Saab 340A - Announcing New Feature!

[Cameron]

Hello, Captains!,

 

Work continues and we're still working feverishly over here. We've concluded our testing on our latest feature implemented, and I wanted to show that to you here!

 

Recently there was some internal discussion about how the Saab 340A lacks RNAV capability. It is, after-all, an old school aircraft by design, and primarily requires VOR/NDB type flying. The aircraft itself comes standard with two radios for VOR 1 and VOR 2 tracking which makes the autopilot as well as the aircraft interactive and fun to fly. Aside from general complexity in the simulation of this aircraft, the navigation aspect alone will really brush up your skills as a pilot in general. It's really a lot of fun to surf the skies and have something to do all the time!

 

But, RNAV is becoming ever so popular and dominant in places like Europe (all over the world really), where a lot of radio frequency waypoints (like VOR) no longer exist. Instead, they rely on FIXs and that is something the Saab 340A is not capable of out of the box. In the USA it's a bit easier because VORs still exist, and any type of FIX can generally (usually) be associated to some form of radial on a VOR. All this said, to solve the RNAV issue we made the executive decision to create our own GPS in X-Plane. We are calling this a Mini-GPS, and it is accessible in the tool tray just like all of our other menus seen in our last topic covering this type of information. The Mini-GPS will work only with FIXs, as the aircraft itself can already handle radio frequency waypoints like VORs. 

 

The Mini-GPS window will give you three options when first opened. The first, is to set the initial position that the GPS will track from. For convenience we have a button to set it to your current aircraft position. The second and third inputs are for FIXs. We allow you up to two waypoints for convenience, and as you cross a FIX in flight, the second FIX you entered will move to the 'Active' position. This will make flying things like SIDs and STARs a lot more attractive to a lot of you. Additionally, the menu allows you to select checkboxes for what data you'd like to display on screen. This includes your active waypoint, a deviation bar (just like you'd find on a real GPS), and your 'Next' waypoint if entered. It looks like this:

 

 

 

In the below screenshot, I have just taken off from KIAH and am on my way to the 'ZORLU' FIX. You can see the data in the upper left displays what heading from my current position this FIX is located at, and how far I am from the FIX based on my current position. This data constantly updates as I fly! You'll also note the deviation bar in the middle of the screen. The small diamond constantly updates, tracks, and displays the proper information for me to know when I am on the correct flight path between the two waypoints I have entered (in this case my position on the runway at KIAH and the FIX 'ZORLU').

 

Click image to see full size.

 

 

 

So this is just a quick run down of our latest feature implemented. I believe this will be attractive for a lot of you who fly online and follow SIDs and STARs. It solves a problem in our virtual world for an aircraft that typically does not have RNAV capability, and still makes the flying fun just like VOR to VOR flying would be.

 

Thanks for reading! We'll have more updates shortly as we progress to release!

[JohnMAXX]

Wow this is going to be the most detail AC for XP.....no bull

[AtomicFrawg]

Wow this is going to be the most detail AC for XP.....no bull

Now all we need next is Skymaxx extreme.

[JohnMAXX]

Now all we need next is Skymaxx extreme.

Working on it! lol

[Mario Donick]

Yes! Thank you!

[Hueyman]

[...] like Europe, where a lot of radio frequency waypoints (like VOR) no longer exist

 

Here in France, there is one VOR for virtually any big city... I don't know for the eastern Europe but we are full of VOR for sure ...

 

Anyway, that feature looks very helpful ! And it's done in a professional way, not like it was quickly added in a hurry prior to release, I feel it has been designed to follow that plane's guideline : quality

 

Hats off

[Mario Donick]

Here in France, there is one VOR for virtually any big city... I don't know for the eastern Europe but we are full of VOR for sure ...

 

I don't know about France,but at least in Germany it is a big problem. Many many VORs have been removed in the last decade. We still have VORs at the airports as approach guides, but the routes you get from ATC usually rely on "virtual" waypoints which are just GPS positions and not related to an actual physical VOR or NDB anymore.

 

So without GPS, you can't fly according official rules.

 

Furthermore, I've read about a law that in Germany you are not allowed to fly over 10.000 ft with aircraft that has no GPS equipment.

