Using a nook for xcsoar

[folken]

Rob recently documented his nook installation from his glider here:

http://xcsoar-robd.wikispaces.com/XCSoar+on+Nook+Simple+Touch

He hooked it up to his cai302 via serial and patches in the power from the aircraft battery.

I think this is the most cost effective way for a sunlight readable glide computer to date. The costs are around 100 USD.

[soartech[_2_]]

> I think this is the most cost effective way for a sunlight readable glide computer to date. The costs are around 100 USD.

Just looked on my local Craigslist and found many Nook's available and
barely used for $45 to $75. Can't beat that.
I like the super crisp B&W display.

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

NOOK seems to be better than anything else at the moment. I hope
there will bee soon something smaller (4.5 inch ?) available. That
would fit better in gliders.
We (Soartronic) hope that the next IOIO board, that is USB OTG
capable, will work with NOOK!

[[email protected]]

Cool!

Glad to see this. I have had XCsoar running (simulation mode)on a Nook Color using an N2A card, which basically turns the Nook into an Android tablet.. The Nook looks much better than my 4700 in sunlight. The intent was to connect to GPS via Bluetooth. Unfortunately, while it will see Bluetooth devices, I have not been able to pair. Maybe one of you really smart people can figure out why....

P9

[Brian[_1_]]

Perfect, I purchased a Nook Simple Touch, just to explore this possibility. I will be following this closely and will probably work on implementing it in the next few months. If I can get it away from my wife long enough to try it.

Thanks for posting

Brian

[[email protected]]

This has piqued my interest some and I was wondering whether an old Cambridge 10, 20, or 25 model that outputs serial GPS could be used as the GPS engine for the Nook?
I know it would not have the vario information but would it be as accurate as a standalone Dell Streak say?

Bob 7U



On Friday, October 12, 2012 12:30:12 PM UTC-4, Brian wrote:
> Perfect, I purchased a Nook Simple Touch, just to explore this possibility. I will be following this closely and will probably work on implementing it in the next few months. If I can get it away from my wife long enough to try it. Thanks for posting Brian

[Marc]

On Oct 12, 10:23*am, wrote:
> This has piqued my interest some and I was wondering whether an old Cambridge 10, 20, or 25 model that outputs serial GPS could be used as the GPS engine for the Nook?
> I know it would not have the vario information but would it be as accurate as a standalone Dell Streak say?
>

The problem with the CAI 10/20/25 is that they don't provide an NMEA
sentence that contains GPS altitude, and the most common firmware
versions only output pressure altitude if you send them a special
handshake sequence which (to my knowledge) has not been revealed to
3rd parties. So, you could see your position on the Nook, but you'd
likely be out of luck on altitude...

Marc

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

My experience is, that CAI and Volkslogger GPS signals are quite a
lot delayed. Might be slow communication speed, or filtering. This
makes it difficult to use moving map for navigation. FLARM works
much better.

At 18:31 12 October 2012, Marc wrote:
>On Oct 12, 10:23=A0am, wrote:
>> This has piqued my interest some and I was wondering whether
an old
>Cambr=
>idge 10, 20, or 25 model that outputs serial GPS could be used as
the GPS
>e=
>ngine for the Nook?
>> I know it would not have the vario information but would it be
as
>accurat=
>e as a standalone Dell Streak say?
>>

[soartech[_2_]]

On Oct 11, 6:42*am, folken > wrote:
> Rob recently documented his nook installation from his glider here:
>
> http://xcsoar-robd.wikispaces.com/XCSoar+on+Nook+Simple+Touch

Does someone know how to get in touch with "Rob"? I sent him a message
on the wikispaces site but never heard back.

[Tobias Bieniek]

you should be able to find his email address in the authors list of XCSoar at http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/master/xcsoar.git/tree/AUTHORS

[[email protected]]

I've rooted a Nook and installed XCSoar, per the instructions on Robs Wiki page. I flew last weekend with a serial-to-USB cable ported to my CAI-302. The display is awsome and completely readable in direct sunlight!

My fondest wish is that a version of XCSoar might come available that is grey-scaled, to make it more compatible with the E-Ink display.

Thanks Rob!

Mike Hostage

[Max Kellermann]

wrote:
> My fondest wish is that a version of XCSoar might come available that is grey-scaled, to make it more compatible with the E-Ink display.

