XCSoar / LK8000

[MNLou]

I am about to make my first foray into the world of soaring software.

I will, most likely, be using a Naviter Oudie Lite hooked up to a Cambridge 302. My focus will be cross country flight (versus contest flying) for the foreseeable future.

I have read reviews and comments about both XCSoar and LK8000. They both appear to be fine products with excellent functionality.

I would be interested in your comments on ease of use (both on the ground and in the air), learning curve / ease of set up, and if one is better suited for cross country flying.

Thanks in advance for your help!

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:11:53 -0800, MNLou wrote:

> I am about to make my first foray into the world of soaring software.
>
> I will, most likely, be using a Naviter Oudie Lite hooked up to a
> Cambridge 302. My focus will be cross country flight (versus contest
> flying) for the foreseeable future.
>
> I have read reviews and comments about both XCSoar and LK8000. They
> both appear to be fine products with excellent functionality.
>
> I would be interested in your comments on ease of use (both on the
> ground and in the air), learning curve / ease of set up, and if one is
> better suited for cross country flying.
>
Which one to use partly depends on what hardware you'll end up running it
on: if you use an Oudie or other device that runs Windows Mobile 5 or 6
then you can use either, but if you get an Android device you can only
use XCSoar.

Both XCSoar and LK8000 have versions that run on a standard Windows PC,
so I suggest you download both, install them on a Windows box and see
which you prefer. Its worthwhile doing the comparison using the maps and
other data files you'll be flying with, so get them too: maps for LK8000
come from the LK8000 site and maps for XCSoar come from the XCSoar site,
but the other files (Glider polars, Winpilot/CAI format waypoints, OpenAir
airspace files and landout field details) are common to both programs, so
you only need to download those once.

My site contains a section about installing these programs on a variety
of devices and where to find the waypoints, airspace, etc. It is intended
for UK users, but most of the download sites have files for other parts
of the world. Here's a link to this info:

http://www.gregorie.org/gliding/pna


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

[waremark]

They have a lot in common, having started from a common base a few years ago. Both offer much more information and functionality than you are likely to want to take advantage of. Both will provide a superb glide computer system running on the Oudie 2 lite and linked to the Cambridge. My impression is that LK8000 is even more feature rich than XCSoar, since the LK team went on developing new functionality while the XCS team were porting it to Android.

Ideally you would find people at your club using both and ask them to give you a demo. The look is pretty different and so are the gestures/touches used to operate them. If one is more popular than the other where you fly that would a good reason to choose it. Other users can be very helpful.

Whichever you choose, spend as much time as possible studying the manual and playing with the program at home, and try to set it up so you hardly need to touch it in the air. And always fly with it in such a way that if GPS gets jammed or otherwise fails you won't have a big problem.

[marco]

On Sunday, March 10, 2013 3:11:53 AM UTC+1, MNLou wrote:
> I am about to make my first foray into the world of soaring software.
>
>
>
> I will, most likely, be using a Naviter Oudie Lite hooked up to a Cambridge 302. My focus will be cross country flight (versus contest flying) for the foreseeable future.
>
>
>
> I have read reviews and comments about both XCSoar and LK8000. They both appear to be fine products with excellent functionality.
>
>
>
> I would be interested in your comments on ease of use (both on the ground and in the air), learning curve / ease of set up, and if one is better suited for cross country flying.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for your help!

Why not take the Vertika into account as well. In fact: I bought the Oudie light and a friend the Vertika. Both devices are very similar but if I had to make a new purchase the Vertika a a slight edge over the Oudie for the following reasons:
1. Vertika platform is just a Windows platform, making it possible to install several programs. In the Oudie case once you have choosen to install XCSoar it is not possible to return to CU. I now have a way to run CU as default and to run XCSoar from my SDcard but shutting down the device after I have run XCSoar is not straightforward. I now need to reset the device, restart in CU mode and then choose the shutdown option after pressing the power-off button. Currently the software is not designed to accomodate several pilots sharing one device with different types of software.
2. The Vertika is slightly brighter than the Oudie. Both are excellent compared to the old PDAs but the Vertika has a slight edge. It might consume more power as a consequence though. That detail I do not have.

The first reason would for me trigger the choice to Vertika; the second is nice to have but not very important.

[Max Kellermann[_2_]]

On Monday, March 11, 2013 3:06:07 AM UTC+1, waremark wrote:
> My impression is that LK8000 is even more feature rich than XCSoar, since the LK team went on developing new functionality while the XCS team were porting it to Android.

No, your subjective impression is not quite correct. The Android port has nothing to do with adding features (or not).

Both LK8000 and XCSoar have gained new features since Paolo decided to part the XCSoar team (he quit because he rejected the Android port, not because he wanted new features). Many new XCSoar features are not present in LK8000, for example:

- SkyLines live tracking (http://www.skylines-project.org/tracking/)
- show friends locations via SkyLines
- METAR/TAF
- improved reach display (shows reachability behind obstacle when there is a route around the obstacle)
- terrain avoidance suggestions (terrain route planner)
- airspace avoidance suggestions (airspace route planner)
- valid IGC file download from FLARM, Colibri, LX5000/LX7000, Nano, CAI302, ERIXX
- configuration interface for FLARM, Nano, V7, CAI302
- many more device drivers, for example K6Bt and custom pressure sensors (MSM, BMP)
- up to 6 devices can be connected, all input is merged with auto-fallback
- Bluetooth server for wireless NMEA forwarding
- FAI triangle areas obeying the 750km rule
- high-resolution terrain renderer
- kinetic panning
- live scores for more contests (Netcoupe and others)
- audio vario
- gestures
- runs on Android, Mac OS X, Linux, Raspberry Pi (plus all Windows platforms that LK8000 supports)

(That list is far from complete)

There are only few LK8000 features that have not made it into XCSoar. Mostly features that have not been considered important/useful enough by XCSoar developers/users.

[Richard Brisbourne[_2_]]

Some excellent points have been made, and I
wouldn't disagree seriously with any of them,
although not everyone posting has declared their
interest. For instance most people reading this will be
aware that Max is a leading member of the XCSoar
development team, and some of us will have seen
Marco's posts on the LK8000 forum. And actually
some of the features Max mentioned are on LK (even
if they might not work the same way), and there are
also things in LK that aren't in XCSoar.

What you probably won't find here is anything from
anyone with real world experience with the latest
versions of both programs in the cockpit- if you're
satisfied with what you've got why take the trouble to
learn a new interface just to get additional features
you won't use anyway?

My own take on this (currently LK user, switched from
XCSoar at the time of the fork, as Paolo was working
with the hardware I was running at the time):

1. Hardware is key, particlularly readability in
sunlight. Availability on Android isn't an issue at least
for now if the best hardware runs Windows.


2. Whatever you run, you won't want all the features.
Just see if the features you do want are available. Or
if you are buying the hardware now, get hardware
that fits with the rest of your setup. There are
pressure sensors and devices for interfacing external
IGC sources available that work with LK software,
they just aren't all the same ones.

