LXNav V7 vs Butterfly vario?

On Monday, January 7, 2013 8:52:39 AM UTC-5, Max Kellermann wrote:
On Monday, January 7, 2013 12:24:10 PM UTC+1, Evan Ludeman wrote:

While it is true that ClearNav is not interested in working with XCSoar, we will, as previously mentioned, support the CAI dataport communications standard for our upcoming CNv XC, so the XCSoar community, as well as everybody else already has our protocol.



That's a trap. It sounds like "buy ClearNav, and it will work with XCSoar", but it will not. Without cooperation, there _will_ be problems[*].



([*] = it will work only if you emulate all CAI302 firmware bugs, bit by bit, and all timings are identical. The thing is, the CAI302 does not follow its own dataport communication standard. Not a big deal for XCSoar, we have workarounds, but a standards-compliant device will not work.)



We already know that ClearNav is not interested in XCSoar, and therefore I am mutually not interested in ClearNav. Connecting a ClearNav vario to XCSoar is explicitly not supported.



Though I hope ClearNav changes their minds. (It's up to their customers to highlight the importance of connectivity to them, or to choose a vendor that is open enough for one's personal taste.)

"Trap". Okay... one more time....

We aren't, and won't be making a 302 replacement. We will be using the CAI developed and published dataport standard and with any luck at all we'll be doing a much better job of it than CAI ever did. If users have issues with our products, they should contact us and I have no doubt they will. Where the problems are with our products, we'll do our best to solve them. Hope that's clear?

Third party developers are of course free to integrate their products with CNv based upon the aforementioned standard. That's the point of using an open standard. If there are issues that come up, you should contact us. If the issues are our issues, I expect we'll fix them.

Evan Ludeman for ClearNav Instruments
http://www.clearnav.net