Glide computer review

Different strokes, however some logical problems in the
above post, explained below...

On Dec 7, 1:02*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
Alright, I'll be the heretic in the group:

I find that a well-set-up PDA is much better than most of the flight
computers out there!

And you have extensive experience with which ?

Many of the panel-mounted computers use text and/or point-and-line
graphics; which, while visible in sunlight, don't give you nearly as
good of an idea where you are as a moving map does. *Maybe its because
I'm younger than the average US glider pilot (sorry, not my fault) and
I've grown up around computers and graphics, but I find moving-map
symbology (with a couple of choice text items) MUCH easier to
interpret at a glance, compared to the "screen full of text" approach
of many glide computers. *And some brain studies have proven that
simple colors and shapes can be interpreted faster than text (letters
are shapes as well; but shapes that need to get shuffled off to the
linguistic part of the brain, IIRC).

I've focused design on being able to QUICKLY SCAN the panel
and get the info you need. Otherwise you spend too much time
heads down. Things that prevent scanning a
- poor screen clarity (contrast, resolution, size, fonts) requiring
squint time
- too much stuff (why you can't scan a sectional) !
- poor organization

ALL our flight screens are tested for scanability - can you look
at the image for = one second, look away, and have got what you
need ?
If it takes more time than that, what exactly is going to happen
in a thermal or on the ridge at mach speed ?
That's why our moving map is SIMPLE.
You can scan it !

I think one of the problems is that most people pull a PDA out of the
box, load up a flight program like XCSoar (my favorite) or SeeYou, and
immediately compare it to the panel-mounted flight computers in top
gliders. *The issue is that the major PDA systems are far more
customizable. *IF people would take the time to tweak the PDA-based
programs to display the information they want and in the style that
they like, I think the overall opinion of these solutions would go up
quite a bit!

Actually, most people WANT a solution that does not require
extensive fiddling to get to square one. Of course, we provide
a custom screen for those that want it.

I also find the menu system and feature navigation in most panel-
mounted flight computers is a NIGHTMARE. *As a programmer with a lot
of experience in webpages and other user-interfaces, these systems
drive me up a WALL! *The designers obviously didn't put a whole lot of
thought into the fact that people will be fiddling with these things
while _flying_. *Since the flying is the more important part, some
focus should have been put on easy navigation to the most important
items in an unambiguous manner. *IMHO, its a bad design to have 1
button perform 4 or 5 functions depending on how you hold it down or
in what sequence you press it!

Right. We design for operation with the left hand, with gloves on.
We use a flat, non-modal interface. No silly menus.

They're getting better with the most recent generations of panel-
mounted computers, but a lot of the older/used units on the market
worry me... *They require the most "heads-down" time to use, but are
the cheapest and therefore the most likely items to be used by the
least experienced pilots.... *Seems like a BAD combo, to me!

OK, enough ranting/opinionating... *The bottom line is that neither
PDAs nor Panel-mounted solutions are a silver-bullet. *Anyone with
interest in them should SPEND SOME TIME fiddling with a variety of
solutions to find out what feels best to them - even if its just on
the ground with some buddies' gliders. *Be sure to ask about how each
system can be customized - in case your idea of the perfect setup
differs from your buddies! *You want to make apples-to-apples
comparisons, afterall.

--Noel

Noel, have you tried the SN-10 demo? I test aircraft cockpit display
software for a living and really like the SN-10 for in-flight ease of
use. I find it pretty logical -especially for competitions. OTOH,
most PDA software is pretty hideous. SYM is just bearable, but since
I only use it for a stripped down moving map, that's OK for now.

It is neat to have all these gizmos in the cockpit. I joke with my
friends that I have way more comm, nav, and ID capability in my glider
than I ever had in the F-4s I flew in the AF!

Cheers,

Kirk
66

"kirk.stant" wrote in message ...
Noel, have you tried the SN-10 demo? I test aircraft cockpit display
software for a living and really like the SN-10 for in-flight ease of
use. I find it pretty logical -especially for competitions. OTOH,
most PDA software is pretty hideous. SYM is just bearable, but since
I only use it for a stripped down moving map, that's OK for now.