3. If you can read the screen, and it's telling you
what you want to know, everything else is trumped
by usability; how quickly can you see (or get to)
relevant information, and how quickly can you
recognise and assimilate it?

Of course the beauty of free software is it costs
nothing to try out either in sim mode on a PC, or
even on the actual device using Condor. And read
the manuals.

Richard Brisbourne
LK8000
Vertica V1 with Red Box Flarm as data source.

At 09:35 11 March 2013, Max Kellermann wrote:
>On Monday, March 11, 2013 3:06:07 AM UTC+1,
waremark wrote:
>> My impression is that LK8000 is even more
feature rich than XCSoar, since
>the LK team went on developing new functionality
while the XCS team were
>porting it to Android.
>
>No, your subjective impression is not quite correct.
The Android port has
>nothing to do with adding features (or not).
>
>Both LK8000 and XCSoar have gained new features
since Paolo decided to part
>the XCSoar team (he quit because he rejected the
Android port, not because
>he wanted new features). Many new XCSoar
features are not present in
>LK8000, for example:
>
>- SkyLines live tracking (http://www.skylines-
project.org/tracking/)
>- show friends locations via SkyLines
>- METAR/TAF
>- improved reach display (shows reachability behind
obstacle when there is
>a route around the obstacle)
>- terrain avoidance suggestions (terrain route
planner)
>- airspace avoidance suggestions (airspace route
planner)
>- valid IGC file download from FLARM, Colibri,
LX5000/LX7000, Nano, CAI302,
>ERIXX
>- configuration interface for FLARM, Nano, V7,
CAI302
>- many more device drivers, for example K6Bt and
custom pressure sensors
>(MSM, BMP)
>- up to 6 devices can be connected, all input is
merged with auto-fallback
>- Bluetooth server for wireless NMEA forwarding
>- FAI triangle areas obeying the 750km rule
>- high-resolution terrain renderer
>- kinetic panning
>- live scores for more contests (Netcoupe and
others)
>- audio vario
>- gestures
>- runs on Android, Mac OS X, Linux, Raspberry Pi
(plus all Windows
>platforms that LK8000 supports)
>
>(That list is far from complete)
>
>There are only few LK8000 features that have not
made it into XCSoar.
>Mostly features that have not been considered
important/useful enough by
>XCSoar developers/users.
>

[pcool]

Well of course it would be nice to add features as we did, leading the
market in terms of innovations, and at the same time be able to keep
compatibility with several platforms like XCS did.
But we could not do both things, and of course even XCS could not.
Unfortunately I cannot comment on what Max says, for two reasons.
The first, is that I dont discuss with him in public anymore.
The second, because the truth is obvious to anybody looking at a screenshot
or testing a software for 5 minutes.

But let me have a good laugh at "There are only few LK8000 features that
have not made it into XCSoar. Mostly features that have not been considered
important/useful enough by XCSoar developers/users." .
De Vulpe Et Uva .
And you also forgot to say that you copied the rest from us, haha.

I am not going also to comment about the reasons me, and now all of the rest
of the original XCS developers, abandoned Max or forked out. But there is
always a good reason why these things happen, of course.

Good software for free, for all platforms, I wish pilots to find the one
that match better their need, and their hardware !
paolo



"Max Kellermann" wrote in message
...

On Monday, March 11, 2013 3:06:07 AM UTC+1, waremark wrote:
> My impression is that LK8000 is even more feature rich than XCSoar, since
> the LK team went on developing new functionality while the XCS team were
> porting it to Android.

No, your subjective impression is not quite correct. The Android port has
nothing to do with adding features (or not).

Both LK8000 and XCSoar have gained new features since Paolo decided to part
the XCSoar team (he quit because he rejected the Android port, not because
he wanted new features). Many new XCSoar features are not present in LK8000,
for example:

- SkyLines live tracking (http://www.skylines-project.org/tracking/)
- show friends locations via SkyLines
- METAR/TAF
- improved reach display (shows reachability behind obstacle when there is a
route around the obstacle)
- terrain avoidance suggestions (terrain route planner)
- airspace avoidance suggestions (airspace route planner)
- valid IGC file download from FLARM, Colibri, LX5000/LX7000, Nano, CAI302,
ERIXX
- configuration interface for FLARM, Nano, V7, CAI302
- many more device drivers, for example K6Bt and custom pressure sensors
(MSM, BMP)
- up to 6 devices can be connected, all input is merged with auto-fallback
- Bluetooth server for wireless NMEA forwarding
- FAI triangle areas obeying the 750km rule
- high-resolution terrain renderer
- kinetic panning
- live scores for more contests (Netcoupe and others)
- audio vario
- gestures
- runs on Android, Mac OS X, Linux, Raspberry Pi (plus all Windows platforms
that LK8000 supports)

(That list is far from complete)

There are only few LK8000 features that have not made it into XCSoar. Mostly
features that have not been considered important/useful enough by XCSoar
developers/users.

[Max Kellermann[_2_]]

On Monday, March 11, 2013 12:07:03 PM UTC+1, pcool wrote:
> I am not going also to comment about the reasons me, and now all of the rest
> of the original XCS developers, abandoned Max or forked out. But there is
> always a good reason why these things happen, of course.

Facts check: https://www.ohloh.net/p/compare?metric=Summary&project_0=XCSoar&project_1=LK8000

[Paul Remde]

Hi Marco,

I find it hard to believe that the Vertica V2 is brighter than the Oudie 2
Lite. Did you compare them in bright sunlight? If so, please provide
photos for comparison.

It is my understanding that the Oudie 2 Lite is considerably faster and has
faster screen updates than the V2.

It is easy to have both SeeYou Mobile and XCSoar installed on the Oudie 2
Lite. You can select in the settings screens which program is run
automatically at startup.

Best Regards,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
_________________________________________

"Marco" wrote in message
...

On Sunday, March 10, 2013 3:11:53 AM UTC+1, MNLou wrote:
> I am about to make my first foray into the world of soaring software.
>
>
>
> I will, most likely, be using a Naviter Oudie Lite hooked up to a
> Cambridge 302. My focus will be cross country flight (versus contest
> flying) for the foreseeable future.
>
>
>
> I have read reviews and comments about both XCSoar and LK8000. They both
> appear to be fine products with excellent functionality.
>
>
>
> I would be interested in your comments on ease of use (both on the ground
> and in the air), learning curve / ease of set up, and if one is better
> suited for cross country flying.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for your help!

Why not take the Vertika into account as well. In fact: I bought the Oudie
light and a friend the Vertika. Both devices are very similar but if I had
to make a new purchase the Vertika a a slight edge over the Oudie for the
following reasons:
1. Vertika platform is just a Windows platform, making it possible to
install several programs. In the Oudie case once you have choosen to install
XCSoar it is not possible to return to CU. I now have a way to run CU as
default and to run XCSoar from my SDcard but shutting down the device after
I have run XCSoar is not straightforward. I now need to reset the device,
restart in CU mode and then choose the shutdown option after pressing the
power-off button. Currently the software is not designed to accomodate
several pilots sharing one device with different types of software.
2. The Vertika is slightly brighter than the Oudie. Both are excellent
compared to the old PDAs but the Vertika has a slight edge. It might consume
more power as a consequence though. That detail I do not have.

