FSX-MS GTN 750/650

[FLighT01 3]

From reading this thread it appears that several of you are using the F1 GTN units in the new T-Duke. I have no experience with any avionics suites other than default FSX. Since I can't get access to the F1 GTN forum until after I buy and register the products it's a limiter on doing any pre-purchase research. I do have a couple of questions I think someone here may have the answers to.

 

1. What is meant by "Fully Integrated versus (?) "Not Fully Integrated"?

2. How many planes does the F1 licence permit one to install the GTN units into in? I keep seeing mention of 2 but is that per plane or does it refer to any 2 planes of however many you have in your FSX install?

 

I have downloaded the video tutorial from the Garmin site and will dive into that next week.

I also have the RA B-60 and Lancair and would anticipate paying whatever RA needs to charge for an update to both

to use the GTN's with.

 

Thanks

Edited January 11, 2015 by Jim Young
Split from the long RealAir Turbine Topic

[Guest tymk]

 

 

1. What is meant by "Fully Integrated versus (?) "Not Fully Integrated"?

 

You can use the units as a 2D popup window in any plane, which I assume is the "not fully integrated" option. Full integration in the 3D panel must be provided by the plane add-on developer, and as you can see, RealAir are taking care of that...

 

2. How many planes does the F1 licence permit one to install the GTN units into in? I keep seeing mention of 2 but is that per plane or does it refer to any 2 planes of however many you have in your FSX install?

 

You can install the units in as many planes as you like. The limitation of two refers to having a maximum of two units of the same type in a single panel (e.g. up to 2 x 750 or 2 x 650, and of course you can mix them). I guess they stress the fact that you can have two of the same type as a selling point, because with Reality-XP, you had to pay $100 extra to have that option.

 

HTH,

Tym

[kama2004 74]

1. Fully integrated means that the airplane panel allow to put the GTN in it. Otherwise you install it as a 2d pop-up window.

2. As many airplane as you want.

 

You can also download the gtn garmin light trainer from Garmin web site. You can then play for free to learn about this gps.

 

I highly recommend this product.

 

The difficulty to get access to updated navdata beside the 2011 included with the product is one of the drawback often mentionned. You have to see if this is important to you remembering that your base gps in FSX use 2006 navdata and a lot of people are happy with that or complement the existing gps by using external flight plaaner.

[FLighT01 3]

Thanks fellas, now that that's cleared up I'm going to move ahead with the purchase.

[Christopher Low 5,352]

I note that the P3D version of the GTN 750 costs $64.95, and the FSX version costs $49.95.

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

Fully agree!   And that is what makes the addition of a GTN gauge to the Duke so compelling.. it uses the actual Garmin code to run and as such it is fully simulated.  The RXP GNS gauges were great in their day, but the Flight1 GTN units have now fully picked up the torch, and make the Turbine Duke V2 "out of this world" great!

[ryanbatc 12,835]

Children of the Magenta is a good clip...

 

I admit to following the pink line tonight - took the duke from MRY to SBA flown on pilot edge.  In FSX I don't have the GTN only the RXP's but they are still handy.  I've found the GTN and RXP's to be especially helpful in busy airspace like SoCal for example.

[LAdamson 240]

If you haven't seen "children of magenta" it's worth a watch.

 

I confess.................I literately can't stand that ancient video. I admit, I'm a GPS fanatic. I've been one since I started using aviation moving map GPS's in 1993, for real life flight. As I've stated countless times over the years, that video was produced on the heels of an American Airlines 757 crash in the mountainous area of Buga, Columbia. The year was 1996.  Almost everything that went wrong in the crash, with much being attributed to over reliance on the on-board navigation systems................would have been solved (at a glance) with today's GPS systems including many portable handhelds. A typical Cessna (glass equipped) trainer has GPS information that would have told those pilots exactly where they were, where they had been, and would have warned of rising mountainous terrain for hundreds of miles in advance. In 1996, they had around 14 seconds.

 

Much of my aviation life, evolved around CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) accidents, and the prevention of. I became highly interested after a United Airlines DC-8 smashed into the mountain very close to home in 1977.  I'd often overfly accident sites, to compare modern terrain data base navigation, to the old school methods. It's a night and day comparison.

 

It is true, that you have to figure it out. It takes book work and practice.  You just can't jump into a plane with unfamiliar GPS systems, and do well.  I still go crazy every time "Children of the magenta line" is mentioned, as a reference of being over reliant, and that old school is somehow preferable.  It wasn't stated that way in this thread, but it sure has been, over and over.  There is a reason that we don't suffer a yearly average of three CFITs out here in the mountain west anymore. Same for Alaska.

