Plans to add DME?

[CanadianCaptainMoustache]

I'd love to see a small DME indicator added to the pilots panel - something along the lines of a KDI572/574. I know we have bearing and distance in the GPS but that is not a DME distance (GPS ground track and DME distance being two different things, technically as well as legally in many areas) on top of being difficult to read at a glance while on a non-precision approach. This unit would also show closing speed and time to station at a glance, both of which we're lacking unless we happen to have the VOR/LOC plugged into the GPS as well.

An ideal location would be above the square autopilot annunciator/switch panel on the pilot's panel. 

[Mathijs Kok]

Okay, I have added that to suggestions. I think it is a good idea.

[WF971]

I VERY much support this!

Especially if changing out the Garmin for an older stack isn't workable. (Which honestly I'd pay dollars for. The Garmin is hell on my eyes and feels anachronistic)

[paulwareiNG]

+1

[FlyingFroluc]

You can have a DME distance using the GNS. 
You just have to had a VOR/DME freq as active and below will appear the bearing / Dist to that beacon.

 

However, I do agree that it would be nice to have a stand alone DME.

 

 

[FlyingFroluc]

On 1/28/2022 at 7:59 PM, WF971 said:

I VERY much support this!

Especially if changing out the Garmin for an older stack isn't workable. (Which honestly I'd pay dollars for. The Garmin is hell on my eyes and feels anachronistic)

 

It is not anachronistic at all. Still in use on many small aircrafts. Not all have G1000 or more.

 

[CanadianCaptainMoustache]

16 minutes ago, FlyingFroluc said:

You can have a DME distance using the GNS. 
You just have to had a VOR/DME freq as active and below will appear the bearing / Dist to that beacon.

 

However, I do agree that it would be nice to have a stand alone DME.

 

 

I covered that in the original post. The 530 does not have a DME receiver and that is not DME distance you're seeing. Plus GPS track distance is not the same as DME, technically as well as legally in many cases. 

[FlyingFroluc]

18 minutes ago, CanadianCaptainMoustache said:

I covered that in the original post. The 530 does not have a DME receiver and that is not DME distance you're seeing. Plus GPS track distance is not the same as DME, technically as well as legally in many cases. 

 

Sure, it's not a DME distance but GPS distance that will give the GNS. At a certain distance it's almost the same distance since the tangent angle is really low. For example, if you compute a 14nm DME disntace flying at 15000ft, your real distance (on the ground) will be 13,8Nm. The point is when you're getting real close to the beacon. But are you sure that MSFS takes into account the real way of calculation for a DME distance ? Isn't it computed as a straight distance on the ground from the beacon to the A/C ? I never tried to check but it's easy to do. Just overfly a DME and read the distance, should be your Z/6000.

[CanadianCaptainMoustache]

Sadly the answer is "it depends". If the aircraft it setup to use DME distance, it works fine to show slant distance. But I think some aircraft just use an aliased GPS distance in which case it's a DME of lies

[Mathijs Kok]

4 hours ago, CanadianCaptainMoustache said:

I covered that in the original post. The 530 does not have a DME receiver and that is not DME distance you're seeing. Plus GPS track distance is not the same as DME, technically as well as legally in many cases. 

 

The aircraft we model is fully legal in any market we know of.  Can you point out any country where the set we use would not be legal?

[FlyingFroluc]

5 hours ago, CanadianCaptainMoustache said:

Sadly the answer is "it depends". If the aircraft it setup to use DME distance, it works fine to show slant distance. But I think some aircraft just use an aliased GPS distance in which case it's a DME of lies

 

OK I see. 

 

2 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

The aircraft we model is fully legal in any market we know of.  Can you point out any country where the set we use would not be legal?

 

By "legally" I think that he means that you're not allowed -for example- to perform an ILS using a GPS distance you get thanks to an overlay or the other way round, that you can't perform a RNP final using a DME distance of a beacon close to the runway. Nothing to do with your aircraft. 

 

[CanadianCaptainMoustache]

Yeah, nothing to do with the plane. But a traditional navaid approach with no listed overlay cannot be substituted, at least in Canada

[FlyingFroluc]

2 hours ago, CanadianCaptainMoustache said:

Yeah, nothing to do with the plane. But a traditional navaid approach with no listed overlay cannot be substituted, at least in Canada

Same in Europe.

[C525B]

On 2/5/2022 at 1:31 PM, CanadianCaptainMoustache said:

Yeah, nothing to do with the plane. But a traditional navaid approach with no listed overlay cannot be substituted, at least in Canada

 

I agree with @FlyingFroluc's earlier posts.  I think the GPS vs. slant-range thing could be seen as semantic when you're talking about the approach phase (you're at low altitude so the slant-range error is minimized).  In the US, you are broadly permitted to substitute an IFR GPS for DME as long as you are still using the ground-based navaid to track the final approach course.  "Overlay approaches" have been abandoned here too, but you can still use the GPS legally in a number of ways to determine distance to a fix or navaid.

 

Regardless...I think a standalone DME would be nice.

[CanadianCaptainMoustache]

None of that gives you closure rate or time to the station unless you happen to have it plugged into the GPS too. Nor does it make it more readable as the 530's fakey DME display is rather small from the pilot's seat. Not what you want to be relying on for a DME approach

[Mathijs Kok]

23 minutes ago, C525B said:

Regardless...I think a standalone DME would be nice.

 

That is not forgotten.

[C525B]

12 hours ago, CanadianCaptainMoustache said:

None of that gives you closure rate or time to the station unless you happen to have it plugged into the GPS too. Nor does it make it more readable as the 530's fakey DME display is rather small from the pilot's seat. Not what you want to be relying on for a DME approach

 

Yes, I know what you mean.  I also get that the current state of the MSFS GPS even with the PMS530 mod is not the slickest thing around.  However, I have used many a 430/530 in the real world and the 530 DME feature is seen as a bit of a novelty because the GPS itself is highly capable.  Not every 530 has it either.  I guess the "right" thing to do would be to load the procedure that you are flying even if you are not tracking the GPS course.  This gives you the best situational awareness and reduces having to fiddle once you are in the thick of it. 

 

Not trying to argue with you at all, just deliriously falling back into flight instructor mode.  It's cool that you want to fly the fundamentals.  Aerosoft has us covered anyway since Mathjis has reiterated that they are considering adding a DME.  But for the time being, the easiest thing to me would just be to set a direct-to whatever fix you need DME for, then you will have G/S, ETE, bearing, etc..  There is also OBS mode if you need the GNS to show a specific course to a station/fix. 

 

12 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

That is not forgotten.

 

Thank you for taking down all our feedback!  I enjoy participating in this forum because I think the Twotter is a great airplane for MSFS and the fact that users are given a stake in further development is encouraging.

[WF971]

On 2/5/2022 at 2:24 PM, FlyingFroluc said:

 

It is not anachronistic at all. Still in use on many small aircrafts. Not all have G1000 or more.

 

(It feels anachronistic to me because my nostalgic attachment to the aircraft is based on 80s-90s Twin Otters, with much more traditional radio navigation equipment.  (just to clarify.)

[olof]

If you use AirManager, you can easily add DME, it works great with he Otter.

This is a photo of the panel I made for the Otter in AirManager.