JoePilotCT

Went through all of my add-on aircraft and found the Dreamfleet Dakota had the old 16 bit GNS430, but after some playing with it, I realize it is not a 430W - therefore you cannot do an instrument approach. I do see the Dakota uses XP gauges (the XP logo is in the upper right hand corner of the gauge). So I think it installs its own gauges. Not a big deal. Disappointed RXP didn't keep up with the database though. There are more and more RNAV LPV approaches being added all the time - and the old "GPS" approaches phased out. I think it is important to have a database that is no more than 2 years old. I can't by the RXP product based on your info.Looking through the Flight1 website, but not sure which airplanes do LNAV LPV or specifically have a GPS with WAAS. I did buy the Mustang, but it is like the only aircraft that my system will not run. It is like watching a slide show. Just too resource hungry.Any other Flight1 airplanes with a fully functional 430W or RNAV LPV performance?I really appreciate your responses.Joe

Thanks Joe. To confirm, will the RealityXP product will "plug into" the airplane's own CDI and display the localizer and glideslope appropriately? Or does it display its own CDI w Glideslope? I have the Carenado Archer II. Since I am buying an Archer II (for real), this would be awesome. Would be doubly awesome if it plugged into the Carenado Archer's own CDI rather than popping some 2D windowed instrument.Also, do you have to pay extra to update the database? I read there are now more RNAV LPV approaches than ILS with more being added all the time.Joseph Perry

I got my instrument rating (for real) about 10 years ago before all the RNAV and GPS procedures were developed. I am buying a real airplane that will have a Garmin 430 WAAS IFR certified GPS.I have been reading up on RNAV navigation and Required Navigational Performance of 0.3 etc. For those of you that are unaware, it is one thing to use GPS to fly from point A to point B, but an entirely different thing to fly an RNAV (GPS) LPV approach procedure to minimums. These new approach procedures allow the airplane to fly an approach to ILS type minimums - using something other than an ILS to give the course deviation and glideslope indications in the cockpit. In a small aircraft, the "something other than an ILS system" is the IFR certified GPS WAAS receiver. But it does not need to be a GPS WAAS system as long as it is capable of Required Navigational Performance of 0.3. Note:This is why they changed the name of the procedures from "GPS" to RNAV. The airplane flying the approach does not necessarily need GPS, but it must have some navigational system capable of distinguishing its location to the higher standard necessary in flying approaches.One of the important characteristics of this "ILS-like" system is that it gets more sensitive as the airplane approaches the runway - just like an ILS. The other important characteristic is that the navigational system must be "wired in" to the CDI & glideslope indicators so you can read it on the CDI just as though you were shooting an ILS. In IFR, you cannot look at the course on the GPS display itself.This brings me to my question... Are there any add-on (3rd party) airplanes specifically for FSX with an IFR GPS or RNAV system with the RNP that can simulate actual IFR RNAV LPV approach (terminal) procedures? Better yet, one that can also do a RNAV Z or Y approach (the kind where the CDI tracks a final approach course that is not straight). I'd prefer a smaller aircraft with a panel mounted GPS with WAAS that is appropriately connected to the CDI with both localizer type peformance and glideslope rather than a large transport aircraft with an FMS/IRS etc.I am new to RNAV terminal procedures, so forgive me if what I said (above) is not completely correct. I am not yet an authority on it. Lol. Thanks in advance for your response.Joseph Perry.

I just finished reading the authorized biography of Steve Jobs. One of the things that made Jobs and Apple successful is that he (and those that worked with him) LOVED the technology. They simply designed things that they themselves would want as hardcore lovers of technology and software - and everyone else went along for the ride. It is pretty evident to me that Microsoft has completely lost its way and is fast becoming irrelevant in all aspects - flight simulation included. If they loved flight simulation and were designing the software that they themselves loved (and in turn, the flight sim community), they wouldn't be getting such blistering criticism. Also many of the people on this forum would be on the dev team. The fact that they are not bringing in the 3rd party developers tells me they are not flight sim insiders or hard core enthusiasts. Though my first flight was on an Apple IIe with Bruce Artwick's version and I have been happy with where we have come, I have no hope that Microsoft can do anything right anymore. I wish we could wrest Flight Simulator from their grips and make it public domain. Since that is not going to happen, my next best wish is that a certain company with a history of making cool things (that people like) will come along and leave Microsoft in the dust again. That company already has a flying machine of sorts in a product called Google Earth. I can only hope and pray. Perhaps a call from Tom Allensworth and PMDG can kick start it?I agree that Flight should be moved to another area. Microsoft is a has-been company.Joseph Perry