Aspen Evolution PFD on BS aircrafs installed by me. (Implementation test)
-
This rocks!!!! The one thing that I dislike about @Black-Square airplanes is the decision to use old avionics. Is this available for others to try?
-
Holy moly, what on gods green earth do I have to do to get that beautiful piece of equipment into my Bonanza?! Great job man!
-
@mxqn I need to see interest from GA aircraft developers since what you see on those pictures is me messing with the files. My target is to get an official implementation for users to get a stable experiance.
@jerrivel To add my two cents, I think what you've done is absolutely magnificent, and I would love to provide this option to my users. To everyone else reading, I'm sure you've seen over the years what a huge chasm can exist between the work to publish a freeware mod and providing official support.
@McOatmeal Regarding the G1000, for example, what might seem like simply adding a couple screens to the cockpit would take several weeks of modeling, materials, AO baking, LOD exports, coding, electrical changes, tablet changes, moving circuit breakers around, restructuring the entire aircraft (because the G1000 does not support hot-swapping, and I'm not even sure the G1000 could support some of the features I've built into my aircraft. To fully work with my aircraft, the avionics must be configurable to display arbitrary variables, as I've overwritten nearly every aircraft parameter MSFS has to offer. Particularly, think about the engine parameters. At several weeks per aircraft, I estimate this could total 3-4 months of work for all the applicable aircraft. Trust me, I have considered it, and the needle is getting closer to adding glass panel options to my aircraft every day, but the work is very non-trivial. There is a reason glass panel retrofits of real world aircraft can exceed the cost of the entire airframe.
@jerrivel The Evolution PFD, on the other hand, would be much easier to add, assuming some of these variables could be supported (not many are necessary, I think), and it if could be made hot-swappable. With those features, then I feel this is certainly possible to include with the base package.
-
@jerrivel To add my two cents, I think what you've done is absolutely magnificent, and I would love to provide this option to my users. To everyone else reading, I'm sure you've seen over the years what a huge chasm can exist between the work to publish a freeware mod and providing official support.
@McOatmeal Regarding the G1000, for example, what might seem like simply adding a couple screens to the cockpit would take several weeks of modeling, materials, AO baking, LOD exports, coding, electrical changes, tablet changes, moving circuit breakers around, restructuring the entire aircraft (because the G1000 does not support hot-swapping, and I'm not even sure the G1000 could support some of the features I've built into my aircraft. To fully work with my aircraft, the avionics must be configurable to display arbitrary variables, as I've overwritten nearly every aircraft parameter MSFS has to offer. Particularly, think about the engine parameters. At several weeks per aircraft, I estimate this could total 3-4 months of work for all the applicable aircraft. Trust me, I have considered it, and the needle is getting closer to adding glass panel options to my aircraft every day, but the work is very non-trivial. There is a reason glass panel retrofits of real world aircraft can exceed the cost of the entire airframe.
@jerrivel The Evolution PFD, on the other hand, would be much easier to add, assuming some of these variables could be supported (not many are necessary, I think), and it if could be made hot-swappable. With those features, then I feel this is certainly possible to include with the base package.
@Black-Square Yes, it is designed to be hot-swappable and I also will be providing xml templates that can be written in the aircraft interior xml for aircraft specific data like vspeeds, configuration, and other things, including air data in case you use custom variables instead of the standard simvars.
-
@Black-Square Yes, it is designed to be hot-swappable and I also will be providing xml templates that can be written in the aircraft interior xml for aircraft specific data like vspeeds, configuration, and other things, including air data in case you use custom variables instead of the standard simvars.
@jerrivel That sounds like a spectacular direction you're headed in! For the data, like vspeeds, may I suggest loading those from the panel.xml, or panel.cfg URI? In MSFS 2024, L:Vars are sometimes not set correctly during startup, making panel.xml much more reliable for that kind of information. If that's too much trouble, we can always find a way to make it work in the behaviors XML. Although I'm not acquainted with the system yet, I think the next most important thing is support of the various navigation inputs, as in GPS, VOR, ADF, RNAV. Support for my VOR/ADF signal degradation would be a nice-to-have, but not a show-stopper. We would mainly need to make sure the navigation displays are sensible for all avionics configurations and navigation input selection. Custom L:Vars for airdata is also excellent, since some of my aircraft feature reverse-calculated indicated airspeed to overcome a limitation that has probably existed in the simulator since 1979. Thanks for thinking ahead!