What you can do:

- write a feature request ticket in the XCSoar bug tracker:

http://bugs.xcsoar.org/newticket

Write as exactly as possible what you wish XCSoar to do in the
presence of a grey-scale display.

- collect donations to buy an E-Ink device for an active XCSoar
developer

- motivate somebody to join the XCSoar team and to implement your
ideas; this is the most important part, because time is the most
difficult limit we have to deal with, and more brains means more
wishes come true!

[[email protected]]

> My fondest wish is that a version of XCSoar might come available that is grey-scaled, to make it more compatible with the E-Ink display.
>
There's ongoing development to the Nook's kernel at xda-developers to display screen colors as dithered shades of gray automatically. This solution will allow color applications (e.g. XCSoar) to work without color modification on the Nook's EInk screen.

Rob

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 11:13:59 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > My fondest wish is that a version of XCSoar might come available that is grey-scaled, to make it more compatible with the E-Ink display.
>
> >
>
> There's ongoing development to the Nook's kernel at xda-developers to display screen colors as dithered shades of gray automatically. This solution will allow color applications (e.g. XCSoar) to work without color modification on the Nook's EInk screen.
>
> I asked the CN team a while ago why they were not using eink, as it offers obvious low power and sunlight readability advantages. Their answer was that the refresh rate was too slow for a modern flight computer. FYI,
John Cochrane

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

>> I asked the CN team a while ago why they were not using eink,
as it
>offers obvious low power and sunlight readability advantages.
Their answer
>was that the refresh rate was too slow for a modern flight
computer. FYI,
>John Cochrane

John,
I could live with those low refresh rate problems.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7ZwZppiIr8

[GM]

I could live with those low refresh rate problems. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7ZwZppiIr8

Me too - sign me up! I am tired of my PDA's low sunlight visibility. I will be watching this development closely. Hopefully, something is available by next season.
'GM'

[Simon Taylor[_2_]]

On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 5:20:15 PM UTC+1, (unknown) wrote:
> > I asked the CN team a while ago why they were not using eink, as it offers obvious low power and sunlight readability advantages. Their answer was that the refresh rate was too slow for a modern flight computer. FYI,
>
> John Cochrane

When eink is used for reading books, a display mode is used that gives the most crisp fonts possible. In this mode each pixel can be one of a number of grey shades (usually 16), but at the cost of a slow refresh rate and the need to occasionally flash the screen black (this clears away pixels that have been left in an indeterminate state of grey and ensures you get a consistent, clear picture).

For XCSoar another display mode is used. This only allows each pixel to be black or white, but gives a fast refresh rate. We then use a dithering method (similar to halftoning in printed newspapers) to generate greys. Old school techniques, but they eliminate most of the perceived disadvantages of eink.

Simon

[[email protected]]

I too am interested in an eInk FGC. Thank you for your efforts and please keep the ball rolling.

eInk specs and OS vary greatly from one device to the next so a few questions if I may.

How is NEMA and FLARM info integrated with an eInk device?

Is it correct to assume this XCSoar effort is specific only to the Nook Touch?

Regards.

Ben

[Gregg Leslie[_2_]]

At 14:15 16 October 2012, Max Kellermann wrote:
wrote:
>> My fondest wish is that a version of XCSoar might come available that
is
>grey-scaled, to make it more compatible with the E-Ink display.
>
>What you can do:
>
>- write a feature request ticket in the XCSoar bug tracker:
>
> http://bugs.xcsoar.org/newticket
>
> Write as exactly as possible what you wish XCSoar to do in the
> presence of a grey-scale display.
>
>- collect donations to buy an E-Ink device for an active XCSoar
> developer
>
>- motivate somebody to join the XCSoar team and to implement your
> ideas; this is the most important part, because time is the most
> difficult limit we have to deal with, and more brains means more
> wishes come true!
>



Yea right!

