Create FG1000 panel variant

[wlbragg]

I hope there isn't already an issue for this. I couldn't figure out how to effectively search through the existing issues.

Because glass is now the future of aircraft, I think we need a glass variant. I did the PA-18 and it really wasn't that difficult to retrofit it. We could do the same thing with our flagship and probably should. I think it would have to be done the same way as I did the PA-18 and it would have to have it's own set file and that would be the only way to access it. Not on the fly like the gear and engine changes. It's too heavy and cause the other PA-18 variants to lag even when in the background.

What I think is needed most for this is just some good cockpit reference material the matches our c172p model as best we can find. This winter when I'm holed up maybe I can start on this with a little help here and there.

[legoboyvdlp]

The Cessna 172S comes from the factory with the Garmin. It has a few minor changes like fuel injection and a 180hp engine. It might be worth investigating the differences to see just what else would need added.

[wlbragg]

It's a start!

Panel is clean and glass is more or less sized. really not much to this, just move some of the stuff around, add a few small gauges and change the style of some of the switches. I think it's supposed to be a Fuel Injected 180. @dany93 is there some changes we would need to make to the 180 to better fit the specs?

[dany93]

is there some changes we would need to make to the 180 to better fit the specs?

From the FG engine point of view, i think there is no difference. A 180 hp engine is a 180 hp engine. I don't know what are the differences between the actual performances, of the engine with carburetor and the injected engine (torque vs RPM?) but anyway, the JSBSim engines are simple ones, constant torque if I recall well (if someone can fix me, thanks!).

At my knowledge, an injected engine is much easier to start than a carburetor one. Less capricious. More stable functioning parameters. These are secondary considerations for simulation.

By elsewhere, the engine lack of feeding (fuel starvation) at negative g's will make no sense from the carburetor point of view, but it will still exist from the main tanks point of view. Maybe a longer lag? The carburetor icing will make no sense. But I don't know what happens for the air input pipes. [EDIT] The Pros And Cons Of Carbureted vs. Fuel Injected Engines Fuel Injected Engines: Different Types Of Ice Hazards

you can get induction icing, or a clogged filter

[/EDIT]

Obviously, no primer. (please see my next message for complement) (I can forget some, I have no experience of real aircraft engine maintenance and performance)

The constant level (collector, float) tank will have no real meaning at all, but this is only a (painful...) cheating, artifact for the two available engines. Unseen from the user, no effect on the performances.

[dany93]

@dany93 wrote

Obviously, no primer.

I wrote it too quickly and too short. My reasoning (not based on real life knowledge) was that the engine is already an injected one.

But a priming procedure is written in the Cessna 172S N552 SP (Engine Model Number: l0-360-L24) POH: (p. 4-12, PDF 96/384)

lf engine is warm, omit priming procedure of steps 6, 7 and 8 below.

6. Auxiliary Fuel Pump Switch -- ON.
7. Mixture -- SET to FULL RICH (full forward) until stable fuel flow is indicated (usually 3 to 5 seconds), then set to IDLE CUTOFF (full aft) position.
8. Auxiliary Fuel Pump Switch -- OFF.
9. lgnition Switch -- START (release when engine starts).
10. Mixture -- ADVANCE smoothly to RICH when engine starts.

lf engine floods (engine has been primed too much), turn off auxiliary fuel pump, place mixture to idle cutoff, open throttle 1/2 lo full, and motor (crank) engine. When engine starts, set mixture to full rich and close throttle promptly.

(probably excessively complicated, too much to be accurately rendered in simulation)

[wlbragg]

@dany93 thanks for the logical thinking. That gives me a sound starting point.

I've actually had a chance to work on it a bit. I updated the image above to reflect the changes I have made so far.

System wise I temporarily bypassed the primer system if using the glass panel, but I think I will eventually have to create some logic to mimic the fuel pump system.

It looks like the electrical bus is a little different than the current c172p as there is a bus 1 and a bus 2.

[tonghuix]

To be honest, I prefer C172S instead of P variant.

[wlbragg]

@tonghuix pictures and information would help, educate me if you have the time! I honestly didn't know there were different versions. If using the 172p for the base then I would lean toward whichever version fit that best.

