RICO VACS - is the schematic available anywhere?

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 3:52:05 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 1:52:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 8:51:39 AM UTC-5, wrote:
I liked the subtle ticking noise of ye olde RICO VACS vario I had in the HP-14. And it was very good at pointing out weak lift. Alas that relic from the 1970s stopped working some time circa 2000. I sent it to its maker and he fixed it, but it later failed again, as has another unit I scrounged somewhere. So I have two of those sitting on the shelf. I'd love to get the schematic and try and revive it. Or build an equivalent audio-only unit. Is it possible to get the schematic diagram somewhere?

Yes, I flew many many XC miles with my RICO in my '20, loved it, and the ticking vario sound is my all time favorite. I actually have my old RICO somewhere in my spare parts shelf, worked great last time it was in a glider....

I now fly with an OpenVario I built, fully equipped with a sensorboard so it has a variometer with TE (electronic or probe) and audio. "Depressing" sound, though. It is my backup vario, I keep it muted in favor of my 302 (also an inferior sound to the RICO).

The OpenVario vario software is open source, so it is possible to modify the sound (with some knowledge and work). I would guess it would be easy to figure out what a tick sound is, and code it, if someone knew what they were doing (which I don't - yet). Also. all the sensors are there on the OpenVario sensorboard for speed-to-fly and advanced vario compensation algorithms (pressure transducers and 3-axis accelerometers), so that is hopefully in the future if someone takes on the task. Anyway, a lot of fun for an engineer-type like me to mess with, maybe some day...

Cheers,
Jim

The RICO VACS ticks were not simply ticks. They were, I believe, very short bursts of a tone. And when the lift got stronger, these "ticks" not only happened more often (more per second) but also increased in the tone frequency, so each tick sounded different than with weak lift. It was a cool algorithm, and yes was unobtrusive - and at the same time very clearly audible even over a lot of background noise. (I tried it in a powered plane once, was easy to hear over the engine noise.)

If the algorithm (or schematics) were available, then yes one way to re-create that sound would be to incorporate it into an open-source project.

Flight computer/vario manufacturers are you listening??

yes We have one working at Prescott Area Soaring, alas I will not be thete until september at nats right now I think I even have a manual for it as well but Ill look when I get back.

CH ASW27

Used to own one. Loved the casual sounding audio. Also the variable dead band.
But it's been about 30 years! That was almost the Bronze Age. Many other cool things have happened since then.

6PK et al:
Yes, flight computers should have the ability to do more with shaping the audio vario, even though a simple LX V3 I have proved it can sound identical to a CA302 in climb mode with no sink tone. To me the 302 became the reference for audio vario understandability around the Industrial Revolution, and still hangs in there.
Audio setup should include dead bands for cruise and climb, waveform, modulation, center frequency, frequency extremes, interruption frequency and percentage for up and down, level adjustment by airspeed, and overall equalisation (like Air-Glide's "bass boost" to make up for a typical small speaker)..
While we're at it, how abut the ability to play back samples? Examples:
Every x minutes someone significant in your life can remind you to drink.
Or at a selectable altitude, that person, Darth Vader, or anyone reminds you to turn on O2, with an "OK, got it" response from the pilot.

Installing 30-year-old electronics in a glider will have maintenance issues.. In the business I'm in, people talk about the sound and feel of "retro" equipment, but tend to forget about the inconvenient stuff. Example: An analog mixing console may sound better than a digital one, but takes six people to lift and doesn't fit in narrow-body aircraft.
Jim

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 8:18:57 AM UTC-7, JS wrote:
Used to own one. Loved the casual sounding audio. Also the variable dead band.
But it's been about 30 years! That was almost the Bronze Age. Many other cool things have happened since then.

6PK et al:
Yes, flight computers should have the ability to do more with shaping the audio vario, even though a simple LX V3 I have proved it can sound identical to a CA302 in climb mode with no sink tone. To me the 302 became the reference for audio vario understandability around the Industrial Revolution, and still hangs in there.
Audio setup should include dead bands for cruise and climb, waveform, modulation, center frequency, frequency extremes, interruption frequency and percentage for up and down, level adjustment by airspeed, and overall equalisation (like Air-Glide's "bass boost" to make up for a typical small speaker).
While we're at it, how abut the ability to play back samples? Examples:
Every x minutes someone significant in your life can remind you to drink.
Or at a selectable altitude, that person, Darth Vader, or anyone reminds you to turn on O2, with an "OK, got it" response from the pilot.

