Damn and I just paid out for a copy!

Now I guess it'll be a 'feature fight'.

How about all you software and hardware vendors get together and agree on an
interoperability standard so that us poor pilots can build systems with
fully interchangeable components - Loggers - varios - PDA's etc ( that means
less of the proprietary interface stuff) It could only be a good thing for
gliding. Especially with the last little scare about the some equipment no
longer being supported by the manufacturers/ the IGC. A common
interoperability standard would at least ensure the life of systems.

Ian

Yeh, I'm sure sorry to hear about this new price too. I just spent $375 for
a copy.
--
Gary Boggs
3650 Airport Dr.
Hood River, Oregon, USA
97031-9613
"tango4" > wrote in message
...
Damn and I just paid out for a copy!

Now I guess it'll be a 'feature fight'.

How about all you software and hardware vendors get together and agree on an
interoperability standard so that us poor pilots can build systems with
fully interchangeable components - Loggers - varios - PDA's etc ( that means
less of the proprietary interface stuff) It could only be a good thing for
gliding. Especially with the last little scare about the some equipment no
longer being supported by the manufacturers/ the IGC. A common
interoperability standard would at least ensure the life of systems.

Ian

Gary Boggs wrote:

> Yeh, I'm sure sorry to hear about this new price too. I just spent $375 for
> a copy.
Question is - was/is it worth the $375 - if so be happy. If it is not, why did
you buy it?

Good luck to the guys who are getting it cheap, but remember that you eventually
get what you pay for in software. It still costs time/money to develop this
stuff. YOu can discount to buy market share, or be chaeper because you live in a
low cost location, but there are limits. So if the price becomes too low to
support - especially in a fragmented market, people start leaving, or stop
developing...

Ahhhhh, another Microshaft drone

Free software works, like it or not!

:-)

I hear it's getting cooler down your way Bruce. Only 28 degrees or so. Soon
you'll have nothing but 4 knot ( 2 metre ) midwinter thermals whilst we are
into stonking 6 knot midsummer ones!

Ian

Bruce Greeff wrote:
> Gary Boggs wrote:
>
>> Yeh, I'm sure sorry to hear about this new price too. I just spent
>> $375 for
>> a copy.
>
> Question is - was/is it worth the $375 - if so be happy. If it is not,
> why did you buy it?

Gary should be happy, as you say. Free updates for a whole year now,
instead of only 6 months.

>
> Good luck to the guys who are getting it cheap, but remember that you
> eventually get what you pay for in software.

If this were really true, it would be easy to buy good software: just
pick the most expensive! But, I sit here using Netscape 7.1, a free
browser, email client, and web page composer that is at least the equal
to IE 6 and Outlook Express, and without so many security issues.
Mozilla 1.6 is even better, and just as free. And look at how many
corporations use Linux.

> It still costs time/money
> to develop this stuff. YOu can discount to buy market share, or be
> chaeper because you live in a low cost location, but there are limits.

Aye, and that's the rub: just where are those limits? We won't know
until people stretch them a little, will we?

> So if the price becomes too low to support - especially in a fragmented
> market, people start leaving, or stop developing...

True in general, but in this _particular_ case, can we say $250US is too
low? With Strepla's and CU's entry into the market, I suggest they think
not. And after CU's success with their flight display software, I
suspect it isn't.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

The great thing about software these days is that a
good programmer can have a nice little business over
the Internet so long as it's cheap to acquire customers.

The soaring community is a small market and the racing/cross-count
ry segment is a small proportion of that small market.
But, it's also pretty close-knit (with the Internet
it's truly global). So, with essentially no cost of
goods and very little marketing or distribution cost,
a team of one or two programmers can earn a decent
living. Say, $150/copy (net) x 1-2,000 new copies per
year yields a pretty solid, if not extravagant, income.
Even the upgrade business isn't too bad at $50/copy
if you can keep a significant portion of your overall
installed base renewing each year.

Free software works, but only to the extent that you
can keep a community of talented volunteers interested
in continuing to innovate and support the product (the
latter being the tougher part since programmers tend
not to like all the administrative BS associate with
product support).

Personally, I don't find a few hundred bucks to be
all that much to pay for what these products do in
terms of increasing the enjoyment and safety of cross-country
and racing flights - not to mention the potential for
improvement in overall pilot performance. I bought
a copy of WinPilot Pro last year and paid for copy
of SeeYou mobile. Consider it a subsidy for continued
development. They're both quite good pieces of software
and I hope they both prove successful in the market.