One thing I was a bit confused by was the addition of the KAP140. I though the G1000 had an autopilot interface? Also where I put the KAP140 for now is not where it is going to stay if we even use it as it is too far away from the pilot. I have seen it right between the steam gauges and the power and mixture knobs. But i have to rework the panel slightly to do that.

[tonghuix]

@wlbragg I am training in a C172SP with G1000 variant right now. For the autopilot, it could using either KAP140 or GFC700(which is optional in G1000). If KAP140 is installed, the panel should arrange a place for it; if GFC700 is installed, it would not require dedicate place.

C172 G1000 POH: https://6082a08e-f6ee-43ce-a788-78d22ce0c9ae.filesusr.com/ugd/fe4543_d932b973b08d48519e6e0e69b140adb2.pdf

C172 Training Supplement: https://s3.amazonaws.com/atp-program-docs/supplements/cessna-172-training-supplement.pdf

G1000 Cockpit Ref: https://static.garmincdn.com/pumac/190-00384-12_0A_Web.pdf

G1000 Pilot Guide: https://static.garmincdn.com/pumac/190-00498-07_0A_Web.pdf

[wlbragg]

@tonghuix thank you, the data will really help once I study it.

[wlbragg]

To be honest, I prefer C172S instead of P variant.

@tonghuix what is the difference between the two? The Image above of the work I have already done (the work competed that is above the panel that has the ignition and breakers) looks to be the same as in the reference material you provided. So I am wondering why you made the above comment as if I was modeling it after the p and not the s or sp? So far I was just going off a couple pictures I found searching on the web. https://redcliffeaeroclub.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/ivw_cockpit_med-1030x687.jpg https://www.regalair.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/N97AT-Panel-1900X1121.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Cessna_172SP_G1000_01.jpg/1600px-Cessna_172SP_G1000_01.jpg I thought they were of the s or sp. Can you explain this so I understand your concern, why you may have thought I was modeling the p? Is there a 172p with the G1000? Or, what is the "p" your referring to?

[tonghuix]

@wlbragg Well, G1000 is an optional instrument, aircraft owner could install it or not, at least theoretically. However, due to 172P is older one, I do not see a "P" model with G1000. Another difference is yoke, SP's yoke looks like a little bigger than P's. SP's visor is more higher, and left and right portion at same level (P's right side a little lower).

I just agree @legoboyvdlp 's opinion, it is better we start modeling 172SP which is a newer model. And it is also a good chance to solve #1310 , make our 172 perfect.

[wlbragg]

Ah, OK, I think I understand, thanks! Currently I am not sure I have the skill set to do much other than convert our p to an sp, which I gather by your explanation is not completely realistic. If we could get someone to model the sp, that would be ideal. I might be able to do some of the changes in #1310 depending on what exactly they entail, I was fairly successful in cleaning up the front air intake, wing tips, rudder to tail connection and a bunch of miscellaneous mesh irregularities of the fuselage. I'll take a closer look at some of this and we'll see!

[legoboyvdlp]

That's really nice @wlbragg :)

I wish the screen could have some anti-aliasing as its very hard to see and the update rate is somewhat low on the engine parameters of the MFD. I guess these are for the upstream FG1000 not the 172 though.

[wlbragg]

Here is what it looks like at night, so far. Man, do we have a lot off effects to filter through when making a new variant such as this. I still have a lot of work to do on the panel containing the breakers, Throttle and mixture controls need reposition, others need removed. We need some new style stitches and knobs as well. Procedural lights for the gauges need moved and turned on, other miscellaneous items. So technically this is a c172p retrofit to a glass panel, but it is being set up in a way that if we get a new c172sp model it should be easy to add this work to it without a bunch of effort.

[wlbragg]

@legoboyvdlp my anti-aliasing is actually shut off for other reasons, this may look better on a FlightGear installation with it turned on.

[wlbragg]

Cleaned off more of the lower panel.

[gilbertohasnofb]

Wow this is looking really good! Amazing job :clap:

Just a minor thing I seem to notice in this screen shot: the white avionics switch seems to be rotating on a strange axis, look how the left one does not match the one on the right neither at the top nor at the centre of the switches.

[tonghuix]

Cleaned off more of the lower panel.

No Audio Panel? It is essential! And you need four nobs to adjust cockpit lights (PFD, MFD, avionics, standby instruments) . Move outside light switches to lefthand under Master and AV switches. 12V port should lower near shut-off valve.

