GRT HX first impressions

After a couple years on the WS screen, I put the HX screen in a couple day ago and began a x-country. I guess I have about 5 hours on it now and I thought Id give a few notes.
1. The moving map is the same as the old one. Terrible. There is no airspace information to grab so you definately need another moving map in the cockpit to get around. Rats.
2. The backup/restore worked great. Thank goodness. No futzing with getting all those settings from one place to another.
3. The synthetic vision looks cool, but I think only marginally useful. I would personally not be using it to save my life or anything. I already have terrain and a much better moving map in the MX-20, but it does look cool. I have not seen any terrain in a thousand miles the last few days so I dunno . Just been flat from Atlanta to NM.
4. the new CPU speed and refresh rates are much better. Zooming out and in, while still with delays, is faster that the WS unit.
5. I have not seen any weather yet so no comment till I do. Been sunny and clear.
6. There are some additional settings in the setups and are user friendly.
7. Boot time is much much longer. This only matters if you care about long boots, which I do. I was flying an air show as -6 Saturday and the rest of the guys were checking in and moving while I was still waiting for the HX to come up. You dont want to be last and holding planes up when its time to go. Also if you have a mid air reboot, be patient.
7. They have added a few nice features to the PFD screen. The way it handles vert speed, tapes and layout is better with the increased real estate and higher res this was easy for them to do..

In the end, is it worth it? Naa. Im afraid not for me. The moving map is still a weakness that makes it weak at its price point. The higher res screen is table stakes in this game and was too long in coming. I think that for now, the WS is still the best value.

End of report

I agree that it is really hard to evaluate the Synthetic Vision stuff here in the flatlands of the country Mike. It was neat to see it out near El Paso a few weeks ago, and I was able to fly pretty close to some rolling stuff that (due totally to operator error) I wasn't able to record. Dumb fingers.....

We're hopefully headed out to Big Bear Lake in California later this week, and that sits in a high mountain valley with ridges on each side - I am looking froward to seeing how it looks!

AS far as the map goes - you're right in that what is there is still quite inferior to anything from the big "G" (or others). You're gonna have to see the 696 if you want a great map. What I am hoping is that with the new processor and higher resolution, the GRT software will expand to match it's hardware capability - it will probably take some time, when you consider the size of the programming staff, but the potential is there. I won't pretend that I really use the GRT map capability for much (given the other tools that I have), so what I am sticking with is the HX on top (for the PFD and Synthetic Vision), the HS on the bottom (high rez, HSI, and lots of performance stuff to play with), and the 430 and 696 for IFR and weather.

And I look forward to the future!

Paul

I've been impressed with our GRT HX unit ... but we didn't have a GRT unit before the HX to compare.
I do agree on the slow boot is an annoyance, our Dynon D10A boots in 3 to 5 seconds ... the HX unit needs about 3 1/2 mins between the cold boot and the ARHS alignment, before you are good to go.
I'm going to write a review, but I feel I don't have enough flight time on the HX unit to give an informed option yet. There are so many options on the HX unit and modes that I haven?t figured out yet or flight tested
As for the synthetic vision ? we have two towers near our airport ? both show up on the synthetic vision with alerts if you are two low, one tower is only 300 feet below the glide to 36. It?s nice to see it on the EFIS, I?m sure it?s even better in bad weather.
We are still waiting for the next software update to get the new USB XM weather unit talking with the HX ? so no comment on the weather yet.
Overall we are VERY PLEASED with the GRT HX ? it was worth the wait

Boot Time?

I'm not experiencing the same boot time delays that you guys are reporting - yes, it is no where near as fast as the Dynons in Louise's -6, but I see the HX booted well before the 2 minute clock for the AHRS has expired. I wired up an Aux battery to one of the power feeds, and flip that on as I get in to the cockpit - that starts the boot process. I then put on my harness and headset, and it is booted before I turn on main bus power and start the engine. Since it is on one of the dioded feeds, it doesn't have a problem with the sag on engine start, and I am ready to taxi as soon as the engine stabilizes. I had a software upgrade to my 430 a few months back, and it takes longer to be ready to navigate than anything now - I don't turn it on until after engine start, since it doesn't have the same power protection, and it is the limiting factor for when I am ready to roll now.

