DocBird 12 Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 It would be nice to receive another teaser ... Some new pictures woould be fine after weeks of detoxification for those of us who are addicted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn 873 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Why not simply ask realair or orbx? Aerosoft sell thier products and i think it is easier to get in contact with them. They done the integration of rxp. And the katana 4x has this Integration too. If this is no Option, the simpliest Way is to create a panel with a clear space where normaly the GPS is placed, write a small Info how to add this Panel to the plane and a Note that there is no support for this panel version. I hope you understand what i mean, my english is not the best We have been in contact with other developement companies and they have been very helpfull, but the words are from ll that adding the RXP GPS to a VC with 3D knobs and buttons is very much a trial and error thing. But our stance is that we do not want to add it as long as the devloper of the RXP GPS dosn´t seem interested in supoorting us adding their addon. This means we will add some benificial for them while we have to do all the work with no gain, only to be left back with all the support issues. If it will be added, then it will be as a simple 2D gauge, thus jeopardisiing the quality of the fine modelling, but we haven´t decided on that yet. The best I can suggest all You RXP fans, is to mail RXP and ask them to provide some kind of guidance or SDK for other developers. Finn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverDriver 37 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Or, how about this. Do like in the real world. Have RXP themselves develop a mod ("STC") whereby you send your aircraft to them and THEY install their gauges for you (at a cost of course). That way, they are more likely to do it because they are making money off it, they provide the support for it in return for that installation fee, Aerosoft is not left with the liability of trying to support something they didn't make and don't have the necessary drawings/plans to do a proper install, and the installation will likely be more seamless because nobody knows RXP better than RXP. Finally, they aren't being forced to give up seemingly proprietary plans in the process to every developers' aircraft out there RXP fans want their gauges installed in. If someone wants a Soloy turbine put in their Cessna 206, they aren't going to Cessna, they are going to Soloy. Same deal here. Another benefit of all this is it stops the incessant questions here about RXP integration which have been answered numerous times, possibly allowing the developer to spend more time working on the airplane itself. Sounds like a win-win situation, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IGrant 51 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Or, how about this. Do like in the real world. Have RXP themselves develop a mod ("STC") whereby you send your aircraft to them and THEY install their gauges for you (at a cost of course). That way, they are more likely to do it because they are making money off it, they provide the support for it in return for that installation fee, Aerosoft is not left with the liability of trying to support something they didn't make and don't have the necessary drawings/plans to do a proper install, and the installation will likely be more seamless because nobody knows RXP better than RXP. Finally, they aren't being forced to give up seemingly proprietary plans in the process to every developers' aircraft out there RXP fans want their gauges installed in. If someone wants a Soloy turbine put in their Cessna 206, they aren't going to Cessna, they are going to Soloy. Same deal here. Another benefit of all this is it stops the incessant questions here about RXP integration which have been answered numerous times, possibly allowing the developer to spend more time working on the airplane itself. Sounds like a win-win situation, doesn't it? If I am understanding your idea correctly the problem is that the issue at hand is adapting a 2D element to a 3D surface. Where the biggest problem comes in is the knobs and how to get the 3D element to function properly as well as not look like a mess. RXP is a gauge programer and deals strictly with 2D elements- nothing more than bitmap images and rendered displays brought to life via code. To my knowledge RXP does no 3D modelling work. This is where the clash comes in between developers and RXP. Even if RXP did do 3D modeling it would require developers to hand over their source files to them to install a 3D mesh and I can't see that happening. Unfortunately the gauge as an operation and the gauge as a 3D element are two completely separate entities made to work by either mapping the 2D gauge to a 3D surface or assigning the 2D gauge scripts to the 3D elements which in this case isn't possible for lack of a RXP SDK. I had a suggestion that I had with held a while back was to possibly license the use of a known working 3D object such as the mesh for the RXP530 from the Katana 4X or the like. Of course I know that it would come at a cost and while I would happily pay a little extra for my Twin Otter if it had RXP on board I do know that others could care less and wouldn't appreciate a price hike for a feature they wouldn't use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverDriver 37 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Yes, I see the problem. However, if RXP is desiring to continue or expand their business, then (as IRL) it behooves them to learn the 3D modeling process (moving with the times). Further, they could enter into discussions with the original developers about licensing (for a fee) required source files for the express purpose (and not beyond - a limited license) of incorporating their gauges. The developer earns money from the licensing, RXP