[Gregg Leslie[_2_]]

Folks,


I used a Nook with XC Soar at a contest recently for 2 days. I have to say

that it is absolutely the best display I have ever seen outside. When the
sun
hits it, there is no glare or wash out. No strain on the eyes. Just
incredible. As
far as XCSoar I find it tedious and time consuming and find myself with my

head down to much. As far as user friendly, I find XCSoar over
complicated.
Compared to Glider Navigator 2, which is the simplest program I have ever
used. I do have to give credit to Rob Dunning for simplifying a version on

XCSoar, which is much better, but still frustrating, especially when you
need
to change a setting or task quickly.
The Nook display is just amazing, as far as the refresh rate with XCSoar,
it's
plenty fast enough, and found it comparable to my newer PDA.
It is black and white, still great though. Cheap also!
GL




At 08:34 18 October 2012, Grgg Leslie wrote:
>At 14:15 16 October 2012, Max Kellermann wrote:
wrote:
>>> My fondest wish is that a version of XCSoar might come available that
>is
>>grey-scaled, to make it more compatible with the E-Ink display.
>>
>>What you can do:
>>
>>- write a feature request ticket in the XCSoar bug tracker:
>>
>> http://bugs.xcsoar.org/newticket
>>
>> Write as exactly as possible what you wish XCSoar to do in the
>> presence of a grey-scale display.
>>
>>- collect donations to buy an E-Ink device for an active XCSoar
>> developer
>>
>>- motivate somebody to join the XCSoar team and to implement your
>> ideas; this is the most important part, because time is the most
>> difficult limit we have to deal with, and more brains means more
>> wishes come true!
>>
>
>
>
>Yea right!
>
>

[folken]

On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:31:01 PM UTC+2, (unknown) wrote:
> eInk specs and OS vary greatly from one device to the next so a few questions if I may.
> How is NEMA and FLARM info integrated with an eInk device?

The nook has an USB OTG (On the Go) port. This port has limited USB Host capability. Basically you hook up an usb serial (rs232) converter up to the device which is then connected to a FLARM. That gives you GPS, Barometric (the one inside FLARM) and FLARM data.
For power you split the USB-OTG cable up and hook up the power lines via a 12v-5v converter to the aircraft battery.

This is all nicely documented on robs page.


> Is it correct to assume this XCSoar effort is specific only to the Nook Touch?

This is so far not an "official" project effort. Just some contributers that have tried this. At the moment it runs on the nook.

Other readers are being investigated at the moment.

[folken]

On Thursday, October 18, 2012 12:30:04 PM UTC+2, Gregg Leslie wrote:
> Compared to Glider Navigator 2, which is the simplest program I have ever
> used. I do have to give credit to Rob Dunning for simplifying a version on
> XCSoar, which is much better, but still frustrating, especially when you
> need to change a setting or task quickly.

Out of interest:
What setting did you try to change inflight that you found the steps to frustrating?

I don't know if you know this:
Some gestures where added recently to facilitate the task editing quickly: Just draw an inverse L with your finger over the map screen for the task editor. A normal L on the map screen opens the waypoint selector.
Using two fingers on the map will pan it.

For all the info boxes you can press and hold for 2 seconds on the particular box, to access settings such as mc value etc.

[Wallace Berry[_2_]]

In article >,
Simon Taylor > wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 5:20:15 PM UTC+1, (unknown) wrote:
> > > I asked the CN team a while ago why they were not using eink, as it
> > > offers obvious low power and sunlight readability advantages. Their
> > > answer was that the refresh rate was too slow for a modern flight
> > > computer. FYI,
> >
> > John Cochrane
>




Real data trumps theory!



> When eink is used for reading books, a display mode is used that gives the most crisp fonts possible. In this mode each pixel can be one of a number of
> grey shades (usually 16), but at the cost of a slow refresh rate and the need
> to occasionally flash the screen black (this clears away pixels that have
> been left in an indeterminate state of grey and ensures you get a consistent,
> clear picture).
>
> For XCSoar another display mode is used. This only allows each pixel to be
> black or white, but gives a fast refresh rate. We then use a dithering method
> (similar to halftoning in printed newspapers) to generate greys. Old school
> techniques, but they eliminate most of the perceived disadvantages of eink.
>
> Simon


Bravo!

[soartech[_2_]]

folken > wrote:

> I don't know if you know this:
> Some gestures where added recently to facilitate the task editing quickly:

THAT is the heart of the problem with XCsoar!
It has lots of great and NEW features but no one knows about them
except the "inner circle" of developers and dedicated users.
New users are in the dark as the 170-odd page manual is not up to date
and has many sections that are incomplete.
Would someone please write an XCSoar Feature List with just a line or
two about every possible thing that this
amazing program can do? (Or maybe make a YouTube video. Found one but
it is rather old.)
That way if we just know it is possible, we can find it and explore
it. Otherwise we are,
CLUELESS.