Oh...if the voltage DOES sag during boot-up of the GRT's, they can get into a boot/reboot cycle, as part of the boot process drives it to full "bright", and that sags the voltage just enough to cause another reboot....only happens when my Aux battery is week.

Just my experience of course.

Ironflight said:

I'm not experiencing the same boot time delays that you guys are reporting - yes, it is no where near as fast as the Dynons in Louise's -6, but I see the HX booted well before the 2 minute clock for the AHRS has expired. I wired up an Aux battery to one of the power feeds, and flip that on as I get in to the cockpit - that starts the boot process. I then put on my harness and headset, and it is booted before I turn on main bus power and start the engine. Since it is on one of the dioded feeds, it doesn't have a problem with the sag on engine start, and I am ready to taxi as soon as the engine stabilizes. I had a software upgrade to my 430 a few months back, and it takes longer to be ready to navigate than anything now - I don't turn it on until after engine start, since it doesn't have the same power protection, and it is the limiting factor for when I am ready to roll now.

Oh...if the voltage DOES sag during boot-up of the GRT's, they can get into a boot/reboot cycle, as part of the boot process drives it to full "bright", and that sags the voltage just enough to cause another reboot....only happens when my Aux battery is week.

Just my experience of course.

Click to expand...

My read of the manual ... and only my read ... said i must wait to move until the AHRS has completed it's count down. Am i wrong?

Since we added the internal battery to the Dynon, we didn't think about power backup/Aux battery for the GRT HX. Paul, what size battery are u using for an aux?


Our new 430W takes about a 1 1/2 mins to get booted up and ready to go.

PS: I understand why the HX takes longer, there are ALOT more features then the Dynon.

n468ac said:

My read of the manual ... and only my read ... said i must wait to move until the AHRS has completed it's count down. Am i wrong?

Since we added the internal battery to the Dynon, we didn't think about power backup/Aux battery for the GRT HX. Paul, what size battery are u using for an aux?

Click to expand...

I seem to recall reading a note from the GRT guys (probably on the Yahoo group) that the "no motion" part of the AHRS align actually only takes about 10 seconds, but if you're going on a flight where the platform is critical, I'd give it all the time it needs! (I have moved pretty quick after start-up, just to see what happens, during the countdown, and haven't seen a problem - anecdotal!). The thing is, if you power it up when you get in, then do your cockpit readiness, I bet it is done by the time you're ready to roll....

I use a 5 Ah battery for an Aux - trickle charge it from the main battery, isolated by a diode and resistor. Works fine, and gives me a nice extra backup if both alternators fail.

Paul

My observations on the GRT Horizon I

I recall taxiing before the GRT Horizon I High Resolutions were done their countdown and taking off and seeing a significant misalignment in pitch. Now I just wait for the timer to expire before rolling.

I very occasionally get a hang during the boot sequence on one of my units. Recycling the power seems to fix it. Slightly annoying as opposed to concerning.

I have tried in flight restarts (on a nice VFR day). If the plane is relatively straight and level the AHARS seems to sort itself out quite nicely. In a climbing or descending turn not so much (which is about what I would expect).

Here is one nitpick: If I fly at night, I generally turn the screen brightness all the way down to 1. The next day, when I ready to fly again, the screens are so dim I can't see them. I then have to fiddle with the knobs to get the brightness back up. I honestly don't know how to do it, I just push and turn one of the two bigger knobs until it comes up.

Overall very happy with GRT.

n468ac said:

...the HX unit needs about 3 1/2 mins between the cold boot and the ARHS alignment, before you are good to go.

Click to expand...

Hi Kahuna & Allen,

The HX takes 48-50 seconds to boot.

