Outdated Garmin G1000 software - petition sign-up

[Bartek]

Bartek, I assume Scott can add your name and aircraft on the list.

Of course, Scott please put me on, DA42, D-GJHO

[Rick]

My understanding of the G1000 software for our aircraft - both DA40 and DA42 - is that something like 90% of the code base comes directly from Garmin (it may actually be higher than that). The "base version" that we keep referring to (the 9.05 in the title of this thread) IS that base version number from Garmin. And that code base is the same across all G1000 implementations - Diamond, Cirrus, Beech, etc. Each vendor (Diamond in our case) then takes that base software and customizes it for their aircraft lines - that's where the software version number that shows up on the MFD comes from. In the case of my DA40, it's Version 321.23 and it is a Diamond-customized version of the 9.15 Garmin code base (don't hold me to that number, it's from memory). Once Diamond finishes their customization, they hand the now-model-specific software release back to Garmin for distribution (and maybe some validation and testing first? I'm not sure).

My point here is that, as far as G1000 software development goes, all of the hard stuff is already done! All of the drivers for any of the LRUs that the G1000 supports, all of the core software that makes the G1000 do what it does - it's all already done by Garmin. And Garmin has been continuing to add new features and fix problems in the base software, year after year, long after the last updates from DAI. This is NOT Garmin's problem. What we need is for Diamond to take the latest base software version from Garmin, add their customizations again, and then release new versions for the DA40 and DA42. The amount of work for Diamond to do this just can't be that significant. Remember back in the day (what, at least 6 years ago now!) Diamond used to come out with software updates for the DA40 every couple of years (I can't speak to the DA42). And they were FREE!!! You may have paid your A&P to get it installed, but Diamond didn't charge us a penny. Those updates were downloaded from the Garmin dealer site, not from Diamond, but each version was provided by Diamond.

I believe the incremental cost for Diamond to make a new software release for the G1000 is not the problem here. I believe the lack of software updates is purely a marketing decision to drive sales of newer models - unfortunately at the expense of existing customer satisfaction. Our only hope is that The New Management will better appreciate the value of customer loyalty and understand the cost of the opportunities lost and negative publicity caused by lack of customer appreciation.

[skywardcon]

Please add me to the list.
2006 DA42 w/ cd-135 engines N430TS
Bryan Ward

[pietromarx]

My point here is that, as far as G1000 software development goes, all of the hard stuff is already done!

Agreed. This is manifest.

I believe the lack of software updates is purely a marketing decision to drive sales of newer models - unfortunately at the expense of existing customer satisfaction. Our only hope is that The New Management will better appreciate the value of customer loyalty and understand the cost of the opportunities lost and negative publicity caused by lack of customer appreciation.

Apologies, but I think there is an even simpler answer: Diamond has either lost or does not have the software chops. They got badly hurt in the downturn right at their most innovative in product development and haven't recovered. They're not a particularly digital company (the website took forever for them to get to a reasonable point) and I think the G1000 situation simply reflects their analog roots. It just isn't a priority for them.

These are things we can change.

[Rick]

...Diamond has either lost or does not have the software chops. They got badly hurt in the downturn right at their most innovative in product development and haven't recovered. They're not a particularly digital company (the website took forever for them to get to a reasonable point) and I think the G1000 situation simply reflects their analog roots. It just isn't a priority for them.

These are things we can change.

That is possible of course, except that Diamond is still releasing software for the NXi platform. So somebody there must be familiar with the process.

Another thought... Clearly there are a fair number of people here in this forum who are software developers by trade. I for one would be happy to help Diamond out by donating my personal time to help them produce a software update for the DA40. I believe if I were provided the latest Garmin base software and the code modifications Diamond made for the last release, I could figure out what needed to happen. I know there are others in our midst who could do the same, and would be happy to take on such a project. Ultimately I believe it would be up to Garmin to test and bless a final release, so there would be that final quality control. The resources are available to do this, even if not within DIA, if Diamond would just start the ball rolling.

[pietromarx]

Another thought... Clearly there are a fair number of people here in this forum who are software developers by trade. I for one would be happy to help Diamond out by donating my personal time to help them produce a software update for the DA40. I believe if I were provided the latest Garmin base software and the code modifications Diamond made for the last release, I could figure out what needed to happen. I know there are others in our midst who could do the same, and would be happy to take on such a project. Ultimately I believe it would be up to Garmin to test and bless a final release, so there would be that final quality control. The resources are available to do this, even if not within DIA, if Diamond would just start the ball rolling.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing ...

I doubt that Garmin would give us access to their SDKs, etc., but I do think that the community here could play a great role in helping Diamond get their digital mojo back, including:

1. making it clear that this is important to existing and prospective customers
2. creating a community forum to work with DAI on prioritizing software features, upgrades, etc.
3. perhaps creating a beta test group (would probably have to be the simulator vs. the real aircraft due to regulatory and liability issues)
4. providing some funding through software maintenance fees
5. public advocacy (there is nothing like an existing customer to help sell to prospective customers)

It is clear to me at least that both Garmin and Diamond are facing a world in which integrated flight decks are increasingly going to be viewed as liabilities vs. desirable features if they don't figure this out. I can't see why a new buyer would go for a static and slowly degrading product that goes in the face of all the change happening in aviation, the vast majority of which is driven by digital.

[TwinStarScott]

Well said Rick & Peter – bravo! Just a guess here, but is it safe to assume you'd both like your names added to the list? If not, please just let me know and I'll remove them.

Thanks also to pilots Bartek and Bryan Ward for enlisting!

Here is the current list today as of November 5, 2018 @ 2145z (18 owner-pilots, 1,330 views, Rating 98.3%). Have I missed anyone or made any data entry errors? If you would please, scan the list for your name to verify.


OWNER / PILOT REGISTRATION MODEL
1. Doug Wall N149WT DA42
2. Colin N972RD DA42
3. David N16FA DA42
4. Emir SEMAD DA42
5. Keith EGNH DA42
6. Reinhard DEWDI DA40
7. Neema N112NG DA42
8. Karl DGGWU DA42
9. Hans D-GDON DA42
10. Hans D-EWDI DA40
11. Scott Sutton N189Y DA42
12. Peter N442Z DA40
13. Nick N428TS DA42
14. Charles N5WU DA40
15. Bartek D-GJHO DA42
16. Bryan Ward N430TS DA42
17. Rick N171PS DA40
18. Peter NZZZ DA40

[TwinStarScott]

Quick Update:
The rating for this thread is now at 100%, although I'm not sure how this is calculated by the forum designers. But clearly this topic has struck a nerve and a pretty raw one at that. . . .

Thanks to all who have contributed to this discussion thus far, more to come I'm sure. Stay tuned!

[Chris]

Quick Update:
The rating for this thread is now at 100%, although I'm not sure how this is calculated by the forum designers.

I think it's related to the number of "Thanks" the posts in the thread receive.

Count me in as somebody who might've jumped into a DA42 already if not for the repeated orphaning of older models, including the WAAS-less 40XL, which is stuck on version 321.22 if I recall correctly.

[TwinStarScott]

Thanks for joining Chris, as well as for cluing me in on how a topic receives a ratings percentage! You're number 19 and you'll receive a footnote describing your "orphan" comments.