WT's avionics is actually two issues that combine to conspire against us. The first issue is that the flight plan is not retained while enabling/disabling (swapping) units. This is somewhat of a bug, because I have found perfect combinations of things that will allow them to retain their flight plans in other aircraft. The second issue is that WT does not provide a method for enabling/disabling the autopilot in their GNS, which is why two units are necessary, unlike other 3rd party GPS developers
Like I said, I have brought this to them on multiple occasions, and tried to fix it myself in their code, but they are busy with other things, I presume.
Lastly, I know this is not the most helpful comment from an aircraft developer, but I have been quite surprised by the insistence many of my Starship pilots have on using SIDS and STARS. From my perspective, it seems strange that the same people who champion "accurate and realistic" simulations would also insist on doing something that the real aircraft cannot do. Most turboprop pilots avoid SIDS and STARS completely until they are forced to use them in the busiest of airspace, so I have just found the behavior to be surprising, especially when compared to my other aircraft with similarly high performance.
@Black-Square said in GNS integration:
From my perspective, it seems strange that the same people who champion "accurate and realistic" simulations would also insist on doing something that the real aircraft cannot do.If it makes you feel better, they're a separate group. Some of us would be happy to see the 430 ripped out entirely for good
-
@racerzeroone said in GNS integration:
I'm not sure how it is a limitation when no other plane with GNS built into them can remember flight plans [...] I'm not a plane developer, just curious, is this issue connected to the fact that there are 2 GNSes in the plane? It seemed to me that the flight plan deleting happens after the change of Nav source.
That's correct. The limitation with WT's avionics is actually two issues that combine to conspire against us. The first issue is that the flight plan is not retained while enabling/disabling (swapping) units. This is somewhat of a bug, because I have found perfect combinations of things that will allow them to retain their flight plans in other aircraft. The second issue is that WT does not provide a method for enabling/disabling the autopilot in their GNS, which is why two units are necessary, unlike other 3rd party GPS developers
Like I said, I have brought this to them on multiple occasions, and tried to fix it myself in their code, but they are busy with other things, I presume.
Lastly, I know this is not the most helpful comment from an aircraft developer, but I have been quite surprised by the insistence many of my Starship pilots have on using SIDS and STARS. From my perspective, it seems strange that the same people who champion "accurate and realistic" simulations would also insist on doing something that the real aircraft cannot do. Most turboprop pilots avoid SIDS and STARS completely until they are forced to use them in the busiest of airspace, so I have just found the behavior to be surprising, especially when compared to my other aircraft with similarly high performance.
@Black-Square I'm not sure how do they fly in the US, but in Europe from what I've seen even Turboprops usually fly SIDs and STARs, just a quick glance at the nearby turboprop flights indicate they fly sids from even quite small airports like Grenchen like here, and also again in Innsbruck. https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/hb-lto#3b9e1994
What I don't understand why is it that everytime the GNS is brought up there are always the same people coming to those thread insisting that it is me who is fly it wrong, or I'm different kind of person from a different group, and that they are so much better at flying pixel planes than "others" without even knowing the circumstances. I get it @jmarkows, you don't use it, why couldn't you just hide it from the tablet, and let others do things differently?
-
@Black-Square I'm not sure how do they fly in the US, but in Europe from what I've seen even Turboprops usually fly SIDs and STARs, just a quick glance at the nearby turboprop flights indicate they fly sids from even quite small airports like Grenchen like here, and also again in Innsbruck. https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/hb-lto#3b9e1994
What I don't understand why is it that everytime the GNS is brought up there are always the same people coming to those thread insisting that it is me who is fly it wrong, or I'm different kind of person from a different group, and that they are so much better at flying pixel planes than "others" without even knowing the circumstances. I get it @jmarkows, you don't use it, why couldn't you just hide it from the tablet, and let others do things differently?
@racerzeroone said in GNS integration:
I'm not sure how do they fly in the US
That's very plausible. It's unfortunately easy for me to fall back on my US flying experience. I wish I could familiarize myself with flying from all around the world where my virtual aircraft find themselves, because sometimes I have encounters with international edge-cases that I would never have expected. Since MSFS still contains code from the 90's, even the underlying simulation is sometimes unprepared to deal with these international differences.
-
Mostly because Nick expressed confusion at how his user base simultaneously wants high fidelity while also flying the plane in a not very realistic way. I'm simply pointing out there are actually multiple groups here.
And yes, here in the US is it very common for RNAV procedures to be turbojet only.