As for the AHRS you only need to stay still during the first 10 seconds or until you have air data; airspeed and altimeter. The AHRS alignment can take up to 2-3 minutes but will be ready (show attitude), in almost all instances, before you take the runway.

I hope this helps and glad you like the HX.

Best regards,

Carlos Fernandez
GRT Avionics

CarlosF@grtavionics said:

Hi Kahuna & Allen,

The HX takes 48-50 seconds to boot.

As for the AHRS you only need to stay still during the first 10 seconds or until you have air data; airspeed and altimeter. The AHRS alignment can take up to 2-3 minutes but will be ready (show attitude), in almost all instances, before you take the runway.

I hope this helps and glad you like the HX.

Best regards,

Carlos Fernandez
GRT Avionics

Click to expand...

THANKS!

We weren't sure if we had to wait or not ... so we waited until the AHRS count down completed.

thanks for the clarification.

Kahuna said:

After a couple years on the WS screen, I put the HX screen in a couple day ago and began a x-country.

In the end, is it worth it? Naa. Im afraid not for me. The moving map is still a weakness that makes it weak at its price point. The higher res screen is table stakes in this game and was too long in coming. I think that for now, the WS is still the best value.

Click to expand...

Kahuna, very interesting report. I'm imagining from what you say that the GRT Map data base has no airspace information.....and presumably the GRT cannot import that info from an external GPS (eg Garmin 430).

If that is the case then to buy such an expensive dual DU EFIS (and the new GRT dual display 8.4" HX unit is big $$$$$$) and get no airspace is totally unacceptable. It is ridiculous to fork out such big money and then have to go and buy another expensive piece of glass to get decent map functions (not to mention the extra panel space and installation time required).

Presumably from all the excitement coming from dual display GRT owners directed at the new Garmin 696 the map function on the GRT unit must be way off the mark. And as you say that's VERY disappointing "at its price point".

It does airspace....

Bob, you raise good points - just to be clear, the GRT does display airspace stuff,it's just nowhere near as complete as what you get on a 696 - airways, etc are really, really nice. The good thing about GRT is that they are always improving their software, the updates are free, and they now have hardware that can support a LOT of new software. The PFD with Synthetic Vision is really pretty high end now, and clearly has been their focus to this point. The map has always been the weak point.

Yes, it is buying on faith that the product will get better - but their track record with the original WS was remarkably good (comparing the initial software to where it is now). But I'm not getting a second HX at this time - the HS gives me everything I need on the second screen, and the 696 gives me probably the best moving map out there.

No one does everything perfectly....

Paul

Ironflight said:

just to be clear, the GRT does display airspace stuff,it's just nowhere near as complete as what you get on a 696 - airways, etc are really, really nice.

Paul

Click to expand...

Thanks for that info Paul. I was getting very disturbed thinking that a map function would not provide airspace. The problem of course is that the GRT website provides so little information about actual system features. I suspect most purchasers buy (relatively) blind and just hope the unit has all the necessary toys and trinkets for their type of flight when they get the box.

I looked through GRTs website trying to find whether their map function provides airspace but I couldn't find any reference. If the information's there it's well hidden.

I live in Australia so there is no XM weather. Under the circumstances is it even worthwhile getting a second GRT DU when presumably PFD and engine data can be adequately displayed on the one primary 8.4" screen.

Maybe it makes more sense to get one GRT HX 8.4" display (or AFS 8.4" Flight Deck) and a Garmin 696 for the map. What do you think. Is the second display just a whole lot of unnecessary money for a map function that is better performed by the 696.

Considering you have used the 696 your opinion would be most appreciated.

Hmmm...intersting and somewhat unique situation that you have Bob. I am not really sure what the mapping capability is for GRT in Australia - or of the Garmin for that matter. If I were in your position, I think I'd send a note to GRT directly asking about what mapping and airspace data they show for your country.