The first reason would for me trigger the choice to Vertika; the second is
nice to have but not very important.

[Richard Brisbourne[_2_]]

Another piece of advice.

Ignore the incipient flame war and just look at the
software (and maybe talk to some users)

[[email protected]]

Pepsi-Coke
Schleicher-Shempp Hirth
Subaru-Ferrari

mas

[Max Kellermann[_2_]]

On Monday, March 11, 2013 12:33:43 PM UTC+1, Paul Remde wrote:
> It is my understanding that the Oudie 2 Lite is considerably faster and has
> faster screen updates than the V2.

True. The Vertica V2 has an ARMv5 CPU with 460 MHz, while the Oudie has an ARMv6 CPU with 500 MHz. Of course, the ARMv6 gives more bang for the MHz.

Both are horribly outdated; modern products come with quad-core ARMv7 with 1200+ MHz each. The usability difference is obvious.

[waremark]

On Sunday, 10 March 2013 02:11:53 UTC, MNLou wrote:
> I am about to make my first foray into the world of soaring software.
>
>
>
> I will, most likely, be using a Naviter Oudie Lite hooked up to a Cambridge 302. My focus will be cross country flight (versus contest flying) for the foreseeable future.
>
>
>
> I have read reviews and comments about both XCSoar and LK8000. They both appear to be fine products with excellent functionality.
>
>
>
> I would be interested in your comments on ease of use (both on the ground and in the air), learning curve / ease of set up, and if one is better suited for cross country flying.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for your help!

On the choice of hardware, between Oudie 2 and Vertica V2/GliderGuider/WingsandWheels AVier (all the same unit), there are pros and cons. The Oudie 2 uses less battery (probably c 0.2 Ah vs 0.3 Ah, in either case I suggest plugging into the glider fully charged), and has more internal memory and a faster processor which seems to give faster screen redrawing. The Vertica etc has an internal GPS which is more suitable for gliding and so is the device I would recommend if you expect to use the internal GPS rather than always rely on an external GPS source. I bought the GliderGuider to replace my original model Oudie - the GliderGuider was good value in the UK and came with excellent service. I am running SeeYou Mobile on it, which for me makes the things I do often easier than the free programs.

[Roel Baardman]

> Another piece of advice.
>
> Ignore the incipient flame war and just look at the
> software (and maybe talk to some users)

+1

Both should be able to connect to Condor or some other simulator
capable of sending NMEA output over RS232 or TCP/IP. Perhaps this is
suitable to simulate a flight for yourself and see how you like each
program.

[JohnDeRosa]

I cannot comment on the original question about XCSoar versus LK8000
and which to use as I have only flown with SeeYou Mobile on the Oudie
(and GlideNav II on a HP PDA).

But, here are links (and links to links) to good descriptions on the
Naviter forum on how to have either tool running on the same Oudie -
which would allow you to have the best of both worlds and to trial
both tools.

http://forum.naviter.com/threads/4798-Running-XCSoar-on-the-Oudie
http://forum.naviter.com/threads/2565-SeeYou-Mobile-and-LK8000-using-both-on-Oudie?highlight=xcsoar

Good luck, John

[waremark]

I would recommend making a fairly quick choice between the software options and putting the time into studying the chosen version. They will all do your job well. If you spend too long choosing you will not only waste time but also end up confused.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, March 11, 2013 10:13:55 AM UTC-5, waremark wrote:
> I would recommend making a fairly quick choice between the software options and putting the time into studying the chosen version. They will all do your job well. If you spend too long choosing you will not only waste time but also end up confused.

So, Max, Paolo or US pilots:

Is either of these two packages useable in a US contest? Do they depict US start, turnpoint and finish definitions, tell you if you're under the top for 2 minutes, help plan time completion for area and mat tasks, compute final glides to a finish cylinder with a minimum altitude, compute final glides around additional turnpoints (mat)? Can you input a task in less than 15 minutes? Is there a quick task A task B option (almost all in air task changes are now A to B)?

I tried xcsoar many years ago. Charlie Spratt changed the task in the air. 15 minutes later on my second reboot, I swore it off. Is contest task entry any easier than back then?

If not, is anyone working on a "US contest" package for either program?

Please no flame wars on how stupid our rules are for using cylinders, 2 minute rules, in air task changes, etc. The rules are what they are. The question is, can this software help a pilot to deal with the rules as they are?

John Cochrane

[Max Kellermann[_2_]]

On Monday, March 11, 2013 5:22:15 PM UTC+1, wrote:
> Do they depict US start, turnpoint and finish definitions

Sorry, I don't know US task rules. If there's anything missing, you should write a ticket (http://bugs.xcsoar.org/newticket).

> tell you if you're under the top for 2 minutes

I havn't heard of that feature, but then again, I don't fly contests. (I'm just one of several XCSoar developers, I don't know every part of XCSoar)

> help plan time completion for area and mat tasks

Yes for AAT, never heard of "MAT".

> compute final glides to a finish cylinder with a minimum altitude

Yes.

> compute final glides around additional turnpoints (mat)?

Again, don't about about MAT.

> Can you input a task in less than 15 minutes?

It usually takes me a minute on my Streak.

> Is there a quick task A task B option (almost all in air task changes are now A to B)?

You mean you have two active tasks, and switch between the two? No, but thanks to our excellent task engine, that would not be hard to implement. If it's really useful for contest pilots.

> I tried xcsoar many years ago. Charlie Spratt changed the task in the air. 15 minutes later on my second reboot, I swore it off. Is contest task entry any easier than back then?

The task engine and the task editor have been rewritten from scratch in XCSoar 6.0. XCSoar has come a very long way since the dark 5.x days.

> If not, is anyone working on a "US contest" package for either program?