[Hueyman]

Ok so Germany is probably a bit different here

 

Furthermore, I've read about a law that in Germany you are not allowed to fly over 10.000 ft with aircraft that has no GPS equipment.

 

Yes but anyway, without oxygen supply you cannot fly over FL 125... and I don't take many risks to say that oxygen equipped ACFTs will surely have some GPS too

[frankbyte]

That are great news! Very good decision guys! So now it will be no question anymore: i will for sure purchase it! ;-)

[Mario Donick]

Yes but anyway, without oxygen supply you cannot fly over FL 125... and I don't take many risks to say that oxygen equipped ACFTs will surely have some GPS too

 

Don't forget that the Saab 340A was built from 1984 to 1989, and it did not have a GPS or a FMS. It did not need one back then.

 

So if we want to fly the 340A according to today's rules and with today's navigational data, we need some kind of solution, and that's why I am very thankful for LES that they provide one, esp. one which is so unobstrusive.

[Hueyman]

Anyway, that feature looks very helpful ! And it's done in a professional way, not like it was quickly added in a hurry prior to release, I feel it has been designed to follow that plane's guideline : quality

Hats off

 

Hey, Mario, this is exactly what I said, I am thankful to them. Just said that here in France, we have many VORs, that is all ;-)

[dwayne299]

This is a great feature! Thanks!

[LA]

An excellent idea.  Whenever I see a vintage WWII airplane, or a 50's commercial airliner at a airshow or flyin somehwere..........there will always be a portable GPS sitting in the cockpit. And why not? The aviation world has changed. There are a lot more restricted airspaces to worry about, and you don't have to carry a third person as a navigator along. The GPS does everything with much more precision, that a navigator could ever of hoped for, in the 50's and 60's. The 70's through the mid 90's as well.

 

It's true, that navigating the VOR/NDB method................is something more to do, when flight simming. It's a purpose. However, where I fly, it's more like Alaska, with clouds often covering the mountain tops. Since VOR is line of sight, it's GPS that brought the Alaskan accident rate, down by almost half. It was the same way for me. I didn't particularly like having to fly low altitude VOR flight plans in real life......because it wasn't exactly where I wanted to go. I often couldn't triangulate a fix, because it meant flying higher to capture the signal.

 

GPS with moving map, changed all of that. I picked up my first Garmin in 1993, and have went through a bunch of moving map models with terrain data bases, since that time. I call myself a GPS advocate. I believe in them. At the same time, I just tend to use simple ones for flight simulation. Just more as a position check.

[Benedikt S.]

I don't know about France,but at least in Germany it is a big problem. Many many VORs have been removed in the last decade. We still have VORs at the airports as approach guides, but the routes you get from ATC usually rely on "virtual" waypoints which are just GPS positions and not related to an actual physical VOR or NDB anymore.

 

So without GPS, you can't fly according official rules.

 

Furthermore, I've read about a law that in Germany you are not allowed to fly over 10.000 ft with aircraft that has no GPS equipment.

 

 

Fly in to your Neightborhood Switzerland, we will welcome with you with VOR'S!

 

Nice Feature! My Paypal is ready, my Computer is not

[Mario Donick]

Fly in to your Neightborhood Switzerland, we will welcome with you with VOR'S!

 

Nice Feature! My Paypal is ready, my Computer is not

 

Switzerland is my favorite flying area in Europe

[ss8913]

why not just simulate an aftermarket GPS unit installed into the panel/etc?  Could just use the default X-Plane GPS and put it in a box mounted.. somewhere?  Or even a pop-up 2D panel with the X-Plane GPS (like the one in the Baron).. that way you could do real GPS procedures/approaches with it like you could with a real Saab 340A that has an aftermarket GPS receiver installed, as I'm sure many do.