Installing 30-year-old electronics in a glider will have maintenance issues. In the business I'm in, people talk about the sound and feel of "retro" equipment, but tend to forget about the inconvenient stuff. Example: An analog mixing console may sound better than a digital one, but takes six people to lift and doesn't fit in narrow-body aircraft.
Jim
Jim
I'm not advocating the reintroduction of an old antique instrument, and you are absolutely right it would be a giant step backwards.
What I was merely suggesting was that some of these high tech whiz-bang manufacturers shouldn't have much trouble reproducing something that actually works-namely the audio that all seemed to like, as they are constantly knocking and copying each other off anyways.
I recently, about a year ago "updated" from my old trusty 302 to a ClearNav xc vario, which is just as trusty by the way, although I'm still not all that convinced that it is all that it was quacked out to be.
It has a number of audio functions, I'm still not sure which one I like best as non of them are what I would call outstanding, but they all do make noise.
What the old Rico had to offer at least in the audio side was different from the others and seemed to make sense ( but than I'm just repeating myself)…...

Genau!
Jim

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-7, 6PK wrote:
Jim
I'm not advocating the reintroduction of an old antique instrument, and you are absolutely right it would be a giant step backwards.
What I was merely suggesting was that some of these high tech whiz-bang manufacturers shouldn't have much trouble reproducing something that actually works-namely the audio that all seemed to like, as they are constantly knocking and copying each other off anyways.
I recently, about a year ago "updated" from my old trusty 302 to a ClearNav xc vario, which is just as trusty by the way, although I'm still not all that convinced that it is all that it was quacked out to be.
It has a number of audio functions, I'm still not sure which one I like best as non of them are what I would call outstanding, but they all do make noise.
What the old Rico had to offer at least in the audio side was different from the others and seemed to make sense ( but than I'm just repeating myself)…...

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 7:32:31 PM UTC-4, 6PK wrote:

Flight computer/vario manufacturers are you listening??

Probably not.

The observation from a semi-inside guy is this: Just about everyone (from designer to end user) is willing to "go to the wall" over UI stuff, including audio. The result is that the designers grow a very stiff backbone over this... sometimes to the point of total intransigence. In my current cockpit, I can point to things that are pure brilliance, unusable, awkward, intuitive, broken / inoperative, idiotic, obsolete, "that seemed like a really good idea, but just doesn't work in the cockpit" and innovative / really cool. The designer / developer(s) won't change a goddamned thing except on his own whim.

It's quite frustrating. The big opportunity in sailplane instrumentation is UI.

Evan Ludeman

On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 9:10:03 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 7:32:31 PM UTC-4, 6PK wrote:

Flight computer/vario manufacturers are you listening??

Probably not.

The observation from a semi-inside guy is this: Just about everyone (from designer to end user) is willing to "go to the wall" over UI stuff, including audio. The result is that the designers grow a very stiff backbone over this... sometimes to the point of total intransigence. In my current cockpit, I can point to things that are pure brilliance, unusable, awkward, intuitive, broken / inoperative, idiotic, obsolete, "that seemed like a really good idea, but just doesn't work in the cockpit" and innovative / really cool. The designer / developer(s) won't change a goddamned thing except on his own whim.

It's quite frustrating. The big opportunity in sailplane instrumentation is UI.

Evan Ludeman

I recall a long discussion with the designer/ developer of one of the most common glider nav/display products. I was an early adopter as I had been with this manufacturer form the beginning- all they way back to GPS-nav introduction.
When I described how a couple of important functions could be changed to work better for me, and I thought most pilots, his response was "That's not how I fly". GRRRRRRRRR
That said, it is really hard so satisfy everybody.
Simplicity
Feature rich.
Which one do you want?
Sigh
UH

On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 9:49:23 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 9:10:03 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 7:32:31 PM UTC-4, 6PK wrote:

Flight computer/vario manufacturers are you listening??

Probably not.

The observation from a semi-inside guy is this: Just about everyone (from designer to end user) is willing to "go to the wall" over UI stuff, including audio. The result is that the designers grow a very stiff backbone over this... sometimes to the point of total intransigence. In my current cockpit, I can point to things that are pure brilliance, unusable, awkward, intuitive, broken / inoperative, idiotic, obsolete, "that seemed like a really good idea, but just doesn't work in the cockpit" and innovative / really cool. The designer / developer(s) won't change a goddamned thing except on his own whim.

It's quite frustrating. The big opportunity in sailplane instrumentation is UI.