At 16:48 20 February 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Bruce Greeff wrote:
>> Gary Boggs wrote:
>>
>>> Yeh, I'm sure sorry to hear about this new price too.
>>> I just spent
>>> $375 for
>>> a copy.
>>
>> Question is - was/is it worth the $375 - if so be
>>happy. If it is not,
>> why did you buy it?
>
>Gary should be happy, as you say. Free updates for
>a whole year now,
>instead of only 6 months.
>
>>
>> Good luck to the guys who are getting it cheap, but
>>remember that you
>> eventually get what you pay for in software.
>
>If this were really true, it would be easy to buy good
>software: just
>pick the most expensive! But, I sit here using Netscape
>7.1, a free
>browser, email client, and web page composer that is
>at least the equal
> to IE 6 and Outlook Express, and without so many
>security issues.
>Mozilla 1.6 is even better, and just as free. And look
>at how many
>corporations use Linux.
>
>> It still costs time/money
>> to develop this stuff. YOu can discount to buy market
>>share, or be
>> chaeper because you live in a low cost location, but
>>there are limits.
>
>Aye, and that's the rub: just where are those limits?
>We won't know
>until people stretch them a little, will we?
>
>> So if the price becomes too low to support - especially
>>in a fragmented
>> market, people start leaving, or stop developing...
>
>True in general, but in this _particular_ case, can
>we say $250US is too
>low? With Strepla's and CU's entry into the market,
>I suggest they think
>not. And after CU's success with their flight display
>software, I
>suspect it isn't.
>--
>-----
>change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>
>

Is anyone working on Linux flight software?

I've been looking at some really neat PIII "Car Computers" with 7 inch
screens that run on a very modest amount of 12V DC current - a 7.5 AH
battery should run one 6 hours or more. They cost about the same as a PDA
but have bigger screens, more performance and are infinitely customizable.

Bill Daniels

I can't wait until the day when our entire panel will be a screen all with
the other instruments, and info just superimposed on the moving map that
will be landstat photos of what we are seeing out the canopy.

--
Gary Boggs
3650 Airport Dr.
Hood River, Oregon, USA
97031-9613
"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
...
Is anyone working on Linux flight software?

I've been looking at some really neat PIII "Car Computers" with 7 inch
screens that run on a very modest amount of 12V DC current - a 7.5 AH
battery should run one 6 hours or more. They cost about the same as a PDA
but have bigger screens, more performance and are infinitely customizable.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels wrote:

> Is anyone working on Linux flight software?

http://cumulus.kflog.org/

Marc

"Gary Boggs" > wrote in message
...
> I can't wait until the day when our entire panel will be a screen all with
> the other instruments, and info just superimposed on the moving map that
> will be landstat photos of what we are seeing out the canopy.
>

Essentially, this could be done now. These 12V computer systems are the
same as the most powerful laptops and come with the same array of I/O ports
like USB 2.0 and IEEE 1394. They can use hard drives or Flash Memory
virtual drives to make them more rugged. A single 7.5 AH SLA battery would
power the thing for more than 6 hours.

You would use an "Air Data" sensor that measures pitot/static pressure,air
temp and TE probe pressure. Add a USB GPS engine and you have all you need.
From this, compute and display IAS, TAS, Altitude, Vario (TE, Average, Netto
etc.) - use vertical tape displays if you prefer. Of course, the glide
computer with the moving map would be in the center of the display.
Updating the panel would become a matter of just updating the software.

The display could be a thin, daylight readable LCD that hinges down over the
existing panel containing the old round instruments. If the newfangled
computer goes belly up, just lift the screen up to reveal the old panel.

Bill Daniels

Forget the screen and go right to heads up. Superimposed or imaged onto your
sunglasses or whatever. Biggest problem with PDA's is the touch screen
thing - I like big round knobs that have solid clicks I can turn with my big
mitts. I hate poking (and squinting) at the iPaq, not very clever in my
opinion. Better yet with buttons on the stick and flap handle.

Best audio ever is the three-chord tone from an SB-8; Ilec should bring that
back for the -10 - it's like angels from Heaven in a climb.

Jim


"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Boggs" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I can't wait until the day when our entire panel will be a screen all
with
> > the other instruments, and info just superimposed on the moving map that
> > will be landstat photos of what we are seeing out the canopy.
> >
>
> Essentially, this could be done now. These 12V computer systems are the
> same as the most powerful laptops and come with the same array of I/O
ports
> like USB 2.0 and IEEE 1394. They can use hard drives or Flash Memory
> virtual drives to make them more rugged. A single 7.5 AH SLA battery
would
> power the thing for more than 6 hours.
>
> You would use an "Air Data" sensor that measures pitot/static pressure,air
> temp and TE probe pressure. Add a USB GPS engine and you have all you
need.
> From this, compute and display IAS, TAS, Altitude, Vario (TE, Average,
Netto
> etc.) - use vertical tape displays if you prefer. Of course, the glide
> computer with the moving map would be in the center of the display.
> Updating the panel would become a matter of just updating the software.
>
> The display could be a thin, daylight readable LCD that hinges down over
the
> existing panel containing the old round instruments. If the newfangled
> computer goes belly up, just lift the screen up to reveal the old panel.
>
> Bill Daniels
>

"Jim Phoenix" > wrote in message
...
Snip-------

Better yet with buttons on the stick and flap handle.
>
Snip------

> Jim

Cool idea - buttons on stick and flap handle. Limited vocabulary voice
commands would work too.