 

Other than that, I agree with Real Airs position on glass. I seldom use glass for flight simulation. To do it correctly, as has been stated, involves far excess programming. The screens are too small to be meaningful, unless they cover most everything else with pop ups.  For real life cockpit use, I could quickly glance at the screen, while watching everything else, that isn't on the GPS screens. I think that old school nav gives the simmer more to do. The scenery just isn't quite as exciting as all of that real life scenery that's so close to here. Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, lots of national parks, etc.  If, I was still into real life flying, and had a particular glass system, in which I'd like more training through flight simulation..........then I'd be prepared to pay hundreds of extra dollars, if that's what it would cost.  It was around $250 for a decent Garmin 1000 study system when they first came out, years ago.

 

 

edited to add "at a glance"

[Hirdy2013 104]

Agreed, with fantastic GPS addons from RXP and F1, there is no need to re-invent the wheel. There are many many planes (project choices) produced from the 1960s to the 2000s that can fit practically every possible mission, all of which use the standard 'six' Whats the point of having a G1000 or Pro Line if it's advantages over a traditional panel can't be fully simulated.

 

While I really enjoy F1's 182 and Mustang for their G1000 experiences, there isn't any mission type those planes can do that can't be done with any other plane with 'standard' equipment....lol matter of fact I am kind of curious if pilots trained only on 'glass' are capable of finding airstrips/landmarks not in the GPS database using old navigation methods lol. The amount of time Rob saves by not having to program complex avionics translates to more time available to create these fantastic planes.

 

Anyway, I was thinking of doing some re-reg paints for the red scheme, are there any requests for reg nationality?

 

Cheers

TJ

Hi TJ,

 

I am wondering if you would be kind enough to do an Australian Rego for me - VH-JKM?

 

If not all good but thought I would take you up on the offer if you are still keen.

 

Cheers,

 

Hirdy.

[Boeing or not going 578]

Some of my favourite addon aircraft are the simplest ones. I appreciate that accurate system modelling is attractive to some. There are to my mind more important things if such system modelling means compromises elsewhere. Now exiting stage left!

 

Good post. I agree with you. I can excuse Carenado most of the time due to amazing visuals, but having a barely better than default FDE and basic system modeling, such as incorrect ITT readouts, to me ruins the simulation.

 

I fly airplanes in the sim I cannot afford in real life. The PC-12 to me is the best value for all around flying. You can take it anywhere, cruse at FL270, and drop into a small field in the Swiss Alps. But the lack of realistic engine modeling is a turn off. Thankfully people like Bert have tweaked some of the files to fix a few of the bugs, but after a while the half done job starts to bug me.

 

That is why I love airplanes like yours, I know I am getting as realistic as possible simulations, and I can drop in Reality-XP GPS. I do not care about the latest PC-12NG with fully glass. I am more of a fan of the old school gauges for general aviation. The regular PC-12 to me is the best combination of both, glass in the style of analog gauges. I'd also like a Piper PA31 Navajo, Beech C99, 1900C, Cessna 208C Super Cargomaster, all used in freight runs. Can I convince you to model a C208 with a 6pack analog setup?

[Hirdy2013 104]

Fully agree!   And that is what makes the addition of a GTN gauge to the Duke so compelling.. it uses the actual Garmin code to run and as such it is fully simulated.  The RXP GNS gauges were great in their day, but the Flight1 GTN units have now fully picked up the torch, and make the Turbine Duke V2 "out of this world" great!

Bert,

 

I couldn't agree more.  Since experiencing the GTN 750 in the A2A 182 I've been looking for quality aircraft that utilises it in the VC.

 

I've got to say that the T Duke V2 with the GTN 750 is amazing and I can't thank RealAir enough for allowing the 750 integration.  I just can't stop flying it.........

 

Hirdy

[zmak 331]

I now spend the first few seconds of a new release scanning for GTN integration , if none...next! The good latest releases have them including Flysimware Cessna 441 .

 

RXP is old and clunky now and I strongly urge anyone who is sitting on the fence regarding the purchase of a touch screen to consider buying just for the GTN. Its touch is smooth as silk and you can now buy infra red touch screens to slap over the top of your second monitor.

[ryanbatc 12,835]

Nice to see you Larry, a good writeup from that perspective as well!  Do you still have your RV?