-
@jerrivel That sounds like a spectacular direction you're headed in! For the data, like vspeeds, may I suggest loading those from the panel.xml, or panel.cfg URI? In MSFS 2024, L:Vars are sometimes not set correctly during startup, making panel.xml much more reliable for that kind of information. If that's too much trouble, we can always find a way to make it work in the behaviors XML. Although I'm not acquainted with the system yet, I think the next most important thing is support of the various navigation inputs, as in GPS, VOR, ADF, RNAV. Support for my VOR/ADF signal degradation would be a nice-to-have, but not a show-stopper. We would mainly need to make sure the navigation displays are sensible for all avionics configurations and navigation input selection. Custom L:Vars for airdata is also excellent, since some of my aircraft feature reverse-calculated indicated airspeed to overcome a limitation that has probably existed in the simulator since 1979. Thanks for thinking ahead!
@Black-Square This is a wasm gauge, which as you probably know, cannot read the panel.xml. However, I faced a similar problem in 2020 of which I fixed already with the way the variables are set and some logic inside my gauge. When it comes to your signal degradation, your aircrafts inspired me to make that happen since the simulator variables are too perfect. Right now I doing the ADF to support that. Is the VOR variables for degration are in radial or bearing to the station?
-
I would absolutely love to see this in the sim, @Black-Square if you are considering working with OP to implement this, it would be fantastic if it also removed the ADF and RNAV, allowing us to have a cleanly modernized P-Baron
-
@Black-Square Yes, it is designed to be hot-swappable and I also will be providing xml templates that can be written in the aircraft interior xml for aircraft specific data like vspeeds, configuration, and other things, including air data in case you use custom variables instead of the standard simvars.
-
@jerrivel To add my two cents, I think what you've done is absolutely magnificent, and I would love to provide this option to my users. To everyone else reading, I'm sure you've seen over the years what a huge chasm can exist between the work to publish a freeware mod and providing official support.
@McOatmeal Regarding the G1000, for example, what might seem like simply adding a couple screens to the cockpit would take several weeks of modeling, materials, AO baking, LOD exports, coding, electrical changes, tablet changes, moving circuit breakers around, restructuring the entire aircraft (because the G1000 does not support hot-swapping, and I'm not even sure the G1000 could support some of the features I've built into my aircraft. To fully work with my aircraft, the avionics must be configurable to display arbitrary variables, as I've overwritten nearly every aircraft parameter MSFS has to offer. Particularly, think about the engine parameters. At several weeks per aircraft, I estimate this could total 3-4 months of work for all the applicable aircraft. Trust me, I have considered it, and the needle is getting closer to adding glass panel options to my aircraft every day, but the work is very non-trivial. There is a reason glass panel retrofits of real world aircraft can exceed the cost of the entire airframe.
@jerrivel The Evolution PFD, on the other hand, would be much easier to add, assuming some of these variables could be supported (not many are necessary, I think), and it if could be made hot-swappable. With those features, then I feel this is certainly possible to include with the base package.
@Black-Square said in Aspen Evolution PFD on BS aircrafs installed by me. (Implementation test):
@jerrivel To add my two cents, I think what you've done is absolutely magnificent, and I would love to provide this option to my users. To everyone else reading, I'm sure you've seen over the years what a huge chasm can exist between the work to publish a freeware mod and providing official support.
@McOatmeal Regarding the G1000, for example, what might seem like simply adding a couple screens to the cockpit would take several weeks of modeling, materials, AO baking, LOD exports, coding, electrical changes, tablet changes, moving circuit breakers around, restructuring the entire aircraft (because the G1000 does not support hot-swapping, and I'm not even sure the G1000 could support some of the features I've built into my aircraft. To fully work with my aircraft, the avionics must be configurable to display arbitrary variables, as I've overwritten nearly every aircraft parameter MSFS has to offer. Particularly, think about the engine parameters. At several weeks per aircraft, I estimate this could total 3-4 months of work for all the applicable aircraft. Trust me, I have considered it, and the needle is getting closer to adding glass panel options to my aircraft every day, but the work is very non-trivial. There is a reason glass panel retrofits of real world aircraft can exceed the cost of the entire airframe.