Bill Daniels

>
>
> "Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Gary Boggs" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I can't wait until the day when our entire panel will be a screen all
> with
> > > the other instruments, and info just superimposed on the moving map
that
> > > will be landstat photos of what we are seeing out the canopy.
> > >
> >
> > Essentially, this could be done now. These 12V computer systems are the
> > same as the most powerful laptops and come with the same array of I/O
> ports
> > like USB 2.0 and IEEE 1394. They can use hard drives or Flash Memory
> > virtual drives to make them more rugged. A single 7.5 AH SLA battery
> would
> > power the thing for more than 6 hours.
> >
> > You would use an "Air Data" sensor that measures pitot/static
pressure,air
> > temp and TE probe pressure. Add a USB GPS engine and you have all you
> need.
> > From this, compute and display IAS, TAS, Altitude, Vario (TE, Average,
> Netto
> > etc.) - use vertical tape displays if you prefer. Of course, the glide
> > computer with the moving map would be in the center of the display.
> > Updating the panel would become a matter of just updating the software.
> >
> > The display could be a thin, daylight readable LCD that hinges down over
> the
> > existing panel containing the old round instruments. If the newfangled
> > computer goes belly up, just lift the screen up to reveal the old panel.
> >
> > Bill Daniels
> >
>
>

>
> Cool idea - buttons on stick and flap handle. Limited vocabulary voice
> commands would work too.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
And when it heard certain words, it could activate the robot arm to mop your
brow with a cool cloth, whisper calming sounds into your ear, and drop a
valium into your drink, 8-0

Keith

Andy Blackburn > wrote:
>
>Free software works, but only to the extent that you
>can keep a community of talented volunteers interested
>in continuing to innovate and support the product (the
>latter being the tougher part since programmers tend
>not to like all the administrative BS associate with
>product support).

You have a highly flawed assumption above. Those that provide free
software do it for a reason, and their support is as good as of any
commercial organization. Have you ever tried getting real support from
Microsoft? A community of volunteer programmers helps, but success of
a commercial product depends on an analogous existance of motivated
(maybe by money) programmers, so a commercial product can stop its
development as well.

>
>Personally, I don't find a few hundred bucks to be
>all that much to pay for what these products do in

You are lucky.

>terms of increasing the enjoyment and safety of cross-country
>and racing flights - not to mention the potential for
>improvement in overall pilot performance. I bought
>a copy of WinPilot Pro last year and paid for copy
>of SeeYou mobile. Consider it a subsidy for continued
>development. They're both quite good pieces of software
>and I hope they both prove successful in the market.
>

I think there is a contradiction here with your previous thoughts.
Since they are commercial products they do not need subsidy. If you
want to subsidise "increasing the enjoyment and safety of
cross-country and racing flights - not to mention the potential for
improvement in overall pilot performance" consider finding some way to
contribute to efforts of those that do that for soaring population at
large. This does not necessarily mean monetary renumeration.

Henryk Birecki

All I can say is, 'Hear, Hear!!' I took a bit of offense
at this as well but just marked it up to misinformation.
The whole notion that if a product doesn't cost that
is MUST not be worth anything is non-sense. However,
it is still VERY prevalent. Oh well, it's not my money
that's being spent. Later!-Markwww.soaringpilot.org At 17:54 21 February 2004, Henryk Birecki wrote:>Andy Blackburn wrote:>>>>Free software works, but only to the extent that you>>can keep a community of talented volunteers interested>>in continuing to innovate and support the product (the>>latter being the tougher part since programmers tend>>not to like all the administrative BS associate with>>product support).>>You have a highly flawed assumption above. Those that
>provide free>software do it for a reason, and their support is as
>good as of any>commercial organization. Have you ever tried getting
>real support from>Microsoft? A community of volunteer programmers helps,
>but success of>a commercial product depends on an analogous existance
>of motivated>(maybe by money) programmers, so a commercial product
>can stop its>development as well.>>>>>Personally, I don't find a few hundred bucks to be>>all that much to pay for what these products do in>>You are lucky.>>>terms of increasing the enjoyment and safety of cross-country>>and racing flights - not to mention the potential for>>improvement in overall pilot performance. I bought>>a copy of WinPilot Pro last year and paid for copy>>of SeeYou mobile. Consider it a subsidy for continued>>development. They're both quite good pieces of software>>and I hope they both prove successful in the market.>>>>I think there is a contradiction here with your previous
>thoughts.>Since they are commercial products they do not need
>subsidy. If you>want to subsidise 'increasing the enjoyment and safety
>of>cross-country and racing flights - not to mention the
>potential for>improvement in overall pilot performance' consider
>finding some way to>contribute to efforts of those that do that for soaring
>population at>large. This does not necessarily mean monetary renumeration.>>Henryk Birecki>

Bill Daniels wrote:
> Is anyone working on Linux flight software?
>


This is a good one -

http://freshmeat.net/projects/gpligc

Very powerful, but you have to really be into Linux to get
it up and running with the support libraries it needs -
OpenGL, Perl/Tk, GnuPlot - but would be a good winter time
project to learn about if you want to get into the nuts and
bolts of GPS 3D flight plotting.

