G1000? and programmable failures?

Post any technical issues here. This forum gets priority from our staff.
new reply
djvectrex
Airman Basic
Posts: 6
Joined: 08 Jan 2015, 11:07

G1000? and programmable failures?

Post by djvectrex »

Hi there, first off thank you for this awesome simulation, I've been enjoying it for a while now. I am currently doing my instrument rating and I fly G1000 skyhawks, are you guys planning on doing a G1000 version? That would be so great, I'm sure a lot of people would go for it being that it's so popular these days. Also is there a way to program failures in the simulation or is it only wear and tear time based? Thanks for your help.

User avatar
Lewis - A2A
A2A Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 33284
Joined: 06 Nov 2004, 23:22
Location: Norfolk UK
Contact:

Re: G1000? and programmable failures?

Post by Lewis - A2A »

Hello,

no plans for a G1000 C172 at this time.

thanks,
Lewis
A2A Facebook for news live to your social media newsfeed
A2A Youtube because a video can say a thousand screenshots,..
A2A Simulations Twitter for news live to your social media newsfeed
A2A Simulations Community Discord for voice/text chat

User avatar
scottb613
Technical Sergeant
Posts: 511
Joined: 28 Dec 2015, 11:06
Location: KMSV

Re: G1000? and programmable failures?

Post by scottb613 »

Hi Folks,

As someone recently introduced to the G1000 and someone who has done light programming in the past - I can see why it’s been avoided in the sim... Wow - the myriad of screens and countless functions would be a PITA to program...

Some good news - I believe both F1 and RXP are working on G500/600 gauges that could be easily inserted into a host of aircraft if supported by the aircraft developer...

Regards,
Scott


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image

User avatar
AKar
A2A Master Mechanic
Posts: 5207
Joined: 26 May 2013, 05:03

Re: G1000? and programmable failures?

Post by AKar »

scottb613 wrote:As someone recently introduced to the G1000 and someone who has done light programming in the past - I can see why it’s been avoided in the sim... Wow - the myriad of screens and countless functions would be a PITA to program...
On the other hand, it would be relatively re-usable - albeit simulating the proper configurations alone in between multiple airplanes would be PITA on its own.

I've only met G1000 personally several years back, as installed on Cessna 208. I was mainly doing some updates on it, so I hardly had a full picture of it. I had an okayish feeling about it. G1000 is obviously more GA-oriented, but for instance Primus Apex (PC-12/47E) rates higher on my scale, not to mention Primus Epic for instance (Gulfs, Falcons). Yet, G1000 is a true integrated solution and in that sense a step above retrofit glass cockpits.

-Esa

User avatar
bobsk8
Technical Sergeant
Posts: 900
Joined: 04 May 2015, 12:53
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: G1000? and programmable failures?

Post by bobsk8 »

scottb613 wrote:Hi Folks,

As someone recently introduced to the G1000 and someone who has done light programming in the past - I can see why it’s been avoided in the sim... Wow - the myriad of screens and countless functions would be a PITA to program...

Some good news - I believe both F1 and RXP are working on G500/600 gauges that could be easily inserted into a host of aircraft if supported by the aircraft developer...

Regards,
Scott


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why anyone would want to fly anything but the GTN series in a sim is beyond me. It does everything, and well.
MSFS 2020
ATC by PF3

Image

User avatar
scottb613
Technical Sergeant
Posts: 511
Joined: 28 Dec 2015, 11:06
Location: KMSV

G1000? and programmable failures?

Post by scottb613 »

Hi Folks,

For GA - this is what’s captured my attention as an “affordable” glass solution - now that there is a way to drive an autopilot with the HSI - I believe they also do flush mount installs... It’s actually cheaper than my mechanical HSI that will fail eventually...

Garmin G5
Image

Regards,
Scott


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image

User avatar
Lewis - A2A
A2A Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 33284
Joined: 06 Nov 2004, 23:22
Location: Norfolk UK
Contact:

Re: G1000? and programmable failures?

Post by Lewis - A2A »

scottb613 wrote:Hi Folks,

As someone recently introduced to the G1000 and someone who has done light programming in the past - I can see why it’s been avoided in the sim... Wow - the myriad of screens and countless functions would be a PITA to program...

Some good news - I believe both F1 and RXP are working on G500/600 gauges that could be easily inserted into a host of aircraft if supported by the aircraft developer...

Regards,
Scott
The question on the more advanced ones is actually more if the GPS supports the aircraft, as if your sticking with default values your gonna have to stick with relaxed realism aircraft. The entire Accu-sim fleet and now a fair few other simulations on the hobbyist market get over several 'relaxed realism' areas or simply areas that are not simulated at all in the base engine of the sim by coding externally, and creating the simulation to then put into the sim engine thanks to simconnect. If devs can plug variables into the GPS units then its a go, if not, it'll not work as it'll always read the incorrect default values, leaving the user with either the option for a realistic GPS sim or a realistic flight sim?

thanks,
Lewis
A2A Facebook for news live to your social media newsfeed
A2A Youtube because a video can say a thousand screenshots,..
A2A Simulations Twitter for news live to your social media newsfeed
A2A Simulations Community Discord for voice/text chat

User avatar
AKar
A2A Master Mechanic
Posts: 5207
Joined: 26 May 2013, 05:03

Re: G1000? and programmable failures?

Post by AKar »

Lewis - A2A wrote:The question on the more advanced ones is actually more if the GPS supports the aircraft, as if your sticking with default values your gonna have to stick with relaxed realism aircraft. The entire Accu-sim fleet and now a fair few other simulations on the hobbyist market get over several 'relaxed realism' areas or simply areas that are not simulated at all in the base engine of the sim by coding externally, and creating the simulation to then put into the sim engine thanks to simconnect. If devs can plug variables into the GPS units then its a go, if not, it'll not work as it'll always read the incorrect default values, leaving the user with either the option for a realistic GPS sim or a realistic flight sim?
This is something I've been wondering myself. In reality, the signal interfacing is modestly standard, while proprietary solutions do exist.

Why add-on avionics manufacturers don't simply replicate the real-life interfaces and document their solution?

-Esa

new reply

Return to “C172 Trainer Tech Support”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 17 guests