passes on the cost to the customer (as in IRL), and the customer gets the product as they want, without customers not wishing this option having to fork out extra money for an option they don't want. How does that sound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IGrant 51 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Yes, I see the problem. However, if RXP is desiring to continue or expand their business, then (as IRL) it behooves them to learn the 3D modeling process (moving with the times). Further, they could enter into discussions with the original developers about licensing (for a fee) required source files for the express purpose (and not beyond - a limited license) of incorporating their gauges. The developer earns money from the licensing, RXP passes on the cost to the customer (as in IRL), and the customer gets the product as they want, without customers not wishing this option having to fork out extra money for an option they don't want. How does that sound? Given RXP's track record, I am not sure we will ever see them go as far as 3D modeling. I hate to speculate but from the outside looking in it seems as if Jean-Luc of RXP seems content on not doing much more than he already has. Support has been notoriously hit or miss with the community usually stepping in to help others in need. That is not to say he is a bad guy but he certainly does seem to disappear from time to time. I think the licensing of an SDK is a far more likely (and great idea btw!) solution. There again there are issues because I am not sure what kind of weird interface he has developed that allows his gauge to interface with the external Garmin GNS trainer. I admit that I don't know much about it or whether there are people that really do. It's unclear to me where the Garmin trainer ends and where FSX begins in that equation. It really is just an all around strange situation because of the uniqueness of the RXP software itself and RXP's reclusive nature when it comes to contact and support. It all makes you ask why even bother but the fact is that when it comes to Garmin functionality in the sim, nothing comes close except for Flight 1's G1000 system but even that has it's limitations. The default GPS systems in all of its applications in various forms is great and surprisingly flexible and useful but still fundamentally limited. That's the cause for all the fuss for RXP compatibility. Now why someone doesn't develop a custom Garmin GNS gauge using current nav display coding like Flight 1's G1000 but packaged as a radio stack GPS unit with the inherent benefit of nav data updates like AS's NavDataPro is absolutely beyond me. Such a product would absolutely blow RXP right out of the water since it would be based on proven sim-based coding techniques instead of what ever work-around trickery that makes the RXP units work AND be more flexible as it wouldn't depend on the trainer program. Seriously, part of the reason Jean Luc never provides an SDK might because it might not exist because the way his gauge interfaces with the trainer through his dll might make it impossible. Who knows... I am way off topic here and I apologize! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverDriver 37 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Yes, I guess we are a bit off topic and I apologise to the Moderator(s), but I do think it's a worthwhile discussion. Your points are well taken. This hobby is too "rich" with developers who "Release-and-Leave" unfortunately. Aerosoft isn't one of those I'm happy to say which is why I buy their airplanes. You make a very good point about someone else stepping up with gauges that are as functional (if not more so) as the RXP, and one outfit that comes to mind is PMDG. Their FMC's are outstanding and extremely functional (someone forgot to tell them about the FSX "limitations" <LOL>). If they were to release a gauge set, I'm sure it would be well received, and I believe they are known for their cooperative nature (within reason) with other developers, so it could be a good solution for all. It's very true what you say about the default GPS being "good" but very limited. What we need is something that will program full routes from within FSX rather than simply the "Direct-To" function. They could even market these to developers such that a developer could include it as an option in their releases, much the same as you can order a 757 with Collins or Bendix-King avionics. It could open up a whole new sideline for someone which people like Aerosoft could take advantage of, making their product even more attractive than they already are which would help their bottom line further still. It's an interesting concept and one that might be worth exploring. Anyway, thanks for the feedback and discussion. I agree with much of what you are saying, and your comments about "why RXP" in the first place I found quite enlightening and now makes more sense to me. I appreciate that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn 873 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 We do not expect RXP to do any kind of 3D modelling, all we would like is a SDK that gives us the necessary input/output variables to set the RXP GPS, just like we normally do to all other kind of switches, buttons and controls. It would be quite easy for them and benificial for both themselves and their customers. Finn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Hoffmann 4160 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Gents, the situation is different to what you IMAGINE subjectivly, regarding the installation of the RXP. We are not too "dumb" to do our job here, the problem is located in routing the 3d inputs to the 2d gauge. That interconnection demands a thought data pipeline, which is handled by definded variables, you can call them also "data flow labels" or whatever. Then there goes this pipeline from the 3d key to the gauge runtime code and all what you do in the 3d space of