Actually, my (mis)infomation on non-commercial software
comes from extensive research in Open Source community
motivations and behaviors, including survey research
of several thousand Open Source developers. I think
facts normally trump opinions/anecdotes.

I don't think of making money as a bad motivation for
developing software. Writing soaring software is a
particularly tough way to make a living, so I'm willing
to support the guys who have the nerve to do it.

For those of you who develop soaring apps for the personal
satisfaction, good for you. If you don't want my money
at least you have my gratitude.



At 00:54 22 February 2004, Mark Hawkins wrote:
>All I can say is, 'Hear, Hear!!' I took a bit of offense
>at this as well but just marked it up to misinformation.
> The whole notion that if a product doesn't cost that
>is MUST not be worth anything is non-sense. However,
>it is still VERY prevalent. Oh well, it's not my money
>that's being spent. Later!-Markwww.soaringpilot.org
>At 17:54 21 February 2004, Henryk Birecki wrote:>Andy
>Blackburn wrote:>>>>Free software works, but only to the
>>>>extent that you>>can keep a community of talented volunteers
>>interested>>in continuing to innovate and support the
>>product (the>>latter being the tougher part since programmers
>>tend>>not to like all the administrative BS associate
>>with>>product support).>>You have a highly flawed assumption
>>>>above. Those that
>>provide free>software do it for a reason, and their
>>>support is as
>>good as of any>commercial organization. Have you ever
>>>tried getting
>>real support from>Microsoft? A community of volunteer
>>>programmers helps,
>>but success of>a commercial product depends on an analogous
>>>existance
>>of motivated>(maybe by money) programmers, so a commercial
>>>product
>>can stop its>development as well.>>>>>Personally, I don't find a few hundred bucks
>>>>>>>to be>>all that much to pay for what these products do
>>in>>You are lucky.>>>terms of increasing the enjoyment and
>>>>>safety of cross-country>>and racing flights - not to
>>mention the potential for>>improvement in overall pilot
>>performance. I bought>>a copy of WinPilot Pro last year
>>and paid for copy>>of SeeYou mobile. Consider it a subsidy
>>for continued>>development. They're both quite good pieces
>>of software>>and I hope they both prove successful in
>>the market.>>>>I think there is a contradiction here with
>>>>your previous
>>thoughts.>Since they are commercial products they do
>>>not need
>>subsidy. If you>want to subsidise 'increasing the enjoyment
>>>and safety
>>of>cross-country and racing flights - not to mention
>>>the
>>potential for>improvement in overall pilot performance'
>>>consider
>>finding some way to>contribute to efforts of those that
>>>do that for soaring
>>population at>large. This does not necessarily mean
>>>monetary renumeration.>>Henryk Birecki>
>
>
>

tango4 wrote:
> Ahhhhh, another Microshaft drone
>
> Free software works, like it or not!
>
> :-)
>
> I hear it's getting cooler down your way Bruce. Only 28 degrees or so. Soon
> you'll have nothing but 4 knot ( 2 metre ) midwinter thermals whilst we are
> into stonking 6 knot midsummer ones!
>
> Ian
>
>

Hi Ian

Fortunately not a major client or fan of Micro$oft Corp.
Most of my systems run open source, and we even publish our extensions back.
Which sort of proves that people can have software for nothing, just without
warranty.

My point was merely that if you are buying something, remember that it has to
make commercial sense, or you may have a Betamax in your glider... It doesn't
matter if the product is good/competitive/desirable. If it was a commercial
venture and does not make commercial sense it will die. Now I DO see the merit
in making an opensource offering. But I doubt there are enough people with the
knowledge and time available to do that. Possibly better to support the Pauls
and Erazems of the world, their products are good, and surely worth paying for.

As for the flying, I spent a three day weekend driving my family to and from my
partner's son's wedding out Kimberly way, and admiring the perfect cloud streets
from the car. Took the opportunity to identify suitable fields for when I start
doing some serious XC out that way...

Ah Well, there is always next weekend. The lack of rain has left us with a very
dry countryside, I think we can count on lots of thermals this winter.

(Written on the Mozilla "Thunderbird" mail client - not getting affected by 98%
of the viruses is sooo nice.)