-
@Black-Square I'm not sure how do they fly in the US, but in Europe from what I've seen even Turboprops usually fly SIDs and STARs, just a quick glance at the nearby turboprop flights indicate they fly sids from even quite small airports like Grenchen like here, and also again in Innsbruck. https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/hb-lto#3b9e1994
What I don't understand why is it that everytime the GNS is brought up there are always the same people coming to those thread insisting that it is me who is fly it wrong, or I'm different kind of person from a different group, and that they are so much better at flying pixel planes than "others" without even knowing the circumstances. I get it @jmarkows, you don't use it, why couldn't you just hide it from the tablet, and let others do things differently?
@racerzeroone In the EU, it’s not entirely true that you must use SIDs and STARs in real life. When you file your flight plan, ATC already knows your RNAV capabilities, and you can always request vectors — especially in an aircraft like this one. In fact, ATC often prefers to give vectors to separate slower traffic from faster aircraft that are flying standard departure and arrival procedures.
We have here a very realistic airplane model from the ’80s, so we should operate it as it was back then. Expecting it to perform full RNP 1 is like expecting an old analog Cessna to have RNAV capabilities — it simply wasn’t designed for that.
If you want a fully RNP capable aircraft, you should go for something like a Cirrus, for example. And yes — in the real world, that’s exactly how I fly too.
Seb
-
@racerzeroone In the EU, it’s not entirely true that you must use SIDs and STARs in real life. When you file your flight plan, ATC already knows your RNAV capabilities, and you can always request vectors — especially in an aircraft like this one. In fact, ATC often prefers to give vectors to separate slower traffic from faster aircraft that are flying standard departure and arrival procedures.
We have here a very realistic airplane model from the ’80s, so we should operate it as it was back then. Expecting it to perform full RNP 1 is like expecting an old analog Cessna to have RNAV capabilities — it simply wasn’t designed for that.
If you want a fully RNP capable aircraft, you should go for something like a Cirrus, for example. And yes — in the real world, that’s exactly how I fly too.
Seb
@SebAvi said in GNS integration:
We have here a very realistic airplane model from the ’80s, so we should operate it as it was back then.
Welp, I regret starting this thread. I’m not quite sure why SIDs and STARs have suddenly become a point of discussion, or why people feel the need to tell others how they should operate a virtual plane in what is, after all, still a video game. Pardon my French, but… tf?
I assume update notices are sent out via email, so I don’t have to keep checking back here?
-typed with T9 ofc
-
@SebAvi said in GNS integration:
We have here a very realistic airplane model from the ’80s, so we should operate it as it was back then.
Welp, I regret starting this thread. I’m not quite sure why SIDs and STARs have suddenly become a point of discussion, or why people feel the need to tell others how they should operate a virtual plane in what is, after all, still a video game. Pardon my French, but… tf?
I assume update notices are sent out via email, so I don’t have to keep checking back here?
-typed with T9 ofc
Sorry you regret starting the topic. I apologize if my line of questioning contributed to that in any way.
@Snickers said in GNS integration:
I assume update notices are sent out via email, so I don’t have to keep checking back here?
That's correct.
@Snickers said in GNS integration:
-typed with T9 ofc
Thanks for a smile
-
I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I've been flying SIDs and STARs in other planes is because Simbrief will give them if available, and Vatsim controllers will assign them by default. So that's what I've been used to - no real world flying experience, unfortunately.
I've tried using the GNS430, but it felt clunky and disconnected from the rest of the airplane (which I think is what the OP pointed out), so I ended up removing it from the cockpit. Most Vatsim controllers don't mind giving vectors anyway, unless there is a big event going on.
-
I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I've been flying SIDs and STARs in other planes is because Simbrief will give them if available, and Vatsim controllers will assign them by default. So that's what I've been used to - no real world flying experience, unfortunately.
I've tried using the GNS430, but it felt clunky and disconnected from the rest of the airplane (which I think is what the OP pointed out), so I ended up removing it from the cockpit. Most Vatsim controllers don't mind giving vectors anyway, unless there is a big event going on.
-
After unsuccessful attempts to replace the GNS430 with a GTN650, I eventually opted to remove the 430 entirely and fly solely with the native VOR/DME and VLF/Omega avionics. After the first week, I even turned off GNSS/WAAS and I don't miss it. VOR hopping in this is a dream, and I enjoy the occasional nailbiter where you're in the middle of nowhere with no VOR/DME, the VLF/Omega drifts, and you get the "hey, where are we?" message. I don't even use the PMS50 GTN750 popup because the aircraft gives me almost everything I need.
Just one man's opinion, not trying to dictate what others' experience should be. I liken this to the FSS 727, where the GTN750 just feels wrong and it's much more "fun" to use the period-correct INS.