Evan Ludeman

I recall a long discussion with the designer/ developer of one of the most common glider nav/display products. I was an early adopter as I had been with this manufacturer form the beginning- all they way back to GPS-nav introduction.
When I described how a couple of important functions could be changed to work better for me, and I thought most pilots, his response was "That's not how I fly". GRRRRRRRRR
That said, it is really hard so satisfy everybody.
Simplicity
Feature rich.
Which one do you want?
Sigh
UH

Thing is, in the current instruments that are software-based, they COULD make (almost) everybody happy, by allowing the users to choose their own settings. They do that to some extent, but could go much farther. That doesn't necessarily make the thing hard to use - one is free to leave the settings on their defaults, or, one can change them once and then leave them alone..

One advantage of open-source is that if you don't like the UI you can choose another, or build your own. Thus for example I use Tophat rather than XCSoar, for the better (IMO) UI - they are both based on the same core software.

On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:29:12 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 9:49:23 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 9:10:03 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 7:32:31 PM UTC-4, 6PK wrote:

Flight computer/vario manufacturers are you listening??

Probably not.

The observation from a semi-inside guy is this: Just about everyone (from designer to end user) is willing to "go to the wall" over UI stuff, including audio. The result is that the designers grow a very stiff backbone over this... sometimes to the point of total intransigence. In my current cockpit, I can point to things that are pure brilliance, unusable, awkward, intuitive, broken / inoperative, idiotic, obsolete, "that seemed like a really good idea, but just doesn't work in the cockpit" and innovative / really cool. The designer / developer(s) won't change a goddamned thing except on his own whim.

It's quite frustrating. The big opportunity in sailplane instrumentation is UI.

Evan Ludeman

I recall a long discussion with the designer/ developer of one of the most common glider nav/display products. I was an early adopter as I had been with this manufacturer form the beginning- all they way back to GPS-nav introduction.
When I described how a couple of important functions could be changed to work better for me, and I thought most pilots, his response was "That's not how I fly". GRRRRRRRRR
That said, it is really hard so satisfy everybody.
Simplicity
Feature rich.
Which one do you want?
Sigh
UH

Thing is, in the current instruments that are software-based, they COULD make (almost) everybody happy, by allowing the users to choose their own settings. They do that to some extent, but could go much farther. That doesn't necessarily make the thing hard to use - one is free to leave the settings on their defaults, or, one can change them once and then leave them alone.

One advantage of open-source is that if you don't like the UI you can choose another, or build your own. Thus for example I use Tophat rather than XCSoar, for the better (IMO) UI - they are both based on the same core software.

Commercial stuff, e.g. CN2 about 10x better where it matters most (in the cockpit, on task) than any currently available open source navigation solution, particularly as regards UI. That isn't the device I was complaining about :-). I used XCS & TopHat as primary nav tool for 11 contests iirc. I'm familiar with the genre.

T8

On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:34:02 AM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:29:12 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 9:49:23 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 9:10:03 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 7:32:31 PM UTC-4, 6PK wrote:

Flight computer/vario manufacturers are you listening??

Probably not.

The observation from a semi-inside guy is this: Just about everyone (from designer to end user) is willing to "go to the wall" over UI stuff, including audio. The result is that the designers grow a very stiff backbone over this... sometimes to the point of total intransigence. In my current cockpit, I can point to things that are pure brilliance, unusable, awkward, intuitive, broken / inoperative, idiotic, obsolete, "that seemed like a really good idea, but just doesn't work in the cockpit" and innovative / really cool. The designer / developer(s) won't change a goddamned thing except on his own whim.

It's quite frustrating. The big opportunity in sailplane instrumentation is UI.

Evan Ludeman

I recall a long discussion with the designer/ developer of one of the most common glider nav/display products. I was an early adopter as I had been with this manufacturer form the beginning- all they way back to GPS-nav introduction.
When I described how a couple of important functions could be changed to work better for me, and I thought most pilots, his response was "That's not how I fly". GRRRRRRRRR
That said, it is really hard so satisfy everybody.
Simplicity
Feature rich.
Which one do you want?
Sigh
UH

Thing is, in the current instruments that are software-based, they COULD make (almost) everybody happy, by allowing the users to choose their own settings. They do that to some extent, but could go much farther. That doesn't necessarily make the thing hard to use - one is free to leave the settings on their defaults, or, one can change them once and then leave them alone.

One advantage of open-source is that if you don't like the UI you can choose another, or build your own. Thus for example I use Tophat rather than XCSoar, for the better (IMO) UI - they are both based on the same core software.

Commercial stuff, e.g. CN2 about 10x better where it matters most (in the cockpit, on task) than any currently available open source navigation solution, particularly as regards UI. That isn't the device I was complaining about :-). I used XCS & TopHat as primary nav tool for 11 contests iirc. I'm familiar with the genre.

T8

Evan,

In which way(s) is CN2 10X better than XCSoar or Top Hat?

Regards,

Mike Carris