[wlbragg]

The audio panel is the thin strip between the MFD's?

[tonghuix]

The audio panel is the thin strip between the MFD's?

Yep! Here is a link https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/training/fits/guidance/media/G1000.pdf, it is better have a look at the graph at Pg2, it explain lots of things.

[wlbragg]

A little more work done on the panel. Still to do... Activate all the light switches and knobs. Fuel Pump System. Hook up audio panel. Batt test system. Other misc.

[wlbragg]

@tonghuix I didn't research what interior lighting goes with what dial or knob. Also, the green light and the Batt Test system, I assume it is the replacement for the Low Voltage light? If you get a chance to research those systems and feel like taking the time to lay it out for me, I would certainly appreciate it. It might keep me from having to do a bunch of reading and searching for the information. Also I need to find the bus 1 ans 2 layouts eventually. Is SW/CB panels the MFD's?

[wlbragg]

I'm thinking of giving the choice of using either the KAP140 or the GFC700 when using the FG1000 variant. I need to see if I can easily hook up the GFC700 and if it is tuned .at all for the c172

[wlbragg]

Well, I'm really close to finished with the additional graphics needed for the variant. It's time to add systems and edit systems. The electrical system is probably the biggest issue. Lots of new breakers to tie in.

[tonghuix]

Here is a graph for electrical system of C172S: https://solarflyer.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/fuel-elec.pdf And a electrical system simulator http://avitmedia.aero.und.edu/c172sElectrical/index.html

For the green light, it is only a indicator of STBY BATT, when I turn the switch to TEST position (will spring back to OFF position if no press), it will light up. And any time STBY BATT kicks in, the green light will on as well. For Low Voltage, there should be LOW VOLT annunciation in G1000.

For MFD, Avionic switches will control it.

[wlbragg]

@stuartbuchanan I tried adding in the FG1000/GFC700.xml and I am getting a considerable amount of oscillation in the heading axis. Any guide to tuning this would be of great help.

I really like having the option of using the GFC700 built in auto pilot. I do want to keep the ability to choose between the two but that may have to be a variant option instead of a GUI option. I haven't really researched how or if we could do this on the fly.

[tonghuix]

@stuartbuchanan I tried adding in the FG1000/GFC700.xml and I am getting a considerable amount of oscillation in the heading axis. Any guide to tuning this would be of great help.

I really like having the option of using the GFC700 built in auto pilot. I do want to keep the ability to choose between the two but that may have to be a variant option instead of a GUI option. I haven't really researched how or if we could do this on the fly.

Just an info, our school do own some C172Ss equipped with KAP140 autopilot. But most of them are buggy, and not very reliable, mechanics are removing them. A lot of my flight experience with such autopilot are really not good feeling, such us disengage button not work, banking too much, cannot maintain altitude, or twist yoke super sluggishly.

[wlbragg]

@stuartbuchanan I fixed the GFC700 autopilot. It was either configured twice or competing with the KAP140 so please disregard the tuning help for now

@tonghuix I pushed the changes that use the GFC700 VS the KAP140. The KAP140 still is visible on the panel but is disconnected. If you have the time to test it, that would be great. Note: breakers and knobs and switches are still not completely configured correctly.

[wlbragg]

@tonghuix You now have a variant choice of either the KAP140 or GFC700. I really like the GFC700, lots of options with that one. I didn't get to test it much though, so it would be helpful if you get a chance to test it. The amphibious gear control was not correctly placed on the panel for the fg1000 variant so I fixed that as well. Changed the textures on the breakers to match the specs. I'm now starting on the electrical.

[tigert]

The carburetor icing will make no sense. But I don't know what happens for the air input pipes. ... Obviously, no primer. (please see my next message for complement) (I can forget some, I have no experience of real aircraft engine maintenance and performance)

The fuel injected version has no carburettor heat, obviously. It has an alternate air intake that opens if the air filter is blocked by ice or something else, that pulls unfiltered air from within the engine cowling. This causes 10% power loss, likely due to warmer air in there.

Found this while I googled for the above details, might be useful too: https://www.pilotscafe.com/c172s-sp-skyhawk-orientation/

[tigert]

I really like having the option of using the GFC700 built in auto pilot. I do want to keep the ability to choose between the two but that may have to be a variant option instead of a GUI option. I haven't really researched how or if we could do this on the fly.

