Garmin G1000 Simulation

[clolson]

Hi Pete,

I was directed here by a coworker, so I'm not sure if I'm in the right place or not, but let me start here and maybe you can help, or at least point me in the right direction.

First, let me describe what I want to do: I would like to find some reasonably cost effect (yet reasonably complete) Garmin G1000 simulation and interface it to FlightGear based flight training device.

I'm a FlightGear guy and have not run MSFS since the mid-90's so I don't know much about what is offered and available in the world of Microsoft these days. I was led to believe that MSFS includes some sort of G1000 simulation, or at least it is available as an inexpensive plugin? It also appears that project magenta has something look looks G1000-ish.

I'm trying to get my head wrapped around how the basic structure might work. Can I buy a copy of MSFS, get the G1000 simulation plugin or whatever I need to do there, and then set this up so the G1000 consumes the entire display? Then I would like to slave this to the existing FlightGear based simulator. FlightGear is handling the flight dynamics, the out-the-window display, the other instrument graphics, etc. That's already setup and running, I just need to find a G1000 to graft into to the system. Could I then buy and install a copy of FSUIPC and would that allow me to configure my copy of MSFS so it is driven by some external source? From the FlightGear side I can setup any custom UDP packet I want, so I assume there'd need to be some agreement between what I send FSUIPC from FlightGear. And I believe I would need to extract some data back out of the G1000 simulation to hand back to the FlightGear based simulator. (Apologies if my terminology and understanding of the MSFS world is a bit off!) :-)

Is this sort of thing doable? Is there a better way to approach the task? Can you or anyone else offer me some advice to get me pointed in the right direction?

Thanks in advance,

Curt.

[Pete Dowson]

I was led to believe that MSFS includes some sort of G1000 simulation, or at least it is available as an inexpensive plugin? It also appears that project magenta has something look looks G1000-ish.

FSX has, probably only in the DeLuxe version (not sure) a G1000 Gauge. I don't think it is an exact replica with all of the functions.

There's an add-on from Mindstar which does a much more professional job. See http://www.mindstarprods.com/aviation/index.html

Project Magenta certainly have a GA glass cockpit, which looks rather like a G1000 but doesn't explicitly mention what it is based on.

I don't know offhand of any others, though I know PFC (http://www.flypfc.com) have been working on interfacing a real G1000 to FS and X-plane.

Can I buy a copy of MSFS, get the G1000 simulation plugin or whatever I need to do there, and then set this up so the G1000 consumes the entire display?

There's never any problems with any FS gauges or external add-ons in sizing them to fill a screen. The Project Magenta one will be a separate free-standing program interfacing to FS via FSUIPC or WideFS, so if you are thinking of programming the interface to your Sim that might be an easier option.

Could I then buy and install a copy of FSUIPC and would that allow me to configure my copy of MSFS so it is driven by some external source? From the FlightGear side I can setup any custom UDP packet I want, so I assume there'd need to be some agreement between what I send FSUIPC from FlightGear. And I believe I would need to extract some data back out of the G1000 simulation to hand back to the FlightGear based simulator.

FSUIPC won't handle UDP or TCP connections itself. WideFS is the Networked extension for FSUIPC. You'd install FSUIPC in FS, enable a WideFS link to your Sim's PC and write the interface to FSUIPC/WideFs to run there, talking to WideClient no networking needed in your program.

All the information you need to interface to FSUIPC is provided in the FSUIPC SDK. However, the access to FSX's own G1000 gauge is not great -- it's an area where Microsoft didn't expose very much. There may be more options with the MindStar one -- you'd need to ask them. But in the end the one with the most likely interface options would be the Project Magenta one, whether it ran with FS + FSUIPC, or your own software emulating FS + FSUIPC.

That's about all I can help you with at present. (I am not into these new-fangled systems -- 737NG is my most modern avionics interest. ;) ).

Regards

Pete

[clolson]

Hi Pete,

Thanks for your blazingly quick reply!

I hate to sound so stupid about MSFS and FSUIPC and WideFS, but let me just try to clarify what these do.

FSUIPC must be a plugin that provides local IPC type communication between MSFS and some external program (running on the same machine.) Is that correct?

Then WideFS must be an external program that talks to FSUIPC and includes a network interface so that it can send and receive data with other networked machines. Correct?

Are there limits to the data fields you can interchange between networked machines? Is there a limit to the direction you can send data (i.e. can you do two-way communication between a machine running MSFS + FSUIPC + WideFS and some remote application on some other networked PC?)