No, our goal is to have everything in the "mainline". So if any US pilot decides to hack XCSoar code, please contact us for merging the new features.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, March 11, 2013 11:32:55 AM UTC-5, Max Kellermann wrote:
> On Monday, March 11, 2013 5:22:15 PM UTC+1, wrote:
>
> > Do they depict US start, turnpoint and finish definitions
>
>
>
> Sorry, I don't know US task rules. If there's anything missing, you should write a ticket (http://bugs.xcsoar.org/newticket).
>
>
>
> > tell you if you're under the top for 2 minutes
>
>
>
> I havn't heard of that feature, but then again, I don't fly contests. (I'm just one of several XCSoar developers, I don't know every part of XCSoar)
>
>
>
> > help plan time completion for area and mat tasks
>
>
>
> Yes for AAT, never heard of "MAT".
>
>
>
> > compute final glides to a finish cylinder with a minimum altitude
>
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
> > compute final glides around additional turnpoints (mat)?
>
>
>
> Again, don't about about MAT.
>
>
>
> > Can you input a task in less than 15 minutes?
>
>
>
> It usually takes me a minute on my Streak.
>
>
>
> > Is there a quick task A task B option (almost all in air task changes are now A to B)?
>
>
>
> You mean you have two active tasks, and switch between the two? No, but thanks to our excellent task engine, that would not be hard to implement. If it's really useful for contest pilots.
>
>
>
> > I tried xcsoar many years ago. Charlie Spratt changed the task in the air. 15 minutes later on my second reboot, I swore it off. Is contest task entry any easier than back then?
>
>
>
> The task engine and the task editor have been rewritten from scratch in XCSoar 6.0. XCSoar has come a very long way since the dark 5.x days.
>
>
>
> > If not, is anyone working on a "US contest" package for either program?
>
>
>
> No, our goal is to have everything in the "mainline". So if any US pilot decides to hack XCSoar code, please contact us for merging the new features..

Max,
I loaded every one of the above mentioned software packages on my new Avier (V2 sold by WingsAndWheels) plus Winpilot Pro and SeeYou Mobile for testing. Still trying to decide if I should abandon WinPilot which works very well for US contest flying.
However, running XCSoar on my new Nexus 7 just blows me away. The graphics and speed are unbelievable. Problem is, the Nexus is a little too big for the cockpit but I think the screen is very readable in sunlight with brighness turned up. Thanks for porting XCS for Android! I also use the Nexus and XCS to display flight data in Condor via Bluetooth.
Herb Kilian

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 03/11/2013 12:22 PM, wrote:
> On Monday, March 11, 2013 10:13:55 AM UTC-5, waremark wrote:
>> I would recommend making a fairly quick choice between the software options and putting the time into studying the chosen version. They will all do your job well. If you spend too long choosing you will not only waste time but also end up confused.
>
> So, Max, Paolo or US pilots:
>
Hi John, I've been using XCSoar in contests since 2008 in US and Canada.
I hope I can answer your questions below.

> Is either of these two packages useable in a US contest? Do they depict US start, turnpoint and finish definitions, tell you if you're under the top for 2 minutes, help plan time completion for area and mat tasks, compute final glides to a finish cylinder with a minimum altitude, compute final glides around additional turnpoints (mat)? Can you input a task in less than 15 minutes? Is there a quick task A task B option (almost all in air task changes are now A to B)?
>

US Start - yes

turnpoints and finish - yes

2 minute count down below top - yes

AAT/TAT completion and optimal distance based on current MC setting
(automatic or manual imput) - yes

MAT - set up same as TAT with smaller cyliners, functionality could be
improved (automatic TP selection or some such)

compute final glides to a finish cylinder with a minimum altitude - yes

compute final glides around additional turnpoints (mat)? - if you are
above final glide the computer switches to final glide mode regardles of
how many turnpoints are ahead (even has built in safety based on current
altitude as per your excellent article)

Can you input a task in less than 15 minutes? - current task programing
is probably the simplest i have ever used, 1 minute is not an exaggeration

Is there a quick task A task B option (almost all in air task changes
are now A to B) - absolutely, I typically program task a and b on the
ground and save them, if we are given dump tasks at the beginning of the
contest i punch them in and save them as well, ready to be loaded in the
air at any time

As any other system there are nuances to get around, but if you want I
can show you my setup next month in Perry..

Cheers,
Luke Szczepaniak





> I tried xcsoar many years ago. Charlie Spratt changed the task in the air. 15 minutes later on my second reboot, I swore it off. Is contest task entry any easier than back then?
>
> If not, is anyone working on a "US contest" package for either program?
>
> Please no flame wars on how stupid our rules are for using cylinders, 2 minute rules, in air task changes, etc. The rules are what they are. The question is, can this software help a pilot to deal with the rules as they are?
>
> John Cochrane
>

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Monday, March 11, 2013 12:22:15 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Monday, March 11, 2013 10:13:55 AM UTC-5, waremark wrote:
>
> > I would recommend making a fairly quick choice between the software options and putting the time into studying the chosen version. They will all do your job well. If you spend too long choosing you will not only waste time but also end up confused.
>
>
>
> So, Max, Paolo or US pilots:
>
>
>
> Is either of these two packages useable in a US contest? Do they depict US start, turnpoint and finish definitions, tell you if you're under the top for 2 minutes, help plan time completion for area and mat tasks, compute final glides to a finish cylinder with a minimum altitude, compute final glides around additional turnpoints (mat)? Can you input a task in less than 15 minutes? Is there a quick task A task B option (almost all in air task changes are now A to B)?
>
>
>
> I tried xcsoar many years ago. Charlie Spratt changed the task in the air.. 15 minutes later on my second reboot, I swore it off. Is contest task entry any easier than back then?
>
>
>
> If not, is anyone working on a "US contest" package for either program?
>
>
>
> Please no flame wars on how stupid our rules are for using cylinders, 2 minute rules, in air task changes, etc. The rules are what they are. The question is, can this software help a pilot to deal with the rules as they are?
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

I spent most of three seasons using XCS for US contests. On Ipaq 3950s to start, later on Dell Streak 5. Nine or ten contests IIRC. Something important was always busted in software. Start rules, AAT task optimizer, little things :-/. I wrote lots of trouble tickets. Some got acted on right away, some never. I haven't used XCS since version 6.3.

There's a timer that can be used to tell you how long you have been under max height.

When things work in XCS, they work well. Task editing is easy on the ground. Task editing in flight depends on your interface, and all of the hardware that I am familiar with that runs XCSoar is touch screen driven. I grew to hate touch screens in flight. My big problem with a touch screen is that I have to look the display for every single poke. This sounds trivial. In fact it adds up to a lot of distraction.

There are better solutions for racing. The two that I am aware of that demonstrably work (i.e. guys win with them, a lot) are SN10 and ClearNav.

The reason that these devices work better is that they take about a quarter the head down time that XCSoar does. Better user interface, easier to read displays in about equal parts. Neither attempts to do nearly as much as XCSoar can, but an awful lot of what XCSoar can do isn't helpful for racing..

The best clues to efficient soaring are outside the window. Less distraction equals better performance in my cockpit, and probably yours too.

By way of disclosure, I work part time for CNi, however this post is my personal opinion, informed by experience.


Evan Ludeman / T8

[Max Kellermann[_2_]]

On Monday, March 11, 2013 7:11:25 PM UTC+1, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> I spent most of three seasons using XCS for US contests. On Ipaq 3950s to start, later on Dell Streak 5. Nine or ten contests IIRC. Something important was always busted in software. Start rules, AAT task optimizer, little things :-/. I wrote lots of trouble tickets. Some got acted on right away, some never.