As for a dual or single screen GRT - I could be wrong, but I believe that the large screen is going to show the exact same data/displays as the regular HS/HX screen - just a little bigger. If that is the case, then yes, you can have the PFD and a strip of engine data across the bottom - such normal engine stuff as RPM, MAP, oil and fuel pressures, oil temps, CHT's, and EGT's. That's more than adequate, But....(there is always a but), there are so many other things that the full page "systems" display can give you - performance stuff like MPG, fuel and time to go, fuel at destination, instantaneous range. Once you have seen all of this stuff, you might very well want to see it all the time - I know that I do. If you only have a single screen, you're going to be changing away from your PFD a LOT. However, you sure don't need an HX to look at this stuff - the HS is more than adequate. Yup, it's another couple of grand for the extra screen, and if you don't want to spend it, you can get by without it - but with it, you'll have a much more integrated flight management capability.

I reiterate my belief that the 696 is the best map out there right now. If it were me, and I could afford the 8.4" HX, I would instead spend the money on the standard size HX and a second DU - I just don't see any advantage to the bigger screen withe the panels as close to our faces as they are in the RV's. Two screens = more data at one time without changing pages. Everyone, of course, needs to make a choice based on their own priorities.

Paul

Second GRT display not necessary

Captain Avgas said:

Thanks for that info Paul. I was getting very disturbed thinking that a map function would not provide airspace. The problem of course is that the GRT website provides so little information about actual system features. I suspect most purchasers buy (relatively) blind and just hope the unit has all the necessary toys and trinkets for their type of flight when they get the box.

I looked through GRTs website trying to find whether their map function provides airspace but I couldn't find any reference. If the information's there it's well hidden.

I live in Australia so there is no XM weather. Under the circumstances is it even worthwhile getting a second GRT DU when presumably PFD and engine data can be adequately displayed on the one primary 8.4" screen.

Maybe it makes more sense to get one GRT HX 8.4" display (or AFS 8.4" Flight Deck) and a Garmin 696 for the map. What do you think. Is the second display just a whole lot of unnecessary money for a map function that is better performed by the 696.

Considering you have used the 696 your opinion would be most appreciated.

Click to expand...

Based on my experience, you are better off with a Garmin as a second display than a second GRT display just to provide map info. If you know for sure you can get good map files for you area from Garmin then it's an even easier answer. For roughly the same ballpark of entry money, the Garmin 696 provides you with a much more immediate feature rich Map/Nav solutions and it has better, dedicated interface ergonomics. When recently flying up the Hudson River, New York City, I had to rely on my Garmin over my GRT Horizon for detailed Naviation and my wingman relied on his Skymap over his GRT sport (he has two GRT displays). GRT's map page would not let me zoom in enough to see the level of detail I desired and I think it decluttered most of the Class B airspace I was a couple of hundred feet below and around because I was not IN and and FPV was often not heading towards the airspace. It was the busiest airspace I've been flying VFR around in a while and I wanted a very small scale to know when we could cut the northern corner off and turn east between airspaces that went to the Surface and the GRT map just didn't quite get down to the level of resolution required. It's never been a issue before but on this day I was very gratefull I could zoom in and out much more with the Garmin. As far as being able to see the engine data and performance data (miles per gallon is the big one most are probably interested in) and PFD data all at once, it's not a show stopper with a single display and especially with any of the non WS displays. When setting up for cruise, go to the dedicated engine page on the DU to lean if you want and do your thing then go back to the PFD page. It doesn't take long to lean. The small dedicated EIS let's you do that too w/o using a DU, by the way. It also has a dedicated lean page and has user configurable display options too. Even with the original WS, when on the PFD page, you can split screen and get the important engine/mission performance data at the same time. Even if you have the PFD up full screen, you are still going to get the RPM and MP numbers on the same page too so your scan is simplified by only having to look at one display no matter how many you have if you are, for example in the pattern and need to keep your head out. You'll still get popup warnings and cautions if you suddenly go out of any of your engine, fuel or electrical related alarm parameters. I get the impression some folks have this subliminal instinct that the airplane is going to go bezerk out of control because they only have one display and they move it off the PFD page for a few minutes. You have an autopilot or backup steam gauge style airspeed and altimeter? You'll be more than fine.

