RICO VACS - is the schematic available anywhere?

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

On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:14:00 PM UTC-4, Mike C wrote:
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

Short answer is: I spend 0.1x time getting the info I need. Eyes stay outside.

Evan Ludeman

Even could you elaborate on some of the specific things you like about CN2 vs Top Hat or XCSoar?

On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 8:45:56 PM UTC-4, Wyll Surf Air wrote:
Even could you elaborate on some of the specific things you like about CN2 vs Top Hat or XCSoar?

Presentation (literal info at a glance for me), input style, reliability, AAT and MAT functionality all save time. Very low fuss factor in flight. I take the attitude that every second my eyes have to be in the cockpit is a lost opportunity.

Voice alert interface for flarm is great too ("Traffic, 5 o'clock high").

CN2 not perfect, has some aggravations. Mostly these are things that don't get in the way during flight.

For recreational XC the open source tools are okay. When you start flying tasks and performance matters, I think you will find shortcomings.

Evan Ludeman