Some never? The following points to a exhaustive list of all of your tickets we havn't worked on yet:

http://bugs.xcsoar.org/query?status=accepted&status=assigned&status=new&status=reopened&type=defect&reporter=tangoeight%40gmail.com

This is exactly one ticket, one that can't be any less serious.

Yes, you found a lot of problems over the years (totalling 24), and that was your contribution to a better XCSoar, it helped a lot. Thousands of eyes find thousands of problems in such a complex software (nearly 26,000 users on Android alone). We do our best to deliver high quality to all those pilots, and we need input from people like you.

But please be honest. I know you want to drop some advertisement for your employer, but don't exaggerate the severity and number of open bugs.

[Luke Szczepaniak]

Good points Evan,

From my experience last year, V6.4 was very stable, all rules and
optimizations worked as necessary. As far as the heads down time goes,
I think a lot of that has to do with the pilots setup, I for one barely
touch my Streak in flight, the information I require is on my screen
when needed, automatic thermal mode, automatic final glide mode etc. All
information provided at a glance. Most of the interaction comes in the
form of a swipe across the screen to switch to a different page but only
when necessary, which is rare in my case. Your point about most of the
top guys in the US flying with CN or SN10 is well made, on the other
hand the winner of 2013 WGC Club Class was flying with XCSoar.

http://www.xcsoar.org/discover/2013/02/05/WGC_Argentina.html

I'm by no means saying that XCSoar is perfect, but it is constantly
improving, conversely it is part of the problem, new features mean more
bugs and more complexity. While XCSoar is extremely configurable,
configuring it just right can be a daunting process.

Cheers,
Luke Szczepaniak

On 03/11/2013 2:11 PM, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Monday, March 11, 2013 12:22:15 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>> On Monday, March 11, 2013 10:13:55 AM UTC-5, waremark wrote:
>>
>>> I would recommend making a fairly quick choice between the software options and putting the time into studying the chosen version. They will all do your job well. If you spend too long choosing you will not only waste time but also end up confused.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, Max, Paolo or US pilots:
>>
>>
>>
>> Is either of these two packages useable in a US contest? Do they depict US start, turnpoint and finish definitions, tell you if you're under the top for 2 minutes, help plan time completion for area and mat tasks, compute final glides to a finish cylinder with a minimum altitude, compute final glides around additional turnpoints (mat)? Can you input a task in less than 15 minutes? Is there a quick task A task B option (almost all in air task changes are now A to B)?
>>
>>
>>
>> I tried xcsoar many years ago. Charlie Spratt changed the task in the air. 15 minutes later on my second reboot, I swore it off. Is contest task entry any easier than back then?
>>
>>
>>
>> If not, is anyone working on a "US contest" package for either program?
>>
>>
>>
>> Please no flame wars on how stupid our rules are for using cylinders, 2 minute rules, in air task changes, etc. The rules are what they are. The question is, can this software help a pilot to deal with the rules as they are?
>>
>>
>>
>> John Cochrane
>
> I spent most of three seasons using XCS for US contests. On Ipaq 3950s to start, later on Dell Streak 5. Nine or ten contests IIRC. Something important was always busted in software. Start rules, AAT task optimizer, little things :-/. I wrote lots of trouble tickets. Some got acted on right away, some never. I haven't used XCS since version 6.3.
>
> There's a timer that can be used to tell you how long you have been under max height.
>
> When things work in XCS, they work well. Task editing is easy on the ground. Task editing in flight depends on your interface, and all of the hardware that I am familiar with that runs XCSoar is touch screen driven. I grew to hate touch screens in flight. My big problem with a touch screen is that I have to look the display for every single poke. This sounds trivial. In fact it adds up to a lot of distraction.
>
> There are better solutions for racing. The two that I am aware of that demonstrably work (i.e. guys win with them, a lot) are SN10 and ClearNav.
>
> The reason that these devices work better is that they take about a quarter the head down time that XCSoar does. Better user interface, easier to read displays in about equal parts. Neither attempts to do nearly as much as XCSoar can, but an awful lot of what XCSoar can do isn't helpful for racing.
>
> The best clues to efficient soaring are outside the window. Less distraction equals better performance in my cockpit, and probably yours too.
>
> By way of disclosure, I work part time for CNi, however this post is my personal opinion, informed by experience.
>
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Monday, March 11, 2013 2:33:19 PM UTC-4, Max Kellermann wrote:
> On Monday, March 11, 2013 7:11:25 PM UTC+1, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> > I spent most of three seasons using XCS for US contests. On Ipaq 3950s to start, later on Dell Streak 5. Nine or ten contests IIRC. Something important was always busted in software. Start rules, AAT task optimizer, little things :-/. I wrote lots of trouble tickets. Some got acted on right away, some never.
>
>
>
> Some never? The following points to a exhaustive list of all of your tickets we havn't worked on yet:
>
>
>
> http://bugs.xcsoar.org/query?status=accepted&status=assigned&status=new&status=reopened&type=defect&reporter=tangoeight%40gmail.com
>
>
>
> This is exactly one ticket, one that can't be any less serious.
>
>
>
> Yes, you found a lot of problems over the years (totalling 24), and that was your contribution to a better XCSoar, it helped a lot. Thousands of eyes find thousands of problems in such a complex software (nearly 26,000 users on Android alone). We do our best to deliver high quality to all those pilots, and we need input from people like you.
>
>
>
> But please be honest. I know you want to drop some advertisement for your employer, but don't exaggerate the severity and number of open bugs.



Actually, inability to d/l waypoints to a 302 is a pretty serious defect *for me* since I use the 303 display routinely and travel to many different soaring sites (but only because the 302 has small memory and no way to manage multiple waypoint sets). Without that capability, I have to drag out a laptop, pop the canopy off to get under the panel, etc. That much of the interface was all very handy with the little Ipags that could run the Cambridge utility.

The fact remains *every* release of XCSoar I used had significant bugs that affected its utility in competition. If you've fixed some of the tickets I left behind since I bothered to look (roughly last June), thank you, perhaps it will help others.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Monday, March 11, 2013 2:49:06 PM UTC-4, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:

> From my experience last year, V6.4 was very stable, all rules and
>
> optimizations worked as necessary.

That's interesting. The task optimizer -- which worked marvelously well for me in about July of 2011 -- was busted as of late Summer 2011 and I d/l'ed whatever release was current late Summer 2012 (i.e. a year later) just to see if that had been fixed... and found it hadn't. In my case, I always had to enter silly high Mc settings to get reasonable expected XC speeds. I got blown off on that... I guess it wasn't judged to be "serious" :-). The suggestion to add a dirt simple manual override for projected XC speed was likewise rejected.

I agree that figuring out a way to minimize the poking and prodding is a good thing. I liked the visual presentation of the Streak.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Max Kellermann[_2_]]

On Monday, March 11, 2013 7:57:17 PM UTC+1, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> If you've fixed some of the tickets I left behind since I bothered to look (roughly last June), thank you, perhaps it will help others.