I've also talked to people who incorrectly though that the GRT Record function only records all the engine data for the whole flight only if you have a dedicated engine page up. Wrong. Regardless of how many displays you have and what page you are displaying, the Record function always records everything it records all the time.

I was going to get a second GRT display myself and saved the panel space for it when GRT finally came out with a better display (I am holding out for something Really Big) than the original WS but the 696 is a smarter decision, especially if just VFR flying, when panel real estate is small like in an RV8 or you are something other than an unlimited budget for 3 big displays (kids in college!). The newer GRT display models all allow you to have extra engine info across the bottom of the PFD display all the time while still getting the entire original amount of PFD information above the strip so split screen isn't even necessary in that typical cruising scenario or staying in the pattern scenario.

If you have unlimited budget and enough panel space, get GRTs 3 best displays! Superior backups and no compromises. The synthetic terrain display is slick as snot. But if not, I'd rather have the 696 than a second DU. By the way, even though I had saved lots of panel space for a larger DU, this new Garmin is so much larger that I'm still going to have to do relatively major panel surgery to fit it in. No way could I shoe horn in 2 DUs and the 696 and I don't want the 696 mounted anywhere else other than in front of me on the panel. It's size is more of a blessing than a curse but for planes like the 3, 4 or 8 and it'll cause a lot of second thoughts before committing to it...

Captain Avgas said:

Kahuna, very interesting report. I'm imagining from what you say that the GRT Map data base has no airspace information.....and presumably the GRT cannot import that info from an external GPS (eg Garmin 430).

If that is the case then to buy such an expensive dual DU EFIS (and the new GRT dual display 8.4" HX unit is big $$$$$$) and get no airspace is totally unacceptable. It is ridiculous to fork out such big money and then have to go and buy another expensive piece of glass to get decent map functions (not to mention the extra panel space and installation time required).

Presumably from all the excitement coming from dual display GRT owners directed at the new Garmin 696 the map function on the GRT unit must be way off the mark. And as you say that's VERY disappointing "at its price point".

Click to expand...

"No airspace" is probably the wrong term. "No Usable airspace" is what I would call it. I ask myself this question, can I launch with this moving map and get even minimally what i need to stay legal and safe? The answer is no.

For the pilot that flies his known airspace around the patch its fine. For the guy that wants to launch off across the country its not.

Like Paul, I am excited about what they will be able to do from here. It has great opportunity for usability improvements(Im making a list on this trip), and the faster processing power will allow them more development. But dont get too excited about the new power in the CPU. It is limited. In fact they are already limiting what can be displayed at one time to keep screen rate refreshes up. I forget exactly, but you could not display terrain and radar at the same time for example. I was also able to get her to come to a crawl on a 300nm zoom out and slew.

They also displayed to me at SnF08 the approach plate overlays. Dont know where that is in development, but THAT will be value add for sure.

Kahuna said:

"No airspace" is probably the wrong term. "No Usable airspace" is what I would call it. I ask myself this question, can I launch with this moving map and get even minimally what i need to stay legal and safe? The answer is no.

Click to expand...

Thank you Paul, Lucky and Kahuna for going to the trouble of providing such comprehensive responses.

Kahuna, can you explain why the GRT airspace is "unuseable".

Second thoughts......

Well I guess I am now having second thoughts. I fly the east coast and especially the hudson river corr all the time. Even the class B is "Busy" it's really no big deal. I have an 8.4" HX on order however I guess I am going to need to see one in operation before the purchase. Yep you are right - NOT enough info on the web site....Carlos - I wonder why? Now that the cats out of the bag....don't u think its time..??

Captain Avgas said:

Thank you Paul, Lucky and Kahuna for going to the trouble of providing such comprehensive responses.

Kahuna, can you explain why the GRT airspace is "unuseable".

Click to expand...

Yep, I'd like to know as well. My original GRTs provided all the airspace definitions I needed to stay legal for VFR flying. Maybe you are referring to IFR operations?