[Max Kellermann]

soartech > wrote:
> THAT is the heart of the problem with XCsoar!
> It has lots of great and NEW features but no one knows about them
> except the "inner circle" of developers and dedicated users.
> New users are in the dark as the 170-odd page manual is not up to date
> and has many sections that are incomplete.

Are you serious? Gestures is one thing that is well described in the
manual, not much different from Folken's post. See page 33, in a
section called "Interfacing with gestures".

Yes, you are right, we have big trouble keeping it up to date (due to
lack of volunteers), but this time, you're not doing us justice.

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

RTFM ;^)


At 16:56 19 October 2012, Max Kellermann wrote:
>soartech wrote:
>> THAT is the heart of the problem with XCsoar!
>> It has lots of great and NEW features but no one knows about
them
>> except the "inner circle" of developers and dedicated users.
>> New users are in the dark as the 170-odd page manual is not up
to date
>> and has many sections that are incomplete.
>
>Are you serious? Gestures is one thing that is well described in
the
>manual, not much different from Folken's post. See page 33, in a
>section called "Interfacing with gestures".
>
>Yes, you are right, we have big trouble keeping it up to date (due
to
>lack of volunteers), but this time, you're not doing us justice.
>

[folken]

On Friday, October 19, 2012 6:51:34 PM UTC+2, soartech wrote:
> folken > wrote:
> > I don't know if you know this:
>
> > Some gestures where added recently to facilitate the task editing quickly:

> THAT is the heart of the problem with XCsoar!
>
> It has lots of great and NEW features but no one knows about them
>
> except the "inner circle" of developers and dedicated users.

> New users are in the dark as the 170-odd page manual is not up to date
>
> and has many sections that are incomplete.


> Would someone please write an XCSoar Feature List with just a line or
>
> two about every possible thing that this
>
> amazing program can do?

Maybe the project's NEWS.txt helps. It lists features added and bugs fixed:

http://download.xcsoar.org/releases/6.4.2/NEWS.txt (this is linked to at every release on the project's website) Rss feed: http://www.xcsoar.org/atom.xml

> (Or maybe make a YouTube video. Found one but
> it is rather old.)

I'll see if i can find the time to make some videos.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Tobias Bieniek]

Am Freitag, 19. Oktober 2012 18:51:34 UTC+2 schrieb soartech:
> folken > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't know if you know this:
>
> > Some gestures where added recently to facilitate the task editing quickly:
>
>
>
> THAT is the heart of the problem with XCsoar!
>
> It has lots of great and NEW features but no one knows about them
>
> except the "inner circle" of developers and dedicated users.
>
> New users are in the dark as the 170-odd page manual is not up to date
>
> and has many sections that are incomplete.
>
> Would someone please write an XCSoar Feature List with just a line or
>
> two about every possible thing that this
>
> amazing program can do? (Or maybe make a YouTube video. Found one but
>
> it is rather old.)
>
> That way if we just know it is possible, we can find it and explore
>
> it. Otherwise we are,
>
> CLUELESS.

I agree with your that our communication about such things could be better, but we still have the hope that some of our users step up at some point and take over such things. We are much better at writing code than writing simple manuals, tutorials or news pages. As we have mentioned plenty of times already: You don't have to be a software developer to help in this project.. We have a much bigger need for people who are willing to write documentation or advertise the application in proper ways.

[Tobias Bieniek]

In case you were wondering what gestures XCSoar supports by default:

http://imagebin.org/232635

[kirk.stant]

Touchscreens are bad enough in a cockpit enviromment, but gestures? You guys are going in the wrong direction, IMO. Stick mounted or remote controls are a much better way to control software displays, followed by momentary touch buttons or areas on the screen.

What we need is a universal stick with a variety of input devices that would interface with all popular gliding apps, removing the need for touchscreens altogether.

Kirk
66

[Robert Dunning]

> What we need is a universal stick with a variety of input devices that would
> interface with all popular gliding apps, removing the need for touchscreens altogether.

66, while I don't agree about joy sticks over touch screens, there are many who do agree. I think it's a personal preference. I do believe that there is an opportunity to improve glide computers. The most important factor is the effort spent on a glide computer's design.

Unfortunately, it is hard to change the core "user interface" design of a glide computer because change forces pilots who use it to relearn the system.. Today, we're seeing new glide computer products on the Android and iPhone platforms. The ones that succeed I believe will be those that invest not just in powerful features, but in the overall pilot's experience.