Not true, your memory doesn't serve you well.

The latest ticket we touched was #2034, fixed on 2012/05/03, reported by you on 2012/04/24. That was just 3 days after you wrote your last ticket, and 6 days before your last XCSoar mailing list post.

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Monday, March 11, 2013 3:24:58 PM UTC-4, Max Kellermann wrote:
> On Monday, March 11, 2013 7:57:17 PM UTC+1, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> > If you've fixed some of the tickets I left behind since I bothered to look (roughly last June), thank you, perhaps it will help others.
>
>
>
> Not true, your memory doesn't serve you well.
>
>
>
> The latest ticket we touched was #2034, fixed on 2012/05/03, reported by you on 2012/04/24. That was just 3 days after you wrote your last ticket, and 6 days before your last XCSoar mailing list post.

What I am thinking of is consistently bad wind information at high altitude in wave and that damned task optimizer, mentioned in my reply to Luke. I'll leave you to look up the details if you like (and you do seem to like) but these things were not "fixed" while I was around, even if someone closed the tickets.

T8

[Tobias Bieniek]

I suppose you are talking about the AAT task optimizer? I've flown two competitions with it last year, and it worked as well as always before... It would be great though if you could point us to the first version that behaved badly for you, because otherwise we can only do wild guesses too.

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

For me the connectivity of Android based systems is important. I
like to connect with FLARM, variometer and logger. (I am also
dreaming of GPS-NAV communication with XCSoar).
After using Android device going back to Windows CE is not easy.
Mobile communication sends my position into web server, and
maybe I can track my friends online while flying.
User interface is IMHO the problem of all these touch devices.
Simple buttons or rotary switch would be better in turbulence.

For me the most important feature is the moving map and airspace
limits and FLARM traffic view. Then maybe the final glide
calculation. I fly with voice variometer.

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Monday, March 11, 2013 4:10:31 PM UTC-4, Tobias Bieniek wrote:
> I suppose you are talking about the AAT task optimizer? I've flown two competitions with it last year, and it worked as well as always before... It would be great though if you could point us to the first version that behaved badly for you, because otherwise we can only do wild guesses too.

The task calculator, yes.

There was a problem early on in 6.3 that did get sorted out. That problem caused my XC speed predicted vs Mc setting to run very high. I wrote a ticket, it got worked on, many thanks.

Later on, I noticed the inverse: entering for instance Mc 3.0 (knots) would yield an anomalously low predicted XC speed, low 40 mph range. This would have been with what ever version of XCS was current in April/May 2012, 6.3..something. I pulled out my Dell Streak to see if I could reproduce the problem quickly and I cannot, so I withdraw the shot about not being fixed a year later. The version I have loaded is 6.4.5. Mc 3.0 yields 51 mph which is about right if cruising is done in still air for dry ASW-20A, which is the polar I have loaded. Of course we always try to cruise in better than still air, so it's a good thing to be able to tell the nav device that "yes, the next 40 miles are going to be *really* good" due to ridge, cloud street, convergence or what have you. Having to set the Mc value, observe the speed calculated, deciding if it's reasonable, adjusting again maybe and *then* looking at the turn areas to see how far I need to go is a gigantic pain in the ass and an unreasonable waste of time in the cockpit. It's much easier for me to simply estimate speed (based on experience and what I see ahead) and work from this. I find that I can estimate speed quite well for days that go well. On the days that don't go well, I don't care about speed, I just care about getting around and the calculator is of no real import. Anyhow, my $0.02. Sorry I can't shed any illumination on whatever the issue was, perhaps it really is all fixed now.

T8

[marco]

On Monday, March 11, 2013 12:33:43 PM UTC+1, Paul Remde wrote:
> Hi Marco,
>
>
>
> I find it hard to believe that the Vertica V2 is brighter than the Oudie 2
>
> Lite. Did you compare them in bright sunlight? If so, please provide
>
> photos for comparison.
>
>
>
> It is my understanding that the Oudie 2 Lite is considerably faster and has
>
> faster screen updates than the V2.
>
>
>
> It is easy to have both SeeYou Mobile and XCSoar installed on the Oudie 2
>
> Lite. You can select in the settings screens which program is run
>
> automatically at startup.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Paul Remde
>
> Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>
> _________________________________________
>
>
>
> "Marco" wrote in message
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, March 10, 2013 3:11:53 AM UTC+1, MNLou wrote:
>
> > I am about to make my first foray into the world of soaring software.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I will, most likely, be using a Naviter Oudie Lite hooked up to a
>
> > Cambridge 302. My focus will be cross country flight (versus contest
>
> > flying) for the foreseeable future.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I have read reviews and comments about both XCSoar and LK8000. They both
>
> > appear to be fine products with excellent functionality.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I would be interested in your comments on ease of use (both on the ground
>
> > and in the air), learning curve / ease of set up, and if one is better
>
> > suited for cross country flying.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Thanks in advance for your help!
>
>
>
> Why not take the Vertika into account as well. In fact: I bought the Oudie
>
> light and a friend the Vertika. Both devices are very similar but if I had
>
> to make a new purchase the Vertika a a slight edge over the Oudie for the
>
> following reasons:
>
> 1. Vertika platform is just a Windows platform, making it possible to
>
> install several programs. In the Oudie case once you have choosen to install
>
> XCSoar it is not possible to return to CU. I now have a way to run CU as
>
> default and to run XCSoar from my SDcard but shutting down the device after
>
> I have run XCSoar is not straightforward. I now need to reset the device,
>
> restart in CU mode and then choose the shutdown option after pressing the
>
> power-off button. Currently the software is not designed to accomodate
>
> several pilots sharing one device with different types of software.
>
> 2. The Vertika is slightly brighter than the Oudie. Both are excellent
>
> compared to the old PDAs but the Vertika has a slight edge. It might consume
>
> more power as a consequence though. That detail I do not have.
>
>
>
> The first reason would for me trigger the choice to Vertika; the second is
>
> nice to have but not very important.
No pictures taken. You have to take my word for it. But both my friend (the happy Vertica owner) and myself (the quite happy Oudie owner) agreed. The sun was out but the sky was a bit hazy. The sun was still 2 hours from setting and I had both devices on a table inbetween us and the sun. But please read what I wrote: the softwareshell used in the Oudie is not very flexible when you want to alternate between both programs. The Vertica is easier to use. Yes you can make the choice as you decribe but reversing to CU mobile is less simple. This would for me be the decisive factor to buy the Vertica if there would be a need to replace my Oudie. Both screens are perfect for use in the sun, certainly when compared to the PDA I was using before.

[[email protected]]

Hi Paul,

No pictures taken. You have to take my word for it. But both my friend (the happy Vertica owner) and myself (the quite happy Oudie owner) agreed. The sun was out but the sky was a bit hazy. The sun was still 2 hours from setting and I had both devices on a table in between us and the sun. But please read what I wrote: the software shell used in the Oudie is not very flexible when you want to alternate between both programs. The Vertica is easier to use. Yes you can make the choice as you describe but reversing to CU mobile is less simple. This would for me be the decisive factor to buy the Vertica if there would be a need to replace my Oudie. Both screens are perfect for use in the sun, certainly when compared to the PDA I was using before..