These discussions are most pertinent for me as I am in the panel planning stages for the EVO. I was planning dual GRTs but I am also now leaning to one bigger GRT and a 696, although I can't support both in a single stack. That means center stack will be GRT and switches, backups, etc, left stack 696 and right stack avionics.

??????

anyone in the northeast have an HX up and running yet.....that I can see

Flying the HX

I have an HX and 2 Horizon I displays. I had 3 standard displays in my RV-8 with 1 in the back seat instrument panel, but just added a new HX to my top display with XM USB weather (2 stacked units in the front). I have the GRT units tied to a 430W and a Digiflight IIVSGV.
My impression of the HX after about 275 hours on the standard displays is that it is a significant improvement. I fly around D.C. and enter the ADIZ to get to my home airport - the airspace has been more than adequate. The XM has the added benefit of showing current TFRs in red over all the other airspace. The color change related to altitude works great for me (yellow if about to enter at current altitude, green if clear). I flew the synthetic vision today around the Shenandoah mountains and the mountains turned red based on my altitude and flight vector. The PFD and moving map seem like all I will need on top and I may stick to an engine display beneath. It does boot about 20 seconds slower than the old display, but still pretty quick. I also use my emergency buss/back-up battery to start and avoid voltage sag - it also checks the back-up battery (17 Ah with dual Lightspeeds) - so it is ready before I am. I do not think I will upgrade my other displays as I can only look at one cool thing at a time and they are fully adequate for other screens. If anyone needs to see one around D.C. send me an email - [email protected]

Bruce "FM" Edwards
RV-8, 391-FM, 279 hrs

Bruce I dont see how this is possible without knowledge outside of the GRT moving map.

There is ZERO (ok not zero, but almost) chance someone not familiar with that airspace could navigate into it with the GRT without getting into trouble.

Here is a post a while back on the airspce issue.

What's the smallest range you can dial in with the HX

I think I've never been able to dial in less than 15 miles range on my original WS dislplay which is why I use another Nav product if I want additional accuracy/situational awareness.

Is AFS any better?

Kahuna said:

Bruce I dont see how this is possible without knowledge outside of the GRT moving map.

There is ZERO (ok not zero, but almost) chance someone not familiar with that airspace could navigate into it with the GRT without getting into trouble.

Here is a post a while back on the airspce issue.

Click to expand...

Kahuna, I read your earlier post on airspace. Very interesting. And there didn't appear to be any responses which would seem to indicate that no-one knew the answers to your questions.

I'm now starting to understand why everyone with a GRT system has another platform (usually Garmin) for mapping functions. If the airspace data is not functional in a practical sense then the GRT map page is not the full dollar. The more I read about the GRT map functions the more disillusioned I become. It's obviously the REAL weakness of the system.

I'd be very interested to know if the AFS system is any better in that respect. They are charging $799 for "moving map" software. You'd think at that price you'd get something with proper airspace and good topography....although the pix of the new AFS Flightdeck map page don't appear all that flash to me.

Anybody out there with comments on the current AFS map system.....in particular, does it have "sensible" airspace.

Update. HHX and other rants.

OK here is my latest update:
I have ditched my MX-20. Sold. YIPEE!! This thread discusses it and my look at the AFS unit.

As I sat with money in hand, it was down to 2 players to replace my MX-20 MFD. AFS and GRT. It was a bake off. There were 2 pieces of functionality I was stuck on, moving map airspace information, and plates.

I started out with a premise. 2 different EFIS are better. Spread the risk of both hardware and company. I fear a reduced vendor selection and I dont want all my EFIS eggs in one basket. I have a BMA gen 3 lite in my panel which functions perfectly well as a back up stand alone EFIS. In fact it saved my butt one day on a GRT software lockup on approach. I will never put one manufacturers EFIS in my panel. But....the little BMA G3 lite has a limited life now. BMA has very limited market presence. IMHO cant survive this market much longer. I dont consider them a market leader in any category of feature, function or price. Dynon... 3 steps behind in functionality. Just my 2 cents.