Just an info, our school do own some C172Ss equipped with KAP140 autopilot. But most of them are buggy, and not very reliable, mechanics are removing them. A lot of my flight experience with such autopilot are really not good feeling, such us disengage button not work, banking too much, cannot maintain altitude, or twist yoke super sluggishly.

The GFC700 is a way better integration.

The KAP140+G1000 is such a hack anyway, it is not really integrated to the G1000 at all except for roll control (NAV mode), and there is an actual turn coordinator gauge mounted behind the right screen on C172/G1000/KAP140 planes: https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/192489-ct182t-xp11-some-observations/&tab=comments#comment-1759568

The KAP140 has its own BARO setting, its own altitude selection, it does not understand any altitudes you might have on the G1000 flight plan. It is just a nightmare in usability. I would rather spend the effort on making a good GFC700 version. :)

The only reason those KAP140 + G1000 Skyhawks exist is because they wanted to get a G1000 plane certified, but Garmin did not yet have its own autopilot ready. And KAP140 was the way they could shoehorn everything in. Early Diamond DA40's have the same thing.

I mean, you can fly it and it works, but just the fact that you have TWO altitude settings on the plane, of which the more obvious one is not working at all except as a fancy postit note, is just ridiculous, and can even be confusing and thus dangerous on a bad day.

Seems like the autopilot servos might wear out

[stuartbuchanan]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:57 AM Tuomas Kuosmanen wrote:

The only reason those KAP140 + G1000 Skyhawks exist is because they wanted to get a G1000 plane certified, but Garmin did not yet have its own autopilot ready. And KAP140 was the way they could shoehorn everything in. Early Diamond DA40's have the same thing.

I mean, you can fly it and it works, but just the fact that you have TWO altitude settings on the plane, of which the more obvious one is not working at all except as a fancy postit note, is just ridiculous, and can even be confusing and thus dangerous on a bad day.

Seems like the autopilot servos might wear out

That's just frightening. I remember reading an early review of the 172 with G1000 and the aircraft reviewer pointed this out. It may have been even worse because the standby altimeter also has a separate BARO setting! So 3 different pressures to change. Sounds like an airspace infringement waiting to happen ;)

I agree that simply removing the KAP140 is the way to go.

-Stuart

[dany93]

Thanks @tigert for your extra information and your (interesting) link.

[wlbragg]

Thanks everyone for the information. It really helps me along the way to get this kind of input.

Well, the option is already available and complete. The additional code is negligible, Two different set files and a conditional model load and that's it.

I can see why the suggestions to leave out the KAP140 though, there is a chance no one will ever use it and when I tried to use it, using the available parts of the MFD panel, I found out how dangerous it is. I actually crashed the aircraft when I entered into a stall and spin at low altitude trying to mess with the altitude for the first time (guessing at how to use it from the GFC700 panel). It is REALLY good practice. I don't have anything else to do to either systems as far as integration, I don't think. Maybe later on someone may want to verify they work together (or not) as in real life. But becasue they were built that way in the beginning, I want to leave the option, as dumb and dangerous as it was and is.

So what's the deal with the images online of the G1000 combined with the KR87? Is there a story behind that?

[wlbragg]

The KAP140 still is visible on the panel but is disconnected.

If anyone was considering this as a factor, this is no longer the way it is. You choose through a variant which version you want and in the GFC700 version the KAP140 is completely gone!

[wlbragg]

@tonghuix @tigert

When you see the following, is it understood that those "essential systems" are powered regardless of avionics1 or avionics2 switch being on? So long as electrical bus1 or electrical bus2 is powered, they have power?

[tonghuix]

@tonghuix @tigert

When you see the following, is it understood that those "essential systems" are powered regardless of avionics1 or avionics2 switch being on? So long as electrical bus1 or electrical bus2 is powered, they have power?

For best understanding using the simulator to learn the electrical system: http://avitmedia.aero.und.edu/c172sElectrical/index.html

What I understand is there are three electrical buses - Bus 1, 2 and essential bus. If Master switch off, the essential bus is powered by Standby battery (if STBY BATT armed). When Master switch turn on, the standby battery control unit will kick off the standby battery, so the whole electrial system powered by Main battery or alternator. The essential bus only provide energy to 'essential' devices such us PFD, ADC, AHRS etc. it is designed only kicks in when Main Battery failue.