With the end of the line of MSFS, I definitely need to have a conversation with the project magenta guys about developing an interface between their displays and FlightGear. FlightGear is open-source so we can build an interface directly into the code if we wish. We don't have to depend on things like plugins and reverse engineering, and FlightGear has built in support for network communication, so theoretically, the task of interfacing external software to FlightGear should be easier than with MSFS (except that the task is already done for MSFS.)

Best regards,

Curt.

[Pete Dowson]

FSUIPC must be a plugin that provides local IPC type communication between MSFS and some external program (running on the same machine.) Is that correct?

Correct.

Then WideFS must be an external program that talks to FSUIPC and includes a network interface so that it can send and receive data with other networked machines. Correct?

Almost exactly correct. WideFS has two components, WideServer which works alongside FSUIPC (or is actually built into FSUIPC in the FSX version), and WideClient which runs on one or more Networked PCs. The Server services the clients, of course, and the Clients imitate the FSUIPC interface so that programs written to talk to FS via FSUIPC can do so across the Network.

Are there limits to the data fields you can interchange between networked machines? Is there a limit to the direction you can send data (i.e. can you do two-way communication between a machine running MSFS + FSUIPC + WideFS and some remote application on some other networked PC?)

Not limits as such, but the data being exchanged relates to what FS can provide or accept -- except that FSUIPC also acts as a clearing house for data exchanged between Networked components of some applications, like Project Magenta whose airliner cockpit implementations can involve many PCs performing different functions in a complete cockpit.

With the end of the line of MSFS

End of the line? Has FS been withdrawn? Strange. Last I noticed FS2004 was still in furious use on a vast number of enthusiasts' systems, and it is six years old this Autumn, and on top of that FSX is still growing in popularity. All that's happened at present is that we have a longer than usual period of stability between versions (longer than the usual 2 or 3 years), allowing more and more sophistication with add-ons, and perhaps also allowing the hardware to catch up with FSX! Now wouldn't that be something? ;-)

Regards

Pete

[clolson]

End of the line? Has FS been withdrawn? Strange. Last I noticed FS2004 was still in furious use on a vast number of enthusiasts' systems, and it is six years old this Autumn, and on top of that FSX is still growing in popularity. All that's happened at present is that we have a longer than usual period of stability between versions (longer than the usual 2 or 3 years), allowing more and more sophistication with add-ons, and perhaps also allowing the hardware to catch up with FSX! Now wouldn't that be something? ;-)

Ooops, I think I inadvertently stepped on a political land mine there with some carelessly chosen wording. Sorry about that! :-) You are absolutely right of course. I still find it pretty hard to believe that MS wouldn't sell off their flight sim operation or spin it off some how. But the longer they wait without doing that, the harder it will be to get development back up to full speed with all the original developers scattered to the winds.

Thanks for your explanations; hopefully I have a better understanding now of how the FSUIPC and WideFS pieces fit together.

Best regards,

Curt.

[trisager]

Ooops, I think I inadvertently stepped on a political land mine there with some carelessly chosen wording. Sorry about that! :-)

There are plenty of those in flightsimming, as you will discover :D

The G1000 in the default planes in FSX is rubbish. There is a much better one in the Flight1 Mustang (http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=f1mustang) - it does not include all features of the real-world unit, but what is implemented seems pretty solid to my untrained eyes (my real-world flying experience is as a passenger only).

I have no idea if you can use it in the way you describe, but the product support forum is visited by the developers on a daily basis - you can find it here: http://mustang.flight1.net/forums/

Good luck,

Tom

[Pete Dowson]

I still find it pretty hard to believe that MS wouldn't sell off their flight sim operation or spin it off some how.

Don't you think there's a good reason for that? ;-)

Pete

[clolson]

I still find it pretty hard to believe that MS wouldn't sell off their flight sim operation or spin it off some how.

Don't you think there's a good reason for that? ;-)

Pete

Hey, I'm a university guy and not so wise in the ways of business (and haven't paid much attention to Microsoft lately)! I'd love a hint. :-)

[Pete Dowson]

Hey, I'm a university guy and not so wise in the ways of business (and haven't paid much attention to Microsoft lately)! I'd love a hint. :-)

Well if they explicitly say they will not sell the franchise or release the intellectual rights (which they have indeed said), I would certainly say it is because they have a need for it --they must have plans! It shouldn't take a business expert to work it out. ;-)

Pete

[clolson]

Well if they explicitly say they will not sell the franchise or release the intellectual rights (which they have indeed said), I would certainly say it is because they have a need for it --they must have plans! It shouldn't take a business expert to work it out. ;-)

Well hopefully they don't keep us in suspense for too long, other wise our imaginations have a tendency to fill in the blanks:-)

Curt.