@jerrivel The Evolution PFD, on the other hand, would be much easier to add, assuming some of these variables could be supported (not many are necessary, I think), and it if could be made hot-swappable. With those features, then I feel this is certainly possible to include with the base package.
I don't know, if I had a 500k A36 I could see myself having the money to put in a g3x which including the install from start to finish will run you around 50-60k
-
Unless you're putting full G1000 or something in a super old, run down, trashed C150, cost of airframe will always be higher than the avionics upgrade.
@SliderCDN I don't want to turn this into a real world aviation economics conversation, but I have routinely seen those (much luckier than I) spend $150k on a panel redesign for an airframe otherwise worth $150k. A complete panel redesign for a G1000 Nxi and autopilot in a 70's or 60's era piston twin can be expected to cost $100-150k including parts, fabrication, and labor. Many such aircraft are worth a similar amount or less (including their currently installed avionics) due to rising maintenance and insurance costs. For instance, the average cost of an Aztec with conventional avionics on Trade-a-Plane right now is $120k, and $160k for a C310. Of course, more modern airframes will be different, but it certainly doesn't have to be a trashed C150.
My apologies. I know this has relatively little to do with the workload of adding new avionics to my aircraft, except the number of systems and 3D models that must change), but I had to speak to what I've seen in the real world.
-
@SliderCDN I don't want to turn this into a real world aviation economics conversation, but I have routinely seen those (much luckier than I) spend $150k on a panel redesign for an airframe otherwise worth $150k. A complete panel redesign for a G1000 Nxi and autopilot in a 70's or 60's era piston twin can be expected to cost $100-150k including parts, fabrication, and labor. Many such aircraft are worth a similar amount or less (including their currently installed avionics) due to rising maintenance and insurance costs. For instance, the average cost of an Aztec with conventional avionics on Trade-a-Plane right now is $120k, and $160k for a C310. Of course, more modern airframes will be different, but it certainly doesn't have to be a trashed C150.
My apologies. I know this has relatively little to do with the workload of adding new avionics to my aircraft, except the number of systems and 3D models that must change), but I had to speak to what I've seen in the real world.
@Black-Square said in Aspen Evolution PFD on BS aircrafs installed by me. (Implementation test):
panel
The range of numbers is huge. Also heavily depends on part of the world. US is cheapest in that regard.
-
@SliderCDN I don't want to turn this into a real world aviation economics conversation, but I have routinely seen those (much luckier than I) spend $150k on a panel redesign for an airframe otherwise worth $150k. A complete panel redesign for a G1000 Nxi and autopilot in a 70's or 60's era piston twin can be expected to cost $100-150k including parts, fabrication, and labor. Many such aircraft are worth a similar amount or less (including their currently installed avionics) due to rising maintenance and insurance costs. For instance, the average cost of an Aztec with conventional avionics on Trade-a-Plane right now is $120k, and $160k for a C310. Of course, more modern airframes will be different, but it certainly doesn't have to be a trashed C150.
My apologies. I know this has relatively little to do with the workload of adding new avionics to my aircraft, except the number of systems and 3D models that must change), but I had to speak to what I've seen in the real world.
@Black-Square said in Aspen Evolution PFD on BS aircrafs installed by me. (Implementation test):
@SliderCDN I don't want to turn this into a real world aviation economics conversation, but I have routinely seen those (much luckier than I) spend $150k on a panel redesign for an airframe otherwise worth $150k. A complete panel redesign for a G1000 Nxi and autopilot in a 70's or 60's era piston twin can be expected to cost $100-150k including parts, fabrication, and labor. Many such aircraft are worth a similar amount or less (including their currently installed avionics) due to rising maintenance and insurance costs. For instance, the average cost of an Aztec with conventional avionics on Trade-a-Plane right now is $120k, and $160k for a C310. Of course, more modern airframes will be different, but it certainly doesn't have to be a trashed C150.
My apologies. I know this has relatively little to do with the workload of adding new avionics to my aircraft, except the number of systems and 3D models that must change), but I had to speak to what I've seen in the real world.
Oh absolutely in a twin but I question those that are going out and buying a piston twin these days. Beech just ended the Baron line (they said they will offer support but for how long), Cessna doesnt have a twin, Piper has the little Seneca and I think that's about it. There just is not a lot of support for them anymore. When I started line service in 2006 you'd see 414's and 310's and Barons and everything in between. Nowadays if a Navajo shows up its like "holy shit, check out this relic"