[wlbragg]

@legoboyvdlp @gilbertohasnofb

I don't know who did the electrical for the c172p but I have a question? I was wondering why we calculate the load or draw as volts? The entire system is 28 volts and the power draw through the breakers is typically amps, isn't it? I also noticed some values that don't make sense to me. As I am doing a new electrical system for the fg1000 I noticed items like the following for example... Flaps, draw = 57 Pitot Heat Power, draw = 28 Interior lights, draw = 57 yet the breakers are labeled with amounts such as Flaps, draw = 10 Pitot Heat Power, draw = 5 Interior lights, draw = 5 So why are we using such a high value? Or do I not understand something fundamental here?

[tonghuix]

@legoboyvdlp @gilbertohasnofb

I don't know who did the electrical for the c172p but I have a question? I was wondering why we calculate the load or draw as volts? The entire system is 28 volts and the power draw through the breakers is typically amps, isn't it? I also noticed some values that don't make sense to me. As I am doing a new electrical system for the fg1000 I noticed items like the following for example... Flaps, draw = 57 Pitot Heat Power, draw = 28 Interior lights, draw = 57 yet the breakers are labeled with amounts such as Flaps, draw = 10 Pitot Heat Power, draw = 5 Interior lights, draw = 5 So why are we using such a high value? Or do I not understand something fundamental here?

I think it is meared as circle ampere? As my experience, flap and landing/taxi lights are super cost for electrical, so when alternator failure, it draw the Main battery super fast.

[wlbragg]

I'm making progress on the electrical, It's slow going as there are a couple technical challenges I'm still trying to overcome. The electrical simulator was really helpful!

I think it is meared as circle ampere?

@legoboyvdlp @gilbertohasnofb @tonghuix I'm still not understanding why the buses refer to volts VS amps in the existing code. The items that draw from the bus don't draw volts they draw amps, they are all 28 volt systems as far as I know. And also why or how any device on the system that draws 57 volts (amps) can have a 5 or 10 amp breaker and not trip it instantly? Although I understand there is no mechanism in place to trip breakers.

@tonghuix I can;t find the breaker rating of feeder 1 or feeder 2. This is a set of breakers in the cowling that is not available in flight.

[tonghuix]

The Main Battery is 24 volts, not 28 volts. And also alternator output is 28V with 60A circle. That's why I think it is meared by circle ampere, when flap is operated it cost nearly 57A, close to 60A, so it is reasonble.

@legoboyvdlp @gilbertohasnofb @tonghuix I'm still not understanding why the buses refer to volts VS amps in the existing code. The items that draw from the bus don't draw volts they draw amps, they are all 28 volt systems as far as I know. And also why or how any device on the system that draws 57 volts (amps) can have a 5 or 10 amp breaker and not trip it instantly? Although I understand there is no mechanism in place to trip breakers.

@tonghuix I can;t find the breaker rating of feeder 1 or feeder 2. This is a set of breakers in the cowling that is not available in flight.

Sorry, I really don't know breaker rating...

[wlbragg]

Main Battery is 24 volts

Right, I have it setup that way with the alt producing an additional 3 volts.

circle ampere, when flap is operated it cost nearly 57A

OK, I guess I have some reading to do. I didn't find a description of "circle ampere" It must be the draw is 57 amps over the time of flap deployment, but not more than the rated breaker capacity of 10 amps at any point? So for example... 57 amps / 6 second deployment = 9.5 amps draw through the bus for 6 seconds or 57/6=9.5. The flap breaker is a 10 amp breaker.

I've made considerable headway with the fg1000 variant electrical system. It is complex and our current electrical system is missing some key components, like 2 bus+ ess bus + the stb bat system. So recreating the new system from the old system is painstaking. Here is where I am at, the following descriptions are mostly for me as a placeholder. All buses are created. stby bat system and bus is mostly created, charges and discharges in arm mode appropriately depending on master bat and alternator setting Original equipment carryover from the c172p is tied. Still need to add test lamp illumination on "armed" draw after 5 amp for 10 seconds. Possibly set up breaker tripping system (failure). Tie all the fg1000 variant specific equipment to appropriate power bus system, fuel pump, auto pilot, nav comm, etc. PFD and MFD is tied to all buses including the stby bat system.