My $0.02

Rob Dunning

[Tobias Bieniek]

> Touchscreens are bad enough in a cockpit enviromment, but gestures? You guys are going in the wrong direction, IMO. Stick mounted or remote controls are a much better way to control software displays, followed by momentary touch buttons or areas on the screen.
>
> What we need is a universal stick with a variety of input devices that would interface with all popular gliding apps, removing the need for touchscreens altogether.

I agree that a remote stick control would be a nice thing. I don't agree on your statement about touchscreens or gestures though. I have been using them for at least two years now and they work very good actually. I don't have to go through the menu anymore to open up the waypoint list or things like that. When I had my old PDA I could use the hardware buttons to zoom. With the Streak I can only use the volume buttons to do this, but using the gestures feature has simplified this quite a bit. The touchscreen is also great for tapping things on the map and interacting with them. You simply can't do that without a touchscreen...

[Roel Baardman]

> What we need is a universal stick with a variety of input devices
> that would interface with all popular gliding apps, removing the
> need for touchscreens altogether.

Kirk, please try to convince manufacturers to open up!

I have been trying to get open-ness from a lot of manufacturers, because I wanted
to interface with their equipment from software that I wrote.

Some manufacturers opened up! I can remotely control a Borgelt B400 second-seat
variometer and I am allowed to spread the specs and code to do so. This is great,
since I now have an old-skool dial which I can control from software.

Some opened up, but preferred I do not publish their specifications. This is
mainly (from memory) Funkwerk. I got the specs for their TRT800 and ATR833.

Others did not want to share anything. This was mainly Trig, which is unfortunate
since their equipment is nice hardware-wise (radio and transponder can be
splitted, which is nice in a metal glider).

I've also heard things from Becker and Dittel, but I'm not sure in which category
they fall.

My point is: open-ness is something we will all benefit from, but manufacturers
seem to hesitate.

Roel

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:20:12 -0700, Robert Dunning wrote:

> Unfortunately, it is hard to change the core "user interface" design of
> a glide computer because change forces pilots who use it to relearn the
> system. Today, we're seeing new glide computer products on the Android
> and iPhone platforms. The ones that succeed I believe will be those
> that invest not just in powerful features, but in the overall pilot's
> experience.
>
I thoroughly agree with that. For me a major benefit of both LK8000 and
XCSoar is that, if conditions are good enough to complete a task, you
don't need to touch them while you're in the air: both manage the zoom
just right as you approach and leave a turnpoint and don't bother you
with airspace you aren't going near.

I very much like the way LK8000 maintains a dynamic list containing the
task's turnpoints, 'home', the best alternate airfield and the last
thermal. The ability to select any of these by dialing round the list
makes it easy and intuitive to skip an unreachable turnpoint, abandon the
task or head for the nearest airfield.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Saturday, October 20, 2012 11:20:12 PM UTC-4, Robert Dunning wrote:
> > What we need is a universal stick with a variety of input devices that would
>
> > interface with all popular gliding apps, removing the need for touchscreens altogether.
>
>
>
> 66, while I don't agree about joy sticks over touch screens, there are many who do agree. I think it's a personal preference. I do believe that there is an opportunity to improve glide computers. The most important factor is the effort spent on a glide computer's design.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, it is hard to change the core "user interface" design of a glide computer because change forces pilots who use it to relearn the system. Today, we're seeing new glide computer products on the Android and iPhone platforms. The ones that succeed I believe will be those that invest not just in powerful features, but in the overall pilot's experience.
>
>
>
> My $0.02
>
>
>
> Rob Dunning

Having tested out a variety of touchscreen and remote controlled options (most recently XC Soar on the Nook), it's pretty clear to me there are certain situations where the remote control wins hands down. Try running a ridge at 110 kts and pinching to zoom as you approach a point. With both hands on the stick just trying to keep the pointy end heading in the right direction, it isn't going to work. But Rob, you know this, being an experienced ridge runner. Another advantage of a remote is that you quickly develop a tactile memory of certain functions - zoom in and zoom out for example. You can do this without ever diverting your eyes to the remote or the device itself. Finally, the display can be mounted where you don't need to reach it if you are using a remote. Depending on the seating position in your glider and the amount of real-estate, that can be a big deal; constantly straining to reach the screen can be a pain. I'm admittedly biased, as I fly with a ClearNav and love the interface/interaction philosophy. I'm certainly interested to see where the new generation of displays takes us, but for now I'm very happy saving my gestures for the idiots I come across on the drive to the airport.

