20,741
edits
FG1000: Difference between revisions
→Motivation
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
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. | 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 | 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 | ||
| Line 26: | Line 38: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
Instead of just making one-off tweaks like the consumer sims did, we (as a team) emulated entire systems like the vacuum, pitot-static, and electrical systems, so that failures would be realistic. In the RNAV age, we need to do the same thing; it's just that it's a bigger job. FlightGear will still be great for people who want to practice the mechanical parts of flying (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/35927088/ | |||
|url = https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/ | |||
|title = <nowiki> Re: [Flightgear-devel] RFD: FlightGear and the changing state of | |title = <nowiki> Re: [Flightgear-devel] RFD: FlightGear and the changing state of | ||
air navigation </nowiki> | air navigation </nowiki> | ||
|author = <nowiki> | |author = <nowiki> David Megginson </nowiki> | ||
|date = Jul | |date = Jul 4th, 2017 | ||
|added = Jul | |added = Jul 4th, 2017 | ||
|script_version = 0.40 | |script_version = 0.40 | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
== Performance == | == Performance == | ||