Vertica V3?

Pure speculation here...

I noticed that the V2 is "sold out" on the Vertica Sports website
http://www.verticasports.com/shop/v2-flight-instrument/

Does this foreshadow the announcement of the V3?

What is the latest date that a company can deliver a new product and expect it to sell for the 2013 soaring season? One highly regarded soaring product maker set March 31 for delivery of a promising new product. Is that the usual time of year for soaring product release? From various old blog posts, I gather that the V2 was released in September 2012.

There are still V2s_under_another_brand_name in stock at distributors. Does any distributor still have Vertica-branded V2s in stock?

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 8:41:04 AM UTC-8, son_of_flubber wrote:
Pure speculation here... I noticed that the V2 is "sold out" on the Vertica Sports website http://www.verticasports.com/shop/v2-flight-instrument/ Does this foreshadow the announcement of the V3? What is the latest date that a company can deliver a new product and expect it to sell for the 2013 soaring season? One highly regarded soaring product maker set March 31 for delivery of a promising new product. Is that the usual time of year for soaring product release? From various old blog posts, I gather that the V2 was released in September 2012. There are still V2s_under_another_brand_name in stock at distributors. Does any distributor still have Vertica-branded V2s in stock?

The Oudie 2 Lite is available and runs the free programs.

I have several customers that replaced the V2 with the Oudie 2 Lite and say the Oudie is a much nicer unit and when you finally get the cabling and power converters for the V2 the Oudie is less expensive.

http://www.craggyaero.com/oudie.htm


Richard
www.craggyaero.com

The GliderGuider is available, complete with power/data interface cable.

Kind regards
Allan
www.gliderguider.net



At 20:16 09 January 2013, Richard wrote:
On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 8:41:04 AM UTC-8, son_of_flubber wrote:
Pure speculation here... I noticed that the V2 is "sold out" on the
Verti=
ca Sports website http://www.verticasports.com/shop/v2-flight-instrument/
D=
oes this foreshadow the announcement of the V3? What is the latest date
tha=
t a company can deliver a new product and expect it to sell for the 2013
so=
aring season? One highly regarded soaring product maker set March 31 for
de=
livery of a promising new product. Is that the usual time of year for
soari=
ng product release? From various old blog posts, I gather that the V2 was
r=
eleased in September 2012. There are still V2s_under_another_brand_name
in
=
stock at distributors. Does any distributor still have Vertica-branded
V2s
=
in stock?

The Oudie 2 Lite is available and runs the free programs.

I have several customers that replaced the V2 with the Oudie 2 Lite and
say=
the Oudie is a much nicer unit and when you finally get the cabling and
po=
wer converters for the V2 the Oudie is less expensive.

http://www.craggyaero.com/oudie.htm


Richard
www.craggyaero.com

The sunlight readable screens on the GliderGuider/Vertica V2 and Oudie 2 are great but I really wish they ran on an OS (like Android) that's not as antiquated and unsupported as Windows CE or Windows Mobile 6.x
With the plethora of Android smart phones, phablets and tablets available with built in GPS/GLONASS capable receivers, barometers, 3G/LTE, etc. and an app store with tens of thousands of apps why would one want to stick with an outdated OS running on seriously underpowered hardware which you can only use in the cockpit?

E.g. Take a smart phone like the LG Optimus 4X HD P880 (720x1280 HD screen with 750 cd/m2 brightness) and install XCSoar from the Google Play store and you're sorted. True HD-IPS display, quad core 1.5 GHz processor, 1GB RAM, hardware accelerated graphics, etc.
Have an outlanding? No problem just take your smart phone and make a call or send an email. Why carry another mobile phone?
When you're finished soaring for the day just pop it in your pocket and use it for the rest of the week.
Even better you get to upgrade the phone for free every two years when your mobile phone contract is up for renewal so you're never left with old hardware which you can't get rid of.

Just my opinion of course.