P3

[kirk.stant]

On Oct 21, 8:52*am, Papa3 > wrote:
> On Saturday, October 20, 2012 11:20:12 PM UTC-4, Robert Dunning wrote:
> > > What we need is a universal stick with a variety of input devices that would
>
> > > interface with all popular gliding apps, removing the need for touchscreens altogether.
>
> > 66, while I don't agree about joy sticks over touch screens, there are many who do agree. *I think it's a personal preference. *I do believe that there is an opportunity to improve glide computers. *The most important factor is the effort spent on a glide computer's design.
>
> > Unfortunately, it is hard to change the core "user interface" design of a glide computer because change forces pilots who use it to relearn the system. *Today, we're seeing new glide computer products on the Android and iPhone platforms. *The ones that succeed I believe will be those that invest not just in powerful features, but in the overall pilot's experience.
>
> > My $0.02
>
> > Rob Dunning
>
> Having tested out a variety of touchscreen and remote controlled options (most recently XC Soar on the Nook), it's pretty clear to me there are certain situations where the remote control wins hands down. *Try running a ridge at 110 kts and pinching to zoom as you approach a point. *With both hands on the stick just trying to keep the pointy end heading in the right direction, *it isn't going to work. * But Rob, you know this, being an experienced ridge runner. *Another advantage of a remote is that you quickly develop a tactile memory of certain functions - *zoom in and zoom out for example. * You can do this without ever diverting your eyes to the remote or the device itself. * Finally, the display can be mounted where you don't need to reach it if you are using a remote. *Depending on the seating position in your glider and the amount of real-estate, that can be a big deal; *constantly straining to reach the screen can be a pain. * I'm admittedly biased, as I fly with a ClearNav and love the interface/interaction philosophy. * I'm certainly interested to see where the new generation of displays takes us, but for now I'm very happy saving my gestures for the idiots I come across on the drive to the airport.
>
> P3- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Precisely. There's a good reason fighter sticks and throttles have
over 20 buttons, switches, and pointing devices on them - taking your
hands off the controls is not always even possible, and is rarely
desirable. If some smart person could figure out how to interface a CH
Fighter Stick to my Oudie, I'd be in heaven! As nice as the current
crop of glider PNA/smartphone software are, they are increasingly
driven by the need to work around a touchscreen-only interface - which
means they have to be mounted close to the pilot, which means they are
limited in size to no more than 5 inches, realistically. Which is a
hardware dead end, eventually. But rightnow, the cost difference
between the large, remote controlled displays and the smaller, touch
controlled displays is such that the majority of pilots are, by choice
or necessity, going to opt for the touch devices.

A more specific question: Naviter, if you are reading this, since the
LX9000 and Ultimate versions of SeeYouMobile use hardware controls
with no touch screen, is there any way to use the same stick controls
they use to interface with an Oudie?

Kirk
66

[kirk.stant]

On Oct 21, 4:24*am, Tobias Bieniek >
wrote:
> > Touchscreens are bad enough in a cockpit enviromment, but gestures? You guys are going in the wrong direction, IMO. Stick mounted or remote controls are a much better way to control software displays, followed by momentary touch buttons *or areas on the screen.
>
> > What we need is a universal stick with a variety of input devices that would interface with all popular gliding apps, removing the need for touchscreens altogether.
>
> I agree that a remote stick control would be a nice thing. I don't agree on your statement about touchscreens or gestures though. I have been using them for at least two years now and they work very good actually. I don't have to go through the menu anymore to open up the waypoint list or things like that. When I had my old PDA I could use the hardware buttons to zoom. With the Streak I can only use the volume buttons to do this, but using the gestures feature has simplified this quite a bit. The touchscreen is also great for tapping things on the map and interacting with them. You simply can't do that without a touchscreen...

Yes you can. With a button on the stick, you can "quickstep" between
things on the screen until you get to the one you want. If the
"things", such as airports or turnpoints, are intelligently sorted so
that the most likely to be wanted is the first to be stepped to and
selected, all you need is one, or perhaps a few, button presses to
select the point you want. On the ground, sure it's quicker to use
the touchscreen, but in bumpy air, or low while thermalling, a button
on the stick sure beats trying to touch a small point on a moving
screen...

