Hi fellow wiki editors!

To help newly registered users get more familiar with the wiki (and maybe older users too) there is now a {{Welcome to the wiki}} template. Have a look at it and feel free to add it to new users discussion pages (and perhaps your own).

I have tried to keep the template short, but meaningful. /Johan G

Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

FG1000

857 bytes added, 09:49, 15 October 2017
Motivation
The airspace system is in the process of changing drastically [...] this isn't just a matter of throwing up a canvas showing some GPS waypoints and a magenta line. Modern navigators are astoundingly-complex devices — probably an order of magnitude more lines of code than FlightGear itself — and even their basic flight planning algorithms and databases (e.g. fly-by waypoints vs fly-over waypoints, open vs closed approach procedures, transitions into RNAV approaches, etc.) are far beyond the scope of anything we've tried, and we'd also need an up-to-date database far more complex than the ones we have now. Once you get to the extra features, like FIS-B weather or TIS-B traffic info over ADS-B, or TAWS (terrain alerting), we're probably in way over our heads trying to emulate even the simplest general-aviation IFR GPS.
 
This may help folks understand what the G1000 is all about: http://static.garmincdn.com/pumac/190-00498-07_0A_Web.pdf
Writing a G1000 isn't that hard. Writing a '''feature complete''' G1000 is a ton of work. <ref>{{cite web
|url = https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/35925783/
|title = <nowiki> Re: [Flightgear-devel] RFD: FlightGear and the changing state of
air navigation </nowiki>
|author = <nowiki> geneb </nowiki>
|date = Jul 3rd, 2017
|added = Jul 3rd, 2017
|script_version = 0.40
}}</ref>
 
Depending on how we deal with this challenge, the question is whether that means that the usefulness of FlightGear will also gradually taper off. <ref>{{cite web
}}</ref>
This may help folks understand what Instead of just making one-off tweaks like the G1000 is all about: http://consumer sims did, we (as a team) emulated entire systems like the vacuum, pitot-static, and electrical systems, so that failures would be realistic.garmincdn.com/pumac/190-00498-07_0A_Web.pdf Writing a G1000 isnIn the RNAV age, we need to do the same thing; it't s just that hard. Writing a it'''feature complete''' G1000 is s a ton bigger job. FlightGear will still be great for people who want to practice the mechanical parts of workflying (e.g. crosswind wheel landings in a Cub), but will slip further and further behind for people who want to use it for real IFR practice. <ref>{{cite web |url = https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/3592578335927088/
|title = <nowiki> Re: [Flightgear-devel] RFD: FlightGear and the changing state of
air navigation </nowiki>
|author = <nowiki> geneb David Megginson </nowiki> |date = Jul 3rd4th, 2017 |added = Jul 3rd4th, 2017
|script_version = 0.40
}}</ref>
 
== Performance ==
18,232
edits

Navigation menu