I think you miss the point entirely.
Most people, 99% of those I know, use a dedicated device for flight.
This is why Oudies are sold, V2 are sold, and you install aboard dedicated
computers that you dont bring home or in your car.

Using CE or Android makes no difference it the application running on it
works exactly the same on both OS.
Have you ever seen some devices like Montana, Oregon, and such by Garmin,
for example, in any shop?

So the answer to your question is: because they want a dedicated hardware,
or because they want an application that run on CE and dont care about the
xcsoar. And there has to be a reason why this happen, dont you think?


wrote in message
...

The sunlight readable screens on the GliderGuider/Vertica V2 and Oudie 2 are
great but I really wish they ran on an OS (like Android) that's not as
antiquated and unsupported as Windows CE or Windows Mobile 6.x
With the plethora of Android smart phones, phablets and tablets available
with built in GPS/GLONASS capable receivers, barometers, 3G/LTE, etc. and an
app store with tens of thousands of apps why would one want to stick with an
outdated OS running on seriously underpowered hardware which you can only
use in the cockpit?

E.g. Take a smart phone like the LG Optimus 4X HD P880 (720x1280 HD screen
with 750 cd/m2 brightness) and install XCSoar from the Google Play store and
you're sorted. True HD-IPS display, quad core 1.5 GHz processor, 1GB RAM,
hardware accelerated graphics, etc.
Have an outlanding? No problem just take your smart phone and make a call or
send an email. Why carry another mobile phone?
When you're finished soaring for the day just pop it in your pocket and use
it for the rest of the week.
Even better you get to upgrade the phone for free every two years when your
mobile phone contract is up for renewal so you're never left with old
hardware which you can't get rid of.

Just my opinion of course.

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:25:31 PM UTC+1, pcool wrote:
Most people, 99% of those I know, use a dedicated device for flight.

The reason for that is pretty trivial: your software runs only on hardware that is not adequate for anything else. That alone makes the hardware "dedicated for flight". That is a limitation imposed by the software, not necessarily the user's deliberate choice.

My Dell Streak is (mostly) dedicated for flight, but I enjoy using my normal phones on occasional leisure/schooling two-seater flights. I don't need to remember taking it with me, I have it in my pocket all the time anyway, and so often it turns out to be useful.

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 5:42:47 AM UTC-5, Surge wrote:
I really wish they ran on an OS (like Android) that's not as antiquated and unsupported as Windows CE or Windows Mobile 6.x

Comparing Windows CE and Android is comparing apples and oranges. They may appear to be equivalent and interchangeable to the end user, but under the skin, they are fundamentally different beasts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_CE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android...ting_system%29

The bottom line is that Windows CE is intended to be utterly stable and reliable. That's a primary design goal.

Android aspires to be all things to all Apps (and "stable"). It's totally pointless to argue (and especially in this forum) whether Windows CE is in fact more stable and reliable than Android, so let's NOT go there.

Windows CE deliberately limits functionality and utility to maximize stability and reliability. Android has constantly expanded functionality and utility and in theory that complexity, and frequent revision and extension of the kernel reduces stability and reliability. At the very least, it introduces the possibility of a code defect slipping in; a defect that could possibly lead to a critical flight computer error. The probability of that happening is unquantifiable, but non-zero.

Stability and reliability are primary goals of sensible flight related computing. That's why NASA's Space Shuttle used computers and software long frozen in decades past. The old stuff was indisputably stable and reliable. It was old, but not antiquated. Using Windows CE follows a similar proven strategy.

I'm not saying that PNA's based on Windows CE are in fact more reliable than those running on Android. Nobody knows. But that's a big part of the engineers' intention.

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 2:40:30 PM UTC+1, son_of_flubber wrote:
Comparing Windows CE and Android is comparing apples and oranges. They may appear to be equivalent and interchangeable to the end user, but under the skin, they are fundamentally different beasts.