the VC, is then transmitted to the runtime code, which creates a graphical representation of whats going on internally. Those variables are directly embedded into the program code of RXP, which we cannot see in (again we are not to dumb to see it, LOL, but compiled code only consists of 0 and 1). Sure PMDG has good FMCs, but they program them INTERNALLY and so they have a programmer on the hand, that knows whats written inside his code. But with the RXP GPS we have the situation that the programmer is out of house and not shows the slightest interest to cooperate with us. Beside the 2D Variant is lately rather aged, as we would only need the pure display and nothign around, like keys or the hull of the device. I wish myself also that the creator of the RXP Gauges would show a sign of life, but it seemed, he forgot us all out here. I can only hope some other guy makes the work to create an actual and modern version of the RXP which fits the current standards and is kind to his costumership. If we would be delivered with the variable names, the job would be finished in 5 minutes. But running a super computer with random variable names to 16 positions, and do a trial and error would need 10E+7 years after my first calculation. Thats a little bit too long for this short living market and ontop of that scientists discovered that the universe is instable, after the higgs boson was found. So this story could end unsuccesfully even faster.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monk1 1 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 What amazes me is that the amount of simmers that own the RXP gauges is a very small minority. Yet they incessantly flood each and every developers upcoming product threads with the same tiresome questions. When a developer says they aren't going to integrate RXP, then they aren't going to integrate it. Move on. Buy something else. Do you really need autopilot coupled lateral and vertical navigation to enjoy a Twin Otter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverDriver 37 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Stefan, I didn't see anyone even hinting that anyone at Aerosoft was too "dumb" to pull this off (you may have been speaking tongue-in-cheek however, so don't take that too seriously). I understand what PMDG's FMC is about, and was simply using them as an example of someone who might be able to program a separate gauge that would replace the RXP gauges. You are preaching to the choir here. I think everyone understands this isn't Aerosoft that's being hard to get along with, but the makers of RXP. I guess that's their perogative and it will only hurt their sales (I've long ago decided to steer clear of them because of all the poor customer support I've seen from them). So this doesn't fall on Aerosoft at all, as far as I can tell. I must admit though, my sentiments match Monk1's. I started bush flying in 1969 and still work in aviation today. Yes, some Twin Otters do have more sophisticated avionics, but the majority work in the bush because of how they are built. Their forte is short, rough strips and lakes (frozen or water). More often than not these things have hand held GPS' in them, not stacks of 430's and 530's with sophisticated autopilots. Aerosoft is developing to the spirit of this airplane, not to every possible configuration out there. How be we just let them do what they do best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn 873 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 The hint we saw came from posts telling that "if other developers can integrate, why can´t You ?". Stefans answer was just that we can add it, at least as a 2D gauge, but we rather don´t want to cause for us 2D gauges are history and simply degrades the quality we would like to deliver, but also due to the fact that RXP doesn´t seem to have much interest giving us the needed help inorder to add it with 3D knobs and state of the art textures. Though other developers do add the RXP GPS's to their addons by using workarounds, our stance is clearly that we won´t add it if we cannot do it the right way. Finn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KAPTEJNLN 237 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 well another fact about RXP GPS is that even it´s good, we sadly have some funktions that isen´t so useful as they could have been as they never seemed to be interested in get things updatet. Im refering to the GPS data (procidues) this long time after you can´t update it like many does whit there FMC.. I eaven a year ago take the problem to garmin to se if we could find a solution as i found the data was garmin data for a preview program, but it dident get anywhere.. so it´s seems dead end.. in more then 1 way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn 873 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 The GPS that will come with the Twin Otter is modified version of the default GPS500 that comes with FSX. It has been alterede to look like a GNS530 with COM1 / NAV1 Radio and CDI button for toggling between NAV/GPS as source for the HSI and autopilot. Since the HSI course setting isn´t updated from the GPS (like in reality) the GPS will tell what setting to set the course on the HSI to when changing flightplan leg. Though the default FSX navdatabase stems from 2002 (as far as I remember) external flightplanner, like FSBuild or FSCommander can be used to make flightplans (even with SID/STARS, though thats woudn´t be very reaistic) using the latest Airac cycle. Finn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IGrant 51 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Where I find value in the RXP GNS vs. default is that besides it being far superior in flight planning and procedures is that the display is so much better. I get roads drawn in along with lakes and everything is labeled so even when flying VFR I have an extremely useful cross reference to match to my VFR charts. Or if I