GNS integration
-
@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.