Funny how your first sentence says you can NOT compare Windows CE and Android, and then the rest of your rather long post does EXACTLY THAT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_CE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android...ting_system%29



The bottom line is that Windows CE is intended to be utterly stable and reliable. That's a primary design goal.



Android aspires to be all things to all Apps (and "stable"). It's totally pointless to argue (and especially in this forum) whether Windows CE is in fact more stable and reliable than Android, so let's NOT go there.
[...]

Wow, what a load of FUD. The Wikipedia links make your post look like you know what you're writing, but Wikipedia does not back up your claims. Don't say "in fact" when this is just your personal opinion, which you cannot substantiate.

Windows CE deliberately limits functionality and utility to maximize stability and reliability. Android has constantly expanded functionality and utility and in theory that complexity, and frequent revision and extension of the kernel reduces stability and reliability. At the very least, it introduces the possibility of a code defect slipping in; a defect that could possibly lead to a critical flight computer error. The probability of that happening is unquantifiable, but non-zero.

Windows CE has limited functionality because back in the 90ies when it was developed, portable devices did not have enough power for the full-blown Windows. This has nothing to do with maximizing stability/reliability.

Windows CE has been abandoned by Microsoft, that's why it has not been expanded. Before it was abandoned, it was constantly expanded by Microsoft.

Stability and reliability are primary goals of sensible flight related computing. That's why NASA's Space Shuttle used computers and software long frozen in decades past. The old stuff was indisputably stable and reliable. It was old, but not antiquated. Using Windows CE follows a similar proven strategy.

Wow, NASA. That makes Windows CE pretty stable. Oh, stop! You didn't say that NASA uses Windows CE. What was your argument, again? What was the point of mentioning NASA?

I'm not saying that PNA's based on Windows CE are in fact more reliable than those running on Android. Nobody knows. But that's a big part of the engineers' intention.

I do know. I spent many years with both Windows CE and Android. I spent months of my lifetime debugging problems with XCSoar on Windows CE. I found so many bugs and instabilities in Windows CE, it's not funny. These bugs will never be fixed, because Windows CE is abandoned. Android is not bug-free, but compared to Windows CE, it feels like heaven.

Let me sum up your post:

1. one can't compare Android and Windows CE
2. you compare stability of Android vs Windows CE
3. it's pointless to compare stability of Android vs Windows CE, "let's not go there"
4. none of this matter, you don't know, because nobody knows

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:40:30 PM UTC, son_of_flubber wrote:
Windows CE deliberately limits functionality and utility to maximize stability and reliability. Android has constantly expanded functionality and utility and in theory that complexity, and frequent revision and extension of the kernel reduces stability and reliability. At the very least, it introduces the possibility of a code defect slipping in; a defect that could possibly lead to a critical flight computer error. The probability of that happening is unquantifiable, but non-zero.

...
Stability and reliability are primary goals of sensible flight related computing. That's why NASA's Space Shuttle used computers and software long frozen in decades past. The old stuff was indisputably stable and reliable. It was old, but not antiquated. Using Windows CE follows a similar proven strategy.

An interesting analogy. The number of unmanned spacecraft losses from software issues is nothing short of spectacular, and the Shuttle and Apollo programmes had their share of hazardous software issues during missions.

There's an awful lot of factors that have to come together to create a stable system, and very little substitute for intensive testing under diverse conditions. That's one thing that mass-market Android devices have in spades..

Stability and reliability are primary goals of sensible flight related computing. That's why NASA's Space Shuttle used computers and software long frozen
in decades past. The old stuff was indisputably stable and reliable.

What I have always heard (note: I am not saying this is the actual reason) was that when you use 'old' computers, those computers are less prone to bit-
flipping by radiation from space. Even though such systems are generally built pretty fault tolerant (an odd number of units performing the same task with a
voter behind it, for example) the older chips were fast enough and simply a bit less prone to the bit-flipping.