 

The Boeing 727 never had a factory GPS or FMS either, but I know a real-world 727 cargo pilot who said that when his cargo airline was still flying the 727, they had aftermarket GPS units in them, and the few planes that they got from American Airlines actually were fitted with aftermarket FMS... fairly common in aviation to upgrade avionics in older planes, I've seen DC-3s with GPS, and the 1972 Piper Arrow I used to fly certainly didn't come with that Garmin 430 moving map

 

My concern is that the pop-up window is kind of a ... realism-buster, when done this way.  I know you're trying to get the plane out more quickly, so i kind of see why you did this, but I'm hoping that version 2.0 will have a more realistically modeled aftermarket GPS, as I'm sure any real Saab 340As operating in the Eurozone have.  For now I will just elect not to use this feature, as I fly mostly in the US, Canada, and Mexico (and sometimes Australia) where this does not appear to be a problem.

[Cameron]

why not just simulate an aftermarket GPS unit installed into the panel/etc?  Could just use the default X-Plane GPS and put it in a box mounted.. somewhere?

 

To put it bluntly: Because it looks and operates like crap. 

 

 

My concern is that the pop-up window is kind of a ... realism-buster, when done this way.

 

Our concern was how unrealistic the default GPS that everyone complains about consistently is. Furthermore, X-Plane's already "crappy" Garmin is only a 430. That in itself is not realistic or true to the Saab.

 

 

I know you're trying to get the plane out more quickly, so i kind of see why you did this

 

I don't think you do really see why, because quite frankly, this took longer to do than putting in a default GPS. Imagine all the math and calculations that go into the code just to make that deviation bar work! The default GPS is not only restrictive in functionality, but also in resolution. It cannot be improved graphically, which is a REAL turn off. Too often we get requests for versions of our products WITHOUT that GPS because of how bad it is. So, we decided to provide a more simple appearing, yet elegant solution. That GPS would have looked VERY out of place in this cockpit considering the resolution issues.

[Mario Donick]

For me, the current solution is sufficient.

 

 

But I have a technical question:

 

If the default GPS was in fact easier to implement than your own solution, but you decided against it due to its graphics and its poor functionality ...

 

-- and I really agree with that! The default GPS/FMC spoils every high quality 3D cockpit. The default GNS430 is the only thing that does look totally out of place in graphically superb planes like the Jetstream or some Carenado products --

 

... doesn't this mean that the "internal" side of X-Plane's navigation tools (the stuff that is behind both the default GPS and the default FMC) can interact with the Saab, i.e. get its current position, speed and height?

 

 

I'm asking because I'm still thinking of trying external tools, esp. the free, excellent and nearly feature-complete KLN90B. This old-style GPS would be a realistic choice for real 340As. It has a popup window which is resizable and readable very good. And it runs in 64-bit mode, unlike the apparently dead RealityXP tools.

 

Even if it can't control the autopilot of the simulated Saab, it could be useful for storing a flight plan and showing the headings. One would then simply use the HDG mode of the Saab's autopilot to follow that GPS.

 

For this, it just needs to get the current position, height and speed of the airplane, and be able to run in parallel to the Saab's plugins and/or Gizmo without disturbing the Saab. I guess such undesired interferences could be the biggest problem here.

 

 

However, all that stuff is really not so important, because RNAV flying is now possible. This is an oldschool plane, and it was never meant to fly in today's computerized digital airspace, and that it is now able to do so, is more than we could expect from an A model. So I'm totally happy about the solution with the dialog box, and looking forward to fly this beautiful bird hopefully soon.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Mario Donick

[Cameron]

... doesn't this mean that the "internal" side of X-Plane's navigation tools (the stuff that is behind both the default GPS and the default FMC) can interact with the Saab, i.e. get its current position, speed and height?

Getting position of aircraft is not aircraft dependent and would always be accessible in sim via global datarefs. As such, any add-on like the KLN would be able to display position fine. I have NO clue if it will work with the autopilot properly given that the Saab is so customized and I have just simply not had the desire to test things like that. I would GUESS that the KLN's OWN autopilot would probably work, as from what I vaguely understand, it just piggybacks on X-Plane's own autopilot system. Whether those modes properly reflect on the MCP and displays in the Saab (likely not) is a whole other story.

I'm not sure I would consider the Saab flying very much fun without proper info displaying on the EADI. Given that, the KLN would take away a lot in my opinion.

[LA]

I'm asking because I'm still thinking of trying external tools, esp. the free, excellent and nearly feature-complete KLN90B. This old-style GPS would be a realistic choice for real 340As. It has a popup window which is resizable and readable very good. And it runs in 64-bit mode, unlike the apparently dead RealityXP tools.