It is neat to have all these gizmos in the cockpit. I joke with my
friends that I have way more comm, nav, and ID capability in my glider
than I ever had in the F-4s I flew in the AF!

Cheers,

Kirk
66

Kirk,

I'm a gizmo nut! I really have to be careful to avoid creating an instrument panel that has more value then the glider in which it is installed.

Even with the limitations of simply attaching a GPS to XCSoar, the capability is close to what was available to me as a Bombardier/Navigation in the A-6 Intruder.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Naval_Pictures/A-6_Cockpit.jpg

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"

On Dec 7, 4:27*pm, Dave Nadler wrote:
Different strokes, however some logical problems in the
above post, explained below...

On Dec 7, 1:02*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:

Alright, I'll be the heretic in the group:

I find that a well-set-up PDA is much better than most of the flight
computers out there!

And you have extensive experience with which ?

Many of the panel-mounted computers use text and/or point-and-line
graphics; which, while visible in sunlight, don't give you nearly as
good of an idea where you are as a moving map does. *Maybe its because
I'm younger than the average US glider pilot (sorry, not my fault) and
I've grown up around computers and graphics, but I find moving-map
symbology (with a couple of choice text items) MUCH easier to
interpret at a glance, compared to the "screen full of text" approach
of many glide computers. *And some brain studies have proven that
simple colors and shapes can be interpreted faster than text (letters
are shapes as well; but shapes that need to get shuffled off to the
linguistic part of the brain, IIRC).

I've focused design on being able to QUICKLY SCAN the panel
and get the info you need. Otherwise you spend too much time
heads down. Things that prevent scanning a
- poor screen clarity (contrast, resolution, size, fonts) requiring
squint time
- too much stuff (why you can't scan a sectional) !
- poor organization

ALL our flight screens are tested for scanability - can you look
at the image for = one second, look away, and have got what you
need ?
If it takes more time than that, what exactly is going to happen
in a thermal or on the ridge at mach speed ?
That's why our moving map is SIMPLE.
You can scan it !

Some user feedback Dave - don't taze me, bro!. While the SN-10 screen
gets high marks for contrast, I find the text display too crammed to
scan easily. The fonts are pretty blocky for easy readability too - at
least for me. I suspect this is due to the display technology selected
by Ilec rather than a software design choice, but you're the expert. I
found the LX 7000 to have a much easier to scan display for an
instrument in this class because of the clearer placement of the
various display elements, sharper characters, use of different text
sizes, etc.

Different strokes to be sure, but people should really take a live
look at some operating units and twiddle the knobs before they buy if
at all possible. The features and functionality also matter and the
SN-10 does pretty well here. I suspect it is the share leader among US
competition pilots.

9B

On Dec 7, 7:27*pm, Dave Nadler wrote:
I've focused design on being able to QUICKLY SCAN the panel
and get the info you need. Otherwise you spend too much time
heads down. Things that prevent scanning a
- poor screen clarity (contrast, resolution, size, fonts) requiring
squint time
- too much stuff (why you can't scan a sectional) !
- poor organization

ALL our flight screens are tested for scanability - can you look
at the image for = one second, look away, and have got what you
need ?
If it takes more time than that, what exactly is going to happen
in a thermal or on the ridge at mach speed ?
That's why our moving map is SIMPLE.
You can scan it !

Every once in a while I find something that I have to respond to.
Sorry Dave, I'm still using the SN10. Overall it is the best of what
I have used.

Yes, I agree that the SN10 map page can be scanned quickly, mainly
because there is not much there but that is not what I take exception
to.

It is NOT SIMPLE and does require enormous heads down time to use.

With the interface, it is extremely time consuming and it is a mind
teaser to zoom, scroll, put the current glider location back in the
center of the screen and to get the task area you are flying into and
the current glider location on the screen at the same time. AND, once
you do achieve this, when you return to the screen in 10 minutes, you
have to do it all over again.

For these reasons, I VERY RARELY find it worthwhile to use the screen
and when I do I usually loose some mojo due to the time it takes,
heads down by the way, to do what I need to do with it.

And by the way Dave, when are you going to fix the costly reserve
altitude problem I pointed out in Montague (it gets reset without
informing the user when clicking on the finish TP on your tasking
listing page)?