AFS advised me they were working on geo referenced plates for a service fee. RATS!. I dont need another fee and geo referenced plates while interesting and maybe cool, is not a need I have. I have flown the chartview plates on the MX-20 and it was a ho hum item for me. A simple picture of the plate on screen is enough for me. GRT on the other hand promised me a beta of their free NACO plates in a couple weeks. Win GRT.

Next was airspace info. I was unable to successfully work through my moving map airspace issues on an AFS unit. I tried, really I did. I wanted AFS to win this. No Joy. GRT sent me a beta of the moving map selectable airspace. I tried it, and it works. Win GRT.

SO I purchased a second GRT HHX and stuck it underneath my existing one where my MX-20 was. All wired up I went flying. Nervous as my trustly MX-20 was gone. Replaced with a new GRT HHX that was gonna have to fill the void of a very capable unit.

I was concerned that the database in the GRT would not have the fixes necessary to display an approach path for the IAF or MAP. I was wrong. Coupled to the 430, the flight plan and the fixes show up on the moving map with enough detail to do the job, along with the extended runway. Funny I never tried this befor on the single screen I have always had. With the MX-20 down there, i never had the occasion to try the moving map approach function on the GRT. I was always in attitude mode staying upright and letting the MX-20 shine as a moving map. Check that box off as works just fine. WHEW!

Traffic. For the first time I was able to use the traffic function of the HHX unit and a 330. Traffic was presented on the MX-20 now gone to an ebayer. Was very impressed with the usability and functionality of this feature. Target clear. Little pop up window with detail when something gets too close. Very nice. A much better implementation than the MX-20 ever was. Well done GRT and I dont give out compliments easily.

So whats left. Well the one item of functionality I lost on the MX-20 that I immediately noticed was low alt IFR charts. Getting a clearance to turn right and intercept V211 to blah blah blah, will not happen now. When flying IFR, complicated clearances can drive you nuts, not having the low alt victor airways on screen now means paper. ARGH!. I have no idea when or if ever this functionality is planned. You can not be IFR legal without 'all available information' and this stuff is necessary. For a moment I wanted my MX-20 back. I hope in time this will be available.

I hope to soon have the plates and a released GA (Generally Available) moving map piece from GRT. Ill report back on that functionality.

In the mean time, Ill get some more time on these 2 screens and see what else I find. The new CPU's are fast. There is a lot of opportunity for new functionality and improvements to the existing feature sets here. Most of it nits. But Im now down to IFR charts and plates to really feel good.


End of report

The MX-200 well equipped is ~$15k. Trade ins for upgrades will give you 4k off that. ~11k for an MFD? No way Jose.
Similar functionality can be had for 1/3 that price.

I always liked the MX20 for its flexibility - indeed, you can make it look just like a VFR sectional, IFR low-altitude en-route, or anything inbetween. If you're used to looking at a chart, why not make an electronic chart?

Anyway, the real issue with that box is and always has been the price. G696/G375 twins provide most of the functionality at a much lower cost.

TODR

Great report Mike!

I think in the big scheme of things, good feedback from real-world users is what is making a lot of the functionality advances possible.

I am finding more and more that I am relying on the 696 for true moving map/navigation functions. The other day I was laying in flight plans on both the 696 and 430 for an IFR trip to Florida (ended up canceling due to to widespread icing - Southwest saves the day!), and it was so much easier to use the airways represented on the 696 than the point-to-point capability on the 430. So now I am at the point where the 430 is the "legal" method of navigation, while the 696 is the one I actually use. And my lower GRT screen is mostly for leaning and all the cool trip info that it can compute, like MPG, range, etc. I'm waiting for the GRT map to play some catch up!

As long as we keep getting new and better software for free, I'm happy!

Paul

Can't wait to push the on button on my 8.4 HX......soon

Carlos,

Why do you guys make a deal with Anywhere Map to port their software. That would give Garmin a run for their money.

Ken