Same with opening a waypoint list - a button opens the list. A
forward/aft switch moves to the waypoint you want, and a button
selects the waypoint and closes the list. Again, no need to look at
the screen to aim your finger, you can wait until the list is open to
look in and find the point you want - third one down? Two clicks to
select, one click to activate. No need to even look at the screen,
other than to confirm the action.

Touchscreens are fun and inexpensive technology. But for some
applications and environments they are simply not the best choice. And
adding more complex gestures is just a bandaid to hide a fundamental
interface problem with the hardware being used.

Think about your car. Ever jumped in a rental and found the radio or
climate controls are all buried in various touchscreen menus - then
tried to figure them out while driving? The best interface is still a
rotary knob for volume, temperature, fan speed, or AC mode selection -
because they can be found and manipulated without looking at them, and
if proper detents are used, set to the desired position by feel.
Which is impossible with a touchscreen (LK8000 users will probably
disagree with me on that - and it seems to try real hard to overcome
the problems of touchscreens via intelligent use of sound and large
touch areas).

Kirk
66

[Robert Dunning]

>> There's a good reason fighter sticks and throttles have
>> over 20 buttons, switches, and pointing devices on them

I think if you try to design a good joystick system for a glider, you'll find it is a challenging (and rewarding) task. You need to balance the learning curve (a glider pilot may not spend hours each night memorizing the layout of a complex joystick, he may not be able to practice with a really complicated joystick outside of the cockpit) against the value of one button access to critical functions. (Maybe a good design includes a simulator joystick that the pilot can hook into Condor to practice with.)

The same challenge of designing a good joystick for a glide computer applies to designing a good touch screen for a glide computer. (1) what are the critical tasks that need to be one-touch (one button) access? Are there four such critical tasks, five, fifteen? Depending on how you analyze the needs of the pilot, the number of buttons on your joystick (or the number of one-click areas on a touch screen) will either be few or many. (2) after you've identified the critical functions, how do you account for pilot personal preferences? will you allow some sort of customization of the buttons (shortcuts to whatever the pilot thinks are his critical functions)? Maybe you have "themes" from which a pilot can select. This is another challenge -- a really flexible and customizable system adds complexity to the overall computer (regardless if a touch screen or a joystick).

So I "stick" to my original view that whether it's a joystick or a touch screen matters less than the effort that goes into the overall design. The goal is a flight computer that balances power with flexibility with ease of use. To the best of my knowledge, scant research has been accumulated about this aspect of glide computer design.

Rob Dunning

[Bill D]

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 9:57:29 AM UTC-6, Robert Dunning wrote:
> >> There's a good reason fighter sticks and throttles have
>
> >> over 20 buttons, switches, and pointing devices on them
>
>
>
> I think if you try to design a good joystick system for a glider, you'll find it is a challenging (and rewarding) task. You need to balance the learning curve (a glider pilot may not spend hours each night memorizing the layout of a complex joystick, he may not be able to practice with a really complicated joystick outside of the cockpit) against the value of one button access to critical functions. (Maybe a good design includes a simulator joystick that the pilot can hook into Condor to practice with.)
>
>
>
> The same challenge of designing a good joystick for a glide computer applies to designing a good touch screen for a glide computer. (1) what are the critical tasks that need to be one-touch (one button) access? Are there four such critical tasks, five, fifteen? Depending on how you analyze the needs of the pilot, the number of buttons on your joystick (or the number of one-click areas on a touch screen) will either be few or many. (2) after you've identified the critical functions, how do you account for pilot personal preferences? will you allow some sort of customization of the buttons (shortcuts to whatever the pilot thinks are his critical functions)? Maybe you have "themes" from which a pilot can select. This is another challenge -- a really flexible and customizable system adds complexity to the overall computer (regardless if a touch screen or a joystick).
>
>
>
> So I "stick" to my original view that whether it's a joystick or a touch screen matters less than the effort that goes into the overall design. The goal is a flight computer that balances power with flexibility with ease of use. To the best of my knowledge, scant research has been accumulated about this aspect of glide computer design.
>
>
>
> Rob Dunning

Possibly, I say possibly, the best approach is to have the glider computer do the switching itself. Most already can switch from glide to climb mode and back automatically. If you have input a task, it will know when to switch to final glide mode. It's likely a good algorithm could set "bugs" and M number better than most pilots.

With the computer doing most of this itself, a few over ride switches are all that is needed to deal with exceptions.