Marco

[Marco[_2_]]

No pictures taken. You may take my word for it. But both my friend (the happy Vertica owner) and myself (the quite happy Oudie owner) agreed. The sun was out but the sky was a bit hazy. Sunset was a good 2 hours away and I had both devices on a table in between us and the sun and looked at the screen from a 30 degree angle. But please read what I wrote: the software shell used in the Oudie is not very flexible when you want to alternate between both programs eg when you share your glider. The Vertica is easier to use. Yes you can make the choice as you describe but reversing to CU mobile is less simple. This would for me be the decisive factor to buy the Vertica if there would be a need to replace my Oudie. Both screens are perfect for use in the sun, certainly when compared to the PDA I was using before.The Vertica does have the edge though. For the Oudie I would rate 9.5 out of 10 which is not bad.

Marco

[[email protected]]

Op dinsdag 12 maart 2013 15:29:07 UTC+1 schreef Marco het volgende:
Hi Paul,

> No pictures taken. You may take my word for it. But both my friend (the happy Vertica owner) and myself (the quite happy Oudie owner) agreed. The sun was out but the sky was a bit hazy. Sunset was a good 2 hours away and I had both devices on a table in between us and the sun and looked at the screen from a 30 degree angle. But please read what I wrote: the software shell used in the Oudie is not very flexible when you want to alternate between both programs eg when you share your glider. The Vertica is easier to use.. Yes you can make the choice as you describe but reversing to CU mobile is less simple. This would for me be the decisive factor to buy the Vertica if there would be a need to replace my Oudie. Both screens are perfect for use in the sun, certainly when compared to the PDA I was using before.The Vertica does have the edge though. For the Oudie I would rate 9.5 out of 10 which is not bad.
>
>
>
> Marco

[noel.wade]

On Mar 11, 9:22*am, wrote:

> If not, is anyone working on a "US contest" package for either program?
>
> Please no flame wars on how stupid our rules are for using cylinders, 2 minute rules, in air task changes, etc. The rules are what they are. The question is, can this software help a pilot to deal with the rules as they are?
>
> John Cochrane

John -

I used LK8000 as my only flight computer during the 2012 Montague
Nationals. It works fine for US contests.

There are a few fiddly bits to EVERY flight computer (LK, XCSoar, LX,
Cambridge, SYM - it doesn't matter which one you choose). But LK8000
works fine with US rules and US tasks.

If anyone has questions about how to set up LK8000 for a US contest,
feel free to contact me and I'll be glad to help! (although there
aren't any hard or "secret" settings)

Enjoy,

--Noel

[chris2]

I'm using LK8000 and I'm quite happy with it. At the time I compared LK8000 with XCSoar the LK8000 had huge advantages in usability (for me most important at that time the multi target feature). So I don't know whether XCS has catched up and I don't mind.

For tests with real igc files you can use also IGC Replay

[Bernie[_4_]]

Max wrote:
http://bugs.xcsoar.org/query?status=accepted&status=assigned&status=new&status=reopened&type=defect&reporter=tangoeight%40gmail.com

> This is exactly one ticket, one that can't be any less serious.

I feel Evans pain! I raised a ticket 4 months ago( # 2421) which appears to be a duplicate of Evans ticket #2054.

How can you consider a bug that prevents us from uploading Cambridge format turnpoint files to a Cambridge 302 not to be serious? It is VERY serious to 302 owners!

I've also been waiting 16 months for any thing to happen re ticket #1603 that requests functionality that See You has had for years, that is, the ability to set different scales on each different map page.

I really love XCSoar, and the developers have been very responsive with many tickets I have raised, but they seem to not be familiar with the needs of pilots using XCSoar for competition. But as others have said, try it!

[Max Kellermann[_2_]]

On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:46:48 AM UTC+1, Bernie wrote:
> How can you consider a bug that prevents us from uploading Cambridge format turnpoint files to a Cambridge 302 not to be serious? It is VERY serious to 302 owners!

Would you please explain why this is serious, or even a bug?

Yes, it may be uncomfortable that only CUP files can be selected at this one specific dialog, and we will extend it to allow all the other file formats that XCSoar understands. It's just that nobody got around to do it, because we had other requests that seemed more urgent.

My point is:

- you CAN upload waypoints to the CAI302 with XCSoar

- most other programs CAN'T (since this thread is about LK8000 vs XCSoar: no, LK8000 can't do that; XCSoar's device drivers are so much more advanced)


> I've also been waiting 16 months for any thing to happen re ticket #1603 that requests functionality that See You has had for years, that is, the ability to set different scales on each different map page.

Sorry this (and other feature requests) has been sitting unattended for so long. This was difficult to do with our old code base (pre 6.5). But I have good news: I rewrote the "pages" code in XCSoar 6.5, and implementing your feature is now very easy.

Given the hundreds of feature requests, it's difficult for us to pick the right one to implement next. I thought about adding a "voting" plugin to the bug trackers to let users vote for the most important requests.

(Bug reports are always first priority, of course - since saturday, I spent the better part of every night on important bug reports, and had no time left for new features)

[pcool]

"Max Kellermann" wrote in message
...

- most other programs CAN'T (since this thread is about LK8000 vs XCSoar:
no, LK8000 can't do that; XCSoar's device drivers are so much more advanced)

:-)
haha

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:47:04 AM UTC-4, Max Kellermann wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:46:48 AM UTC+1, Bernie wrote:
>
> > How can you consider a bug that prevents us from uploading Cambridge format turnpoint files to a Cambridge 302 not to be serious? It is VERY serious to 302 owners!
>
>
>
> Would you please explain why this is serious, or even a bug?
>
>
>
> Yes, it may be uncomfortable that only CUP files can be selected at this one specific dialog, and we will extend it to allow all the other file formats that XCSoar understands. It's just that nobody got around to do it, because we had other requests that seemed more urgent.
>
>
>
> My point is:
>
>
>
> - you CAN upload waypoints to the CAI302 with XCSoar

So you fixed the transfer of waypoints to 302 using .cup files? If so, I agree that's an acceptable solution. As stated on that original ticket I tried this and it simply erased all the waypoints in the 302.

T8

[Dan Marotta]

I don't understand.

I haven't knowingly added, deleted, or even used turnpoints on my 302. I
uploaded a turnpoint file to my Dell Streak 5 (United States.cup) and I have
access to all turnpoints in the US.

The Streak won't support the entire US terrain map, at least won't load it
in a reasonable time, so I have several maps which I created from XCSoar.org
which cover the regions where I fly. I can even change maps in flight if I
go that far...