[robert young 2,897]

I confess.................I literately can't stand that ancient video. I admit, I'm a GPS fanatic. I've been one since I started using aviation moving map GPS's in 1993, for real life flight. As I've stated countless times over the years, that video was produced on the heels of an American Airlines 757 crash in the mountainous area of Buga, Columbia. The year was 1996.  Almost everything that went wrong in the crash, with much being attributed to over reliance on the on-board navigation systems................would have been solved (at a glance) with today's GPS systems including many portable handhelds. A typical Cessna (glass equipped) trainer has GPS information that would have told those pilots exactly where they were, where they had been, and would have warned of rising mountainous terrain for hundreds of miles in advance. In 1996, they had around 14 seconds.

 

Much of my aviation life, evolved around CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) accidents, and the prevention of. I became highly interested after a United Airlines DC-8 smashed into the mountain very close to home in 1977.  I'd often overfly accident sites, to compare modern terrain data base navigation, to the old school methods. It's a night and day comparison.

 

It is true, that you have to figure it out. It takes book work and practice.  You just can't jump into a plane with unfamiliar GPS systems, and do well.  I still go crazy every time "Children of the magenta line" is mentioned, as a reference of being over reliant, and that old school is somehow preferable.  It wasn't stated that way in this thread, but it sure has been, over and over.  There is a reason that we don't suffer a yearly average of three CFITs out here in the mountain west anymore. Same for Alaska.

 

Other than that, I agree with Real Airs position on glass. I seldom use glass for flight simulation. To do it correctly, as has been stated, involves far excess programming. The screens are too small to be meaningful, unless they cover most everything else with pop ups.  For real life cockpit use, I could quickly glance at the screen, while watching everything else, that isn't on the GPS screens. I think that old school nav gives the simmer more to do. The scenery just isn't quite as exciting as all of that real life scenery that's so close to here. Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, lots of national parks, etc.  If, I was still into real life flying, and had a particular glass system, in which I'd like more training through flight simulation..........then I'd be prepared to pay hundreds of extra dollars, if that's what it would cost.  It was around $250 for a decent Garmin 1000 study system when they first came out, years ago.

 

 

edited to add "at a glance"

 

Thanks for your insights Larry.

 

I have no objection to magenta lines on a black background. They have the distinction of being extremely clear. My problem with contemporary glass gauges is that they show too much info in a limited space and often very little of that information is easy to focus on or needed at the time. The eyes are constantly required to filter out over half the info to get to the crux of what you are looking for.

 

I don't want an overlay of radio frequencies when I'm looking at my attitude, and I don't need a readout of remaining fuel when I want to check my airspeed. I also don't want my airspeed on an indistinct tape with colours that are merging with other colours and tons of other info. I especially do not want to scroll through multiple menus to arrive at vital information. I just want a very clear indication of airspeed, and so on.

 

The great thing about the GTN gauges, and the RXPs before them, is that they are separated from other gauges that show very basic but very important things: speed, attitude, altitude and power. It is the clarity of information that is important, not how much of it is available. In a simulation on a limited screen size, the lack of clarity gets even worse, so you spend half your time filling the screen with magnified pop ups.

 

No-one wants to reject useful information and there is no doubt that, used properly, glass gauges offer unrivalled and comprehensive info, especially regarding your position relative to hazards and terrain. But If you look at preventable fatal accident stats in the last few years, it is clear that glass gauges have in practice done absolutely nothing to improve overall safety, and in fact are associated with double the fatalities, though slightly fewer accidents overall.

[LAdamson 240]

Nice to see you Larry, a good writeup from that perspective as well!  Do you still have your RV?

No.  A retired 777 pilot owns it.  They redid the panel IFR.  I don't qualify medically anymore.

 

As to magenta lines, if it wasn't for this new computer, I could show screen shots of my Garmin 696 portable that was in the RV................around areas such as Jackson Hole, Wyoming and Yellowstone.  Very easy to read, including terrain, restricted airspace, airport airspace, such as Class B, Grand Canyon airspace,etc. It was also tied to a fuel computer that was always within 1/2 gallon.  I used XM Satellite weather, which was overlayed on the screen.  In mountain country, with marginal weather and trips of 400 - 700 miles, this was one of the most beneficial pieces of equipment that I had. I could get continuous updates of the destination airport, as well as all airports close to the route, if they had weather reporting. Most trips were planned with direct routing, or points of interest. I always carried a sectional, and kept track.  Speaking of keeping track, a friend of mine, who flies the Boeing 737-800 has been keeping track of GPS failures in that plane. We're somewhere between eleven and fourteen years now...........without an outage. I've forgotten the exact years.

 

BTW---- I would and do, use simple GPS for flight simming, sometimes.  Didn't start simming again, until last week. It's been a couple of years without.