In my ideal world I'd like to see a single large flat panel screen smack in
the middle of my panel with the various companies vying for who can write
the best program to use for displaying the various things you guys have
brought up. It holds all sorts of possibilites and with multiple windows
open would even mean that you could run programs from different
manufacturers on that same screen.

This nonsense of having to buy a latest and greatest hardware gizmo to go
with the software is crazy. One big screen would be much easier to
read....maybe I'm just getting too old to see the damn little things! Maybe
they could even agree on a single box (hard drive?) to drive the thing as
well bringing it down to just the software competition.

Anyone know if the technology is currently good enough to make this work
i.e. flat screens wrt current drain, ease of use in high sun environments,
etc? I have no expertise in this whatsoever. Just dreamin'.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

Bill Daniels wrote:
> Is anyone working on Linux flight software?
>
> I've been looking at some really neat PIII "Car Computers" with 7 inch
> screens that run on a very modest amount of 12V DC current - a 7.5 AH
> battery should run one 6 hours or more. They cost about the same as a PDA
> but have bigger screens, more performance and are infinitely customizable.

Could you point me to a web site or two for these? Sounds interesting.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

"Andy Blackburn" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, my (mis)infomation on non-commercial software
> comes from extensive research in Open Source community
> motivations and behaviors, including survey research
> of several thousand Open Source developers. I think
> facts normally trump opinions/anecdotes.
>

Not on the internet they don't.

Hi,

I agree that a large screen would be very nice. In my day job I sell
industrial automation equipment. Computer Dynamics has large 7 inch or 10
inch industrial computers that run Windows CE. They are cool, but the
current draw is much too high for use in a glider. I think we'll have to
wait a while yet. Also, they generally run on 24V so a power converter would
be required. That is not a huge obstacle though.

Paul Remde

"Kilo Charlie" > wrote in message
news:id4_b.24001$o52.18383@fed1read02...
> In my ideal world I'd like to see a single large flat panel screen smack
in
> the middle of my panel with the various companies vying for who can write
> the best program to use for displaying the various things you guys have
> brought up. It holds all sorts of possibilites and with multiple windows
> open would even mean that you could run programs from different
> manufacturers on that same screen.
>
> This nonsense of having to buy a latest and greatest hardware gizmo to go
> with the software is crazy. One big screen would be much easier to
> read....maybe I'm just getting too old to see the damn little things!
Maybe
> they could even agree on a single box (hard drive?) to drive the thing as
> well bringing it down to just the software competition.
>
> Anyone know if the technology is currently good enough to make this work
> i.e. flat screens wrt current drain, ease of use in high sun environments,
> etc? I have no expertise in this whatsoever. Just dreamin'.
>
> Casey Lenox
> KC
> Phoenix
>
>

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
> > Is anyone working on Linux flight software?
> >
> > I've been looking at some really neat PIII "Car Computers" with 7 inch
> > screens that run on a very modest amount of 12V DC current - a 7.5 AH
> > battery should run one 6 hours or more. They cost about the same as a
PDA
> > but have bigger screens, more performance and are infinitely
customizable.
>
> Could you point me to a web site or two for these? Sounds interesting.
>
> --
> -----
> change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>
Here you go, Eric.

http://www.mini-box.com/
http://store.karpc.com/cgi-bin/cp-app.pl?rrc=N&pg=home&affl=stroletti
http://www.antelopetech.com/en/Index.aspx

I'm sure there are more. I found these in a couple of minutes with Google.

Bill Daniels

Well I would hope that sometime soon these screens would be available. The
real question is whether or not the manufacturers that currently sell the
units (CAI, Ilec, etc) would support this type of system. There would have
to be some agreement upon the hardware part of it wouldn't there? I guess
that it did happen with VHS and DVD's but not without a few outliers such as
Sony's beta. With so little money in this industry we should just be
thankful that we have nice toys to choose from currently but the small
displays have become a limiting factor. Also I'm tainted after having seen
one of the new Garmin (1000?) setups in a Gulfstream I went through a few
weeks ago.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

My guess is that most of the current crop of programs
written for Pocket PC OS could be ported to a Tablet
PC pretty easily -- that would be a start.

As a general case you'd just need a computer with a
bright color display and a serial port to communicate
with the GPS/logger. If it's a vanilla Wintel system
then current software might do. If you want to do something
like run on Linux, then you need a major rewrite or
new software altogether. Possible, but a bigger challenge.

Getting a big display bright enough to see in direct
sunlight without running the battery down might be
the biggest challenge - just try taking you laptop
outside on a sunny day as an experiment.


