Instructor station

[capt_pero]

The competition is at 1500 euro; my feeling is there should be a charge even for the 'basic' FMGS software as an incentive for Jean Luc to further develop his software, and perhaps even on a ?full time basis.

I talked to a lot of Homecockpit Builders and they started the project because of this high quality FMGS Software and assuption that it stays freeware. Therefore I am happy that Jean Luc is willing to continue this way. As a developer I could fully understand if there is a need to charge for it.

The price of an operation station depends on the features. As I am not running a Homecockpit to train 3rd parties I would just use it once in a while which would pay less then a tool I am using in every day operation.

Whould it make sense to create an payware EFB for "Home Use" which contains tabs like

- Performance calculation
- moving map
- possibility to read pdf from dropbox
- integration of websites (for Navigraph Charts, IVAO, VATSIM and stuff)
- failure handling of common issues (like you mentioned)
- Approach trainer tab: would contain easy approach training features like 5, 10 nm final, e.g.

A combination from EFB and Instructor station which differentiates from the existing payware instructor station.

[OmniAtlas]

I talked to a lot of Homecockpit Builders and they started the project because of this high quality FMGS Software and assuption that it stays freeware. Therefore I am happy that Jean Luc is willing to continue this way. As a developer I could fully understand if there is a need to charge for it.

The price of an operation station depends on the features. As I am not running a Homecockpit to train 3rd parties I would just use it once in a while which would pay less then a tool I am using in every day operation.

My issue Captain Pero is that cockpit builders are willing to spend thousands of dollars on their hardware but they don't want to spend that amount of money on the software.

The software is the 'engine' of the simulation - without accurate system modelling the flight simulator and all your hardware might as well be garbage.

Its like putting a Hummer engine in a Tesla...kind of defeats the purpose

[Fritz]

My issue Captain Pero is that cockpit builders are willing to spend thousands of dollars on their hardware but they don't want to spend that amount of money on the software.

The software is the 'engine' of the simulation - without accurate system modelling the flight simulator and all your hardware might as well be garbage.

Its like putting a Hummer engine in a Tesla...kind of defeats the purpose

Your statement is not entirely correct. I use JeeHell FMGS and have followed his thread for many years. Until today JeeHell did not want to have any money from non-commercial users. I'm glad that JeeHell enjoys this hobby and let us participate without having to pay for it. We can invest this saved money for the software in hardware and thus enjoy the hobby even more.

If you have not been born rich then you have to work hard for your money. If you have a family then you have to share it in addition. I worked additionally and saved money to be able to afford those expensive hardware. However, I would understand if JeeHell one day expects an amount for his work, since he has put a lot of effort into his software. Not to mention the support he has been providing for many years. I am impressed and very grateful for his work.

[FwFreak]

Hi JL!

I also would be willing to pay for more functionality. But I would prefer a Payware Version of the FMGS itself instead of a Payware Instructor Station to get access to some additional features. I think some of us are using different Instructor Station like from Luis Gordo, FS-FlightControl or the WideFS solution by Martin.
I'm also working on a combined solution for Time & Weather control, Ground Operations, Fuel & Payload setup, failures and an easy (touch) access to third party sim menus (Pro-ATC, GSX, SODE, etc).

So I think for that/us (hobby) devs it would be great to get a direct access to the features (with an API/SDK or through FSUIPC), of course only when using the payed version of your FMGS.


PS: with reading this topic I remembered, that I haven't answered your responce to my request two month ago. Sorry for that, I can understand your point of view.


Best regards

Karsten

[tcane]

Hi Jean-Luc,
Have you already made a decision?

Regards
Florian

[Beaufort]

As I fly my Sim nearly only online in VATSIM, there is no priority for me to have an Instructor Station, as I normally won‘t produce failures while flying online. One can do it there from time to time, but the online network is installed to produce a normal environment close to reality. And I extremely rarely have a guest in my Sim, I run and fly it alone, so I only could use an automatic failure generator from time to time.
But I surely world buy it in a range of about 200 €, even to only honor JL‘s work for us as non commercial users.
An interesting feature for me would be load and fuel. For flight planning, there are existing good tools. I use PFPX for planning and TopCat for performance calculation, the advantage is, that PFPX calculates with the defined load and transfers it to TopCat, which can transfer fuel and load to the sim via FSUIPC. For a long time I had to add weight to the „trimming tanks“ of A320 FMGS manually thereafter, what was not very comfortable. Since some months TopCat does not switch these tanks to „0“ any more, I don‘t know why, but it seems to solve the problem. But as I am not sure, if that works really correct, it would be an advantage, if fuel and load, with which the planning tools calculate (in my case PFPX and TopCat), could be transferred to an Instructor Station, which correctly configures A320 FMGS.
Sure the most comfortable solution would be planning like in PFPX (with real weather and CFMU-Validation) and performance calculation like in TopCat and loading all-in-one in an Instructor Station. But I think, that is not what JL wants to do (and to be honest: it is not necessary to do that) and sure one could not expect something like that together with an Instructor Station for only 200 €.
Weather is not a point of interest for me as I only fly (online) with real weather from Active Sky.

[Mitch95]

Hello,
About TopCat calculation, you can look at this :
http://www.mycockpit.org/forums/show...t=32110&page=3
Post Nr 25.
I've not been using my sim since April 2018 because of other reasons...
But before April, I used this flight model produced by Totom in TopCat software, and all was working fine about fuel calculations...
Hope this will help...
Regards,
Michel

[jeehell]

Hi Jean-Luc,
Have you already made a decision?

Regards
Florian

Not yet.
I still have a lot to ponder (what features to put in, distribution, etc...). If something is to be released, it might not be before 2019.