 

My thoughts, due to real world. I wouldn't use a KLN90B ever, ever, ever......

 

Old style is the word, and that's what you get out of it, practically nothing. I also consider the Garmin 430's as old. The computing power and resolution is far below today's products. My Garmin 296 portable could out perform the 430 in speed & screen display, and that was four generations of GPSs ago, for me. I just simply would have no interest in learning the operation of these old tools, just for the sake of using them in an older aircraft. Either assume someone has spent a lot of money, and updated the panel, or carry an easily accessible portable in the flight bag.............and use the plane's nav systems for actual approaches.

[Litjan]

Furthermore, I've read about a law that in Germany you are not allowed to fly over 10.000 ft with aircraft that has no GPS equipment.

 

I don´t know where you read that, but if it´s true then I am breaking the law almost daily!

[horani]

I don´t know where you read that, but if it´s true then I am breaking the law almost daily!

 

BRNAV (RNP5) certified instruments are required for any EATSRN enroute IFR in CAS (previously above FL95). So that yes, you would need INS or GPS (certified mounted, not a handheld one).

[ss8913]

 

To put it bluntly: Because it looks and operates like crap. 

 

 

 

Our concern was how unrealistic the default GPS that everyone complains about consistently is. Furthermore, X-Plane's already "crappy" Garmin is only a 430. That in itself is not realistic or true to the Saab.

 

 

 

I don't think you do really see why, because quite frankly, this took longer to do than putting in a default GPS. Imagine all the math and calculations that go into the code just to make that deviation bar work! The default GPS is not only restrictive in functionality, but also in resolution. It cannot be improved graphically, which is a REAL turn off. Too often we get requests for versions of our products WITHOUT that GPS because of how bad it is. So, we decided to provide a more simple appearing, yet elegant solution. That GPS would have looked VERY out of place in this cockpit considering the resolution issues.

 

granted, it looks and operates like crap; I was more wanting the KLN90B for this, not the fake-430, but I see your point (the X-Plane "430" doesn't do half the things that a real 430 does, I've used one fairly extensively real-world).  If you just want something that can take you direct to an IFR fix, the KLN90B would be acceptable.

 

My concern with this new feature is that it only handles fixes (a real GPS would have the VOR stations and NDB stations in its database also), making it kind of an.. oddity.  I know of no real world instrument that *only* handles fixes that aren't VOR/NDB stations and ignores ones that are...?  I could be wrong on that, but I've never seen such a device.

 

Oh well, here's hoping the next version of X-plane (11) has some better default gauges that everyone can leverage for cases like this, which look and perform closer to reality

[Cameron]

My concern with this new feature is that it only handles fixes (a real GPS would have the VOR stations and NDB stations in its database also), making it kind of an.. oddity.  I know of no real world instrument that *only* handles fixes that aren't VOR/NDB stations and ignores ones that are...?  I could be wrong on that, but I've never seen such a device.

You're missing the entire point. The aircraft has systems to handle VOR and NDB stations, which interact HEAVILY with the EADI. We don't need a second method for this. We purposefully did not want a GPS that handled such frequencies given the integration of this already present in the properly simulated product. FIXs were the problem, so they were implemented in a non-obtrusive fashion for you to follow things like a SID or STAR.

You're grasping at straws here. This is an added feature for those who want it and need it. We were purposefully NOT looking to add full GPS functionality, as it takes away from the product and its design as implemented.

The KLN was never present in these aircraft. If you want that, you can surely go download that.

 

I was more wanting the KLN90B for this, not the fake-430

 

What you said, was (I quote you): "Could just use the default X-Plane GPS and put it in a box mounted.. somewhere?"

[ss8913]

wait, I thought the KLN was one of two default GPSes that X-Plane 10 has?  I'm pretty sure the default baron or king air has a KLN in it doesn't it?  There's *some* non-moving-map default GPS, anyway, which is not the fake-430 nor the fake-FMS..

 

anyway, yeah, I'll stop complaining about it and will just treat this plane like the JS32 and assume it has no RNAV capability, which isn't really a problem in north america as you mentioned.