At 23:54 22 February 2004, Kilo Charlie wrote:
>Well I would hope that sometime soon these screens
>would be available. The
>real question is whether or not the manufacturers that
>currently sell the
>units (CAI, Ilec, etc) would support this type of system.
> There would have
>to be some agreement upon the hardware part of it wouldn't
>there? I guess
>that it did happen with VHS and DVD's but not without
>a few outliers such as
>Sony's beta. With so little money in this industry
>we should just be
>thankful that we have nice toys to choose from currently
>but the small
>displays have become a limiting factor. Also I'm tainted
>after having seen
>one of the new Garmin (1000?) setups in a Gulfstream
>I went through a few
>weeks ago.
>
>Casey Lenox
>KC
>Phoenix
>
>
>

"Andy Blackburn" > wrote in message
...
> My guess is that most of the current crop of programs
> written for Pocket PC OS could be ported to a Tablet
> PC pretty easily -- that would be a start.
>
> As a general case you'd just need a computer with a
> bright color display and a serial port to communicate
> with the GPS/logger. If it's a vanilla Wintel system
> then current software might do. If you want to do something
> like run on Linux, then you need a major rewrite or
> new software altogether. Possible, but a bigger challenge.
>
> Getting a big display bright enough to see in direct
> sunlight without running the battery down might be
> the biggest challenge - just try taking you laptop
> outside on a sunny day as an experiment.

I've thought about this, a little. There is a company that makes a woven
mat fiberoptic backlight.
The sharp bends in the fiberoptic material allow the light to escape, and it
provides a pretty even illumination.
Usually a bundle of fiberoptic goes to a source like an LED.
But if you had a large mat somewhere (on the top of the instrument panel,
perhaps) collecting sunlight, and a smaller mat (with perhaps two or three
layers) as the backlight, then the brighter ambient is, the brighter your
backlighting.

Tim Ward

"Andy Blackburn" > wrote in message
...
>
> Getting a big display bright enough to see in direct
> sunlight without running the battery down might be
> the biggest challenge - just try taking you laptop
> outside on a sunny day as an experiment.
>
>
The laptop/tablet screen vendors are always trying for the widest viewing
angle and advertise the fact as a feature. This spreads the energy from the
backlight over a wide angle and mandates a much brighter backlight for
acceptable viewing. This, in turn, makes the LCD screen backlight one of
the major drains on a laptop battery.

In a glider cockpit it would be much better for the screen to concentrate
its light toward the small area occupied by the pilots eyes. This would
significantly increase the perceived brightness while reducing the power
drain. Fortunately, such screens are available and they tend to be cheaper.

On the other hand, all plastic, super bright, low power OLED screens are
said to be only a couple of years away.

Bill Daniels

Andy Blackburn > wrote:

>Actually, my (mis)infomation on non-commercial software
>comes from extensive research in Open Source community
>motivations and behaviors, including survey research
>of several thousand Open Source developers. I think
>facts normally trump opinions/anecdotes.


Well, that is actually rather pompous. What facts?

Henryk Birecki

Even Linux is moving to a licenced platform for its latest incarnations. I
have seen a lot of software move this way lately. An originally open source
or free project matures to such an extent that it demands more of the core
programmers than can be done on a free basis. The real contributors still
have access to the source but the 'hangers on' get a real product at a
reasonable cost and businesses grow out of the supply and support of the
products.

It's just an alternative business model. A programmer believes he can do it
better and to drive the development he offers his product for free. The
early adopters allow him to develop to a solid application and then he can
start charging.

Ian


"Henryk Birecki" > wrote in message
...
> Andy Blackburn > wrote:
>
> >Actually, my (mis)infomation on non-commercial software
> >comes from extensive research in Open Source community
> >motivations and behaviors, including survey research
> >of several thousand Open Source developers. I think
> >facts normally trump opinions/anecdotes.
>
>
> Well, that is actually rather pompous. What facts?
>
> Henryk Birecki

Sure, both of these are normal and reasonable scenarios for software
project development and commercial product development. It does not
however have impact on either the quality of freeware, nor support,
nor the length of time a "product" remains on the market. There is
plenty of poor quality freeware out there, and there is plenty of poor
quality shareware, and "commercial" products. The same can be said by
substituting good for poor.

Interestingly the only "support problem reports" I ever hear about on
r.a.s. have to do with commercial products that people pay for. :)

Henryk Birecki

"tango4" > wrote:

Even Linux is moving to a licenced platform for its latest
incarnations. I have seen a lot of software move this way lately. An
originally open source or free project matures to such an extent that
it demands more of the core programmers than can be done on a free
basis. The real contributors still have access to the source but the
'hangers on' get a real product at a reasonable cost and businesses
grow out of the supply and support of the products.

It's just an alternative business model. A programmer believes he can
do it better and to drive the development he offers his product for
free. The early adopters allow him to develop to a solid application
and then he can start charging.