~Pushing progress shortly.~ Not pushing tonight, I still have a bug in the stby bat system.

[dany93]

I didn't find a description of "circle ampere"

I had the same question. @tonghuix, can it be an approximate translation for 'alternating current' ?. Alternators give a sinusoidal voltage and current. Then, a diode bridge give the 28 V direct current voltage (greater than the 24 Volts battery voltage, to charge it).

57 amps / 6 second deployment = 9.5 amps draw through the bus for 6 seconds or 57/6 = 9.5. The flap breaker is a 10 amp breaker.

I don't understand either, but it cannot be the explanation. At my knowledge, 57 amps trigger a 10 amp breaker in less than 6 seconds (otherwise, the breaker would be very, very slow) . This way of averaging the DC current on such a long time is not correct IMO. And if the flaps need 57 amps (likely DC?) to deploy, they need 57 amps DC continually during (X) seconds, logically through the flap breaker. Pulled in DC from the battery. With the alternator ON or OFF.

@wlbragg wrote

Interior lights, draw = 57

Impossibly high. 57 amps at 24 volts give 1368 Watts.

[dany93]

I also found this: (Can no longer be downloaded for free) Partially from moam.info An extra battery is installed for G1000. For FG1000 too @tonghuix wrote

If Master switch off, the essential bus is powered by Standby battery (if STBY BATT armed)

[wlbragg]

@dany93 I really wish the creator of the original electrical system was available to talk with about the volts VS amps usage in the bus and how/why they use these numbers. It doesn't make sense to me.

And if the flaps need 57 amps (likely DC?) to deploy, they need 57 amps DC continually during (X) seconds, logically through the flap breaker. Pulled in DC from the battery. With the alternator ON or OFF.

Right, I was just thinking maybe that the 57 amps is the total energy the flaps consumed during their deployment. That they really only need 10 amp to operate but that the creator of the buss charged them with 57 amps over the deployment in total? @tonghuix maybe can describe his knowledge of flap energy usage.

The 57 amps the lights used in the original system, in my system is broke in two. In the original system it was 57 amps for "interior lights", that included the "panel lights". In the new system there is a both a cabin and panel breaker. So I split it and charged each one 28.5 amps. But the breaker for both are 5 amps according to the docs. I need a lesson in breakers and amps draw over time I guess.

[wlbragg]

I don't know if this is helpful at all but I quickly looked up some common items and their watts usage...

Per hour Clothes dryer/water heater | 4,000 watts Water pump | 3,000 watts Space heater | 1,500 watts Hair dryer | 1,200 watts

Here is the typical amps and watts for a few devices

Washing machine | 10 | 2200 Toaster | 9.0 | 2000 Tumble dryer | 11.0 | 2500 Dishwasher | 10.0 | 2200

Tumble dryers are typically fed through a 30 amp breaker at 220 volts The watt usage typically is at and hour of use.

So for flaps 57amps 24 volt = 1368 watts or 10 amps 24 volt = 240 watts

Also these are AC VS DC.

Maybe this is more applicable

12 volt fan Operating Voltage | 12 Volts DC Current Rating | 1.5 Amps. & 1.6 Amps. Power Consumption | 18 Watts & 20 Watts

We know the breaker rating in amps? We know the voltage is 24? We should be able to calculate the watts, volts*amps=watts? We need to know how to draw those watts from a battery over time, the formula? If I have this information, do I really need anything else?

What power usage labels are on any of this aircraft equipment and how does it read?

[dany93]

@wlbragg wrote

volts*amps=watts?

Yes (P = U*I)

[legoboyvdlp]

@wlbragg I'm not sure unfortunately.

[wlbragg]

@tonghuix can you verify when the stby batt test light illuminates? My understanding is... 1) After switching to test if there is a 0.5 amp draw for 10 seconds? 2) If in the arm position once there is a 0.5 amp draw for 10 seconds?

[wlbragg]

I pushed what I have so far. @tonghuix if you get a chance to test the PFD, MFD logic with the electrical system using default bus and alternator and the stby batt system. I still don't have the final or correct test lamp function for the stby batt, but the buss system I think is correct for the items that are hooked up.