plan to follow a certain road, I have it on the GPS with a label to ensure I haven't gotten confused. It is just a far superior unit on a functionality level when compared to the default system. Lets not forget the terrain display that gives you real TAWS with color coded terrain display- who doesn't want that for a little extra assurance when flying a Twin Otter through a mountain pass. Point is, say what you will, but the RXP GNS despite its annoying short comings is an extremely useful piece of simming kit. I definitely don't think that any developer at AS is 'dumb'. No way. IMHO AS is produces not only some of the best add ons but the best supported as well. I hope that I didn't come off as implying that. I just wanted to add to the discussion the problems presented by the RXP gauges. I don't know who all is familiar with and to what depth, the RXP system but it is very unique compared to other gauges. Like I stated before- there may not even be an SDK that would allow you to add the scripting needed to the 3D objects for a direct interface. In fact, the fact that the exact same cursors appear upon mouse over as the trainer program uses would be evidence that it is a totally unconventional interface. As different as saying that we have petrol and electric automobiles but RXP is making an auto powered by potatoes. That said, I really want reiterate my wish for at least an optional flat VC radio stack that will in fact accept 2D gauges. I realize the quality level that Aerosoft is trying to achieve and I respect that, however, and optional customizable radio panel would give everyone what they want regardless. As long as what you want to be displayed is there by default I can't see the harm in having a check box in the config panel to switch it to a flat radio stack that people can drop RXP gauges, weather radar, FSMap or what ever else they desire on to. Those who don't want any extra add on gauges would never have to worry about it and those that want to use their extra add ons may do so. Honestly, it is the one thing about entirely 3D cockpits that have annoyed me is that I have lost the ability to change my radios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted February 21, 2013 Author Aerosoft Share Posted February 21, 2013 You will like these... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeromaestro 60 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 MAMA MIA!!! NIGHT VC TEXTURES! Wonderfully awesome! The only thing left now are exterior model/livery shots. No rush though, Mathijs. You guys take your time. Oh this thing is gonna be sweet....!! By the way, are you guys doing HD textures on the exterior or interior? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocBird 12 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 You will like these... Not too bad! Great work! I would nevertheless like to see the cockpit (and the rest of the plane if possible) in a nice video made with a headtracker... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn 873 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Not too bad! Great work! I would nevertheless like to see the cockpit (and the rest of the plane if possible) in a nice video made with a headtracker... Don´t worry - will come later... Finn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muberti 1 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 YES I think this airplane will be a best seller ! very sharp ! Congratulations ! Could I ask which 3D program are u using for the model ? MAX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlas 0 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Very nice! Still hoping for a version without the GPS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KAPTEJNLN 237 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 To update it yes the default GPS database is old, and thats why RXP would have been the best on the market as it uses newer data, but sadly dont want to work futher to get it more widely used like helping developers and find a way to get newer data like the navdata as thats external data that´s newer and cheats in some way FSX own data as all way points are given from that database you buy.. And as many other times yes you can use external flightplaning tools to get newer data in to the route, but is no use in flight as things might changes and you have to modify and then you have a problem as not all programs like AivlaSoft is able to edit during flight and give the GPS the new informations... but enough of that it´s just my opinion about that subject and always say use external programs as it have limits.. and would be better if we only had to use the gps for it all like in the real plane.. "Very nice! Still hoping for a version without the GPS!" lol you could just turn it off, could you ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlas 0 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 If you turn it off you lose NAV1 and COM1 radios! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IGrant 51 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Regarding the GPS: It is a lot easier to just not use something that is there than it is to try and use something that is not there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted February 21, 2013 Author Aerosoft Share Posted February 21, 2013 Regarding the GPS: It is a lot easier to just not use something that is there than it is to try and use something that is not there. Gents, really this discussion is not useful. When we do not get support from the 3rd (4rd?) party developers we will not implement it. So all further discussion on this makes no sense. Let's get back to the aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
![Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account]](https://forum.aerosoft.com/uploads/monthly_2023_09/Aerosoft_Social_Media_Profilbild_Neu23.thumb.jpg.03721825e6a434ed4af0c8b2b73a5898.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.