Ian
>
>
>"Henryk Birecki" > wrote in message
...
>> Andy Blackburn > wrote:
>>
>> >Actually, my (mis)infomation on non-commercial software
>> >comes from extensive research in Open Source community
>> >motivations and behaviors, including survey research
>> >of several thousand Open Source developers. I think
>> >facts normally trump opinions/anecdotes.
>>
>>
>> Well, that is actually rather pompous. What facts?
>>
>> Henryk Birecki
>

Agree with Ian - even more broadly there are combinations
on all three of the major dimensions of software models
- Intellectual Property (GPL versus alternatives that
don't require turning over your IP), development (social
network versus command heirarchy), and commercial model
(free, license, paid support, etc.). None is good or
bad per se but I believe different combinations are
more or less effective in different 'market' situations.
Even the boys in Redmond are looking at some dimensions
of this for their own internal use - just don't expect
them to embrace the GPL.

With respect to facts about the motivations of Open
Source and Linux developers specifically the research
focuses on who they are, how the spend their time,
what their day jobs are and why they do what they do.
The earlier comment here (and supported broadly) is
correct that many of these developers are early in
their careers and trying earn recognition for their
talents as programmers -- either for the intrinsic
value of it, or because they think it will help them
advance professionally. For others much of the code
they write supports their day jobs in large IT organizations.
There is no evidence that they are particularly interested
in earning recognition for their skills in operating
a customer support call centers - in fact most of them
have day jobs that preclude this. Consequently, you
normally see great response to fixing bugs and plugging
security holes (something that the community model
is distinctively good at), but if you want someone
to hold your hand for half a day (starting right now)
as you struggle through some configuration or deployment
issue, I'd argue you're better off paying the likes
of Red Hat.

With respect to soaring software - the 'teams' that
do this are generally small enough that the customer
experience with respect to product functionality, quality
and support comes down to individual personalities.
I would observe that to-date the commercial products
seem to be making more rapid progress on functionality.
I suspect this is because they dedicate their daytime
hours to development and, conversely, that the non-commercial
alternatives find it challenging to build a development
community out of the arguably narrow intersection of
software developers, glider pilots and individuals
with adequate discretionary time. Not that it couldn't
happen or that a single, motivated individual or two
can't get a lot done.

Hope that sounds less pompous. Now back to flying...

At 17:36 23 February 2004, Henryk Birecki wrote:
>Sure, both of these are normal and reasonable scenarios
>for software
>project development and commercial product development.
>It does not
>however have impact on either the quality of freeware,
>nor support,
>nor the length of time a 'product' remains on the market.
>There is
>plenty of poor quality freeware out there, and there
>is plenty of poor
>quality shareware, and 'commercial' products. The same
>can be said by
>substituting good for poor.
>
>Interestingly the only 'support problem reports' I
>ever hear about on
>r.a.s. have to do with commercial products that people
>pay for. :)
>
>Henryk Birecki
>
>'tango4' wrote:
>
>Even Linux is moving to a licenced platform for its
>latest
>incarnations. I have seen a lot of software move this
>way lately. An
>originally open source or free project matures to such
>an extent that
>it demands more of the core programmers than can be
>done on a free
>basis. The real contributors still have access to the
>source but the
>'hangers on' get a real product at a reasonable cost
>and businesses
>grow out of the supply and support of the products.
>
>It's just an alternative business model. A programmer
>believes he can
>do it better and to drive the development he offers
>his product for
>free. The early adopters allow him to develop to a
>solid application
>and then he can start charging.
>
>Ian
>>
>>
>>'Henryk Birecki' wrote in message
...
>>> Andy Blackburn wrote:
>>>
>>> >Actually, my (mis)infomation on non-commercial software
>>> >comes from extensive research in Open Source community
>>> >motivations and behaviors, including survey research
>>> >of several thousand Open Source developers. I think
>>> >facts normally trump opinions/anecdotes.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, that is actually rather pompous. What facts?
>>>
>>> Henryk Birecki
>>
>
>

Bill Daniels wrote:
> ...
> Limited vocabulary voice commands would work too.
> ...

Only for english speaking pilots with the proper (i.e. probably american) accent.
Definetely not for me. Anyway I hate to have to speak to a machine.

Let me add my comment on the free soaring applications:

I use soaringpilot and saw Mark Hawkins to support lot of newcomers
(like I was a year ago) without hesitation. In my job I use several
expensive test tools (> 100k US$) and none of them has the same support
like this...
Regards,

/Janos

"Robert Ehrlich" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
> > ...
> > Limited vocabulary voice commands would work too.
> > ...
>
> Only for english speaking pilots with the proper (i.e. probably american)
accent.
> Definetely not for me. Anyway I hate to have to speak to a machine.

Spot on! Now add differing wind noise, audio vario tones and the fact that
your radio might break squelch at just the wrong moment and voice controlled
instruments are a long way off technologically.

Ian

"tango4" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Ehrlich" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Bill Daniels wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Limited vocabulary voice commands would work too.
> > > ...
> >
> > Only for english speaking pilots with the proper (i.e. probably
american)
> accent.
> > Definetely not for me. Anyway I hate to have to speak to a machine.
>
> Spot on! Now add differing wind noise, audio vario tones and the fact that
> your radio might break squelch at just the wrong moment and voice
controlled
> instruments are a long way off technologically.
>
> Ian
>

Come on, guys, it's the 21st century already - this stuff works. Robert,
computers aren't American or any other nationality, they can speak French
too - really. (Actually, they speak Japanese best. Ever thought about the
problem of putting 6000+ Kanji characters on a keyboard?)

Using voice input with my cell phone to control a remote computer works even
when driving a car with the radio on and the windows open. Voice input has
come a long way in the last three years. Wind noise, accent, vario audio
even radio background can be dealt with very successfully.

If you are really worried that it won't work in a critical situation, just
have a backup input method like a button or switch that does the same thing
the voice command does.

Anyway, Ian, why is your cockpit so noisy? Mine is so quiet that I have to
set the vario and radio volumes no higher than 2 -5% or they blow me out of
the cockpit.

Bill Daniels

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
...
>

> Anyway, Ian, why is your cockpit so noisy? Mine is so quiet that I have
to
> set the vario and radio volumes no higher than 2 -5% or they blow me out
of
> the cockpit.
>
> Bill Daniels
>

Usually because I've got the damned turbo running to keep me out of some
field.

:-)

My cellphones ' voice control can't keep up with the changes in my voice and
in the car it gets confused regularly.

Ian

Robert Ehrlich wrote:

> Bill Daniels wrote:
>> ...
>> Limited vocabulary voice commands would work too.
>> ...
>
> Only for english speaking pilots with the proper (i.e. probably american)
> accent. Definetely not for me. Anyway I hate to have to speak to a
> machine.

Just out of curiosity, have any other Brits here tried to use the American
Airlines automatic system to confirm a flight reservation?

Last time I did it heard "Miami to Chicago" as "New York to San Francisco".
Weird.
--
Soar the big sky
The real name on the left is richard

"Kilo Charlie" > wrote in message
news:id4_b.24001$o52.18383@fed1read02...
> In my ideal world I'd like to see a single large flat panel screen smack
in
> the middle of my panel with the various companies vying for who can write
> the best program to use for displaying the various things you guys have
> brought up. It holds all sorts of possibilites and with multiple windows
> open would even mean that you could run programs from different
> manufacturers on that same screen.
>
> This nonsense of having to buy a latest and greatest hardware gizmo to go
> with the software is crazy. One big screen would be much easier to
> read....maybe I'm just getting too old to see the damn little things!
Maybe
> they could even agree on a single box (hard drive?) to drive the thing as
> well bringing it down to just the software competition.
>
> Anyone know if the technology is currently good enough to make this work
> i.e. flat screens wrt current drain, ease of use in high sun environments,
> etc? I have no expertise in this whatsoever. Just dreamin'.
>
> Casey Lenox
> KC
> Phoenix
>

KC, I just put together the following spec for a $1,626 12V computer. Is
this what you were imagining?

Espresso Mini Book PC (150mm x 106mm x 32mm 6" x 4" x 1.25")
VIA 1GHz Processor
PC100 SDRAM 256MB
Solid-State Flash Drive 512MB Compact Flash Disk
Espresso Docking Station with CD-ROM / Floppy Drive
DOS Format / No Operating System (Linux Ready)
One Year Part and Labor Warranty


10.4" TFT LCD Display with VGA input and Touchscreen

System Includes:
1 Carrying Case, 1 Microphine-in / Line-out / S-Video Out / VGA Port, 1 PS/2
Keyboard Port / Mouse Port / 124-pin Expansion Port, 1 Y Cable ( S-Video and
Composite), 2 USB Ports, AC/DC Power Supply, Built-in 16-Bit Stereo, Full
Duplex 3D Sound, Installation Instruction and User Manual, Intel 810
Built-In Full Motion 4MB Video, Touch Pad with Left/Right and Scroll Button

Bill Daniels

Sounds good to me Bill although I suppose the problems with visibility in a
high sun environment would still be an issue. Also in my ideal world I
would like to have a remote just like that used on the SN-10 in order to
avoid having to stretch a bouncing finger up to the panel to make
adjustments. I'm not sure why other companies haven't used this type of
remote since it makes it easy to scroll through the pages and make changes
with barely any movement on the part of my hand/wrist. The old B-100 remote
was even better because it was possible to depress the scroll buttons to
confirm a change (like the left and right mouse buttons).

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

Bill Daniels wrote:
>
> "tango4" > wrote in message
> ...
> Come on, guys, it's the 21st century already - this stuff works. Robert,
> computers aren't American or any other nationality, they can speak French
> too - really.

Yes, I know that from a long time ago. I was working from 1968 to 1985 in
the University of Orsay, were we had a pioneer team working on speech synthesis and
recognition. What I doubt is that commercially available systems would be
speaking French, as the market of French is a very small one. This is not
a technical problem but an economical one.