"Evan Ludeman" > wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:47:04 AM UTC-4, Max Kellermann wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:46:48 AM UTC+1, Bernie wrote:
>
> > How can you consider a bug that prevents us from uploading Cambridge
> > format turnpoint files to a Cambridge 302 not to be serious? It is VERY
> > serious to 302 owners!
>
>
>
> Would you please explain why this is serious, or even a bug?
>
>
>
> Yes, it may be uncomfortable that only CUP files can be selected at this
> one specific dialog, and we will extend it to allow all the other file
> formats that XCSoar understands. It's just that nobody got around to do
> it, because we had other requests that seemed more urgent.
>
>
>
> My point is:
>
>
>
> - you CAN upload waypoints to the CAI302 with XCSoar

So you fixed the transfer of waypoints to 302 using .cup files? If so, I
agree that's an acceptable solution. As stated on that original ticket I
tried this and it simply erased all the waypoints in the 302.

T8

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:41:47 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I don't understand.

That's because you don't use a Cambridge 303 display with your 302.

Even with XCSoar, I used the 303 routinely. Even with ClearNav, I still use the 303 routinely. It's reliable, it's backup, it's very easy to read. One advantage of the 303 versus any full on glide computer: there is very little to get wrong. Provided that your database is correct, there is really no (easy :-)) way to screw up a final glide calculation.

T8

[Bernie[_4_]]

On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:47:04 PM UTC+11, Max Kellermann wrote:

> Yes, it may be uncomfortable that only CUP files can be selected at this one specific dialog, and we will extend it to allow all the other file formats that XCSoar understands. It's just that nobody got around to do it, because we had other requests that seemed more urgent.
>
> My point is:
>
> - you CAN upload waypoints to the CAI302 with XCSoar
>

Hi Max,
I must apologise, as I had clean forgotten that XCSoar could upload .cup files, which the 302 will gladly accept. So the ticket should be an enhancement request rather than a bug report, and you are correct.

Re #1603 'sticky zoom' or 'independent map scale'; thank you! That is something that I and my friends have long waited for and I very much appreciate you adding this overnight, fantastic work. XSoar just got better, and I already loved it!
Regards, Bernie.

[Bernie[_4_]]

PS: For 302 owners: I just remembered that the trick is to reboot the 302 manually after uploading the .cup files from XCSoar to the 302.
See ticket #2380 where I describe what Evan experienced (ie, 302 says no TP's loaded) until the 302 is rebooted.

http://bugs.xcsoar.org/ticket/2380

>
> Hi Max,
>
> I must apologise, as I had clean forgotten that XCSoar could upload .cup files, which the 302 will gladly accept. So the ticket should be an enhancement request rather than a bug report, and you are correct.
>
>
>
> Re #1603 'sticky zoom' or 'independent map scale'; thank you! That is something that I and my friends have long waited for and I very much appreciate you adding this overnight, fantastic work. XSoar just got better, and I already loved it!
>
> Regards, Bernie.

[Dan Marotta]

You are correct - I don't have a 303, though that's what I suspected was
meant in the original post about uploading turnpoints.

I have a couple of friends whose gliders have LNAV/GPS-NAV and a 303
installed. They each bought Streaks and are wondering how they can
interface the streak to the system. Or they stuck with using the Streak as
a stand-alone device?


"Evan Ludeman" > wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:41:47 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I don't understand.

That's because you don't use a Cambridge 303 display with your 302.

Even with XCSoar, I used the 303 routinely. Even with ClearNav, I still use
the 303 routinely. It's reliable, it's backup, it's very easy to read. One
advantage of the 303 versus any full on glide computer: there is very little
to get wrong. Provided that your database is correct, there is really no
(easy :-)) way to screw up a final glide calculation.

T8

[Max Kellermann[_2_]]

On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:51:57 PM UTC+1, Bernie wrote:
> Re #1603 'sticky zoom' or 'independent map scale'; thank you! That is something that I and my friends have long waited for and I very much appreciate you adding this overnight, fantastic work. XSoar just got better, and I already loved it!

I just uploaded XCSoar 6.6_preview1 with that feature to Google Play: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.xcsoar.testing

(Should be visible in an hour or so)

[Bernie[_4_]]

On Thursday, March 14, 2013 11:37:14 AM UTC+11, Max Kellermann wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:51:57 PM UTC+1, Bernie wrote:
>
> > Re #1603 'sticky zoom' or 'independent map scale'; thank you! That is something that I and my friends have long waited for and I very much appreciate you adding this overnight, fantastic work. XSoar just got better, and I already loved it!
>
>
>
> I just uploaded XCSoar 6.6_preview1 with that feature to Google Play: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.xcsoar.testing
>
>
>
> (Should be visible in an hour or so)

Works brilliantly! Thanks again.

[MNLou]

On Saturday, March 9, 2013 8:11:53 PM UTC-6, MNLou wrote:
> I am about to make my first foray into the world of soaring software.
>
>
>
> I will, most likely, be using a Naviter Oudie Lite hooked up to a Cambridge 302. My focus will be cross country flight (versus contest flying) for the foreseeable future.
>
>
>
> I have read reviews and comments about both XCSoar and LK8000. They both appear to be fine products with excellent functionality.
>
>
>
> I would be interested in your comments on ease of use (both on the ground and in the air), learning curve / ease of set up, and if one is better suited for cross country flying.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for your help!

I apologize for posting to this thread at this late date. I have been off-line for over 2 weeks dealing with a death in the family.

The developers of both products have every right to be proud of their accomplishments.

I want to thank everyone who posted. I learned a lot from the information posted and by following the conversations.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Mar 13, 8:37*pm, Max Kellermann > wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:51:57 PM UTC+1, Bernie wrote:
> > Re #1603 'sticky zoom' or 'independent map scale'; thank you! That is something that I and my friends have long waited for and I very much appreciate you adding this overnight, fantastic work. XSoar just got better, and I already loved it!
>
> I just uploaded XCSoar 6.6_preview1 with that feature to Google Play:https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.xcsoar.testing
>
> (Should be visible in an hour or so)

Max, if you guys could implement PowerFlarm Mod S/Mod C traffic that
would be awesome.

Please look at this page under "Non directional Warning Screen:"

http://www.gliderpilot.org/PowerFlarmDisplays

Please look into this. I saw some exchanges on XCSoar forum on this
subject but the thread died. Thank you in advance.

Andrzej

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Mar 25, 10:12*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
> On Mar 13, 8:37*pm, Max Kellermann > wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:51:57 PM UTC+1, Bernie wrote:
> > > Re #1603 'sticky zoom' or 'independent map scale'; thank you! That is something that I and my friends have long waited for and I very much appreciate you adding this overnight, fantastic work. XSoar just got better, and I already loved it!
>
> > I just uploaded XCSoar 6.6_preview1 with that feature to Google Play:https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.xcsoar.testing
>
> > (Should be visible in an hour or so)
>
> Max, if you guys could implement PowerFlarm Mod S/Mod C traffic that
> would be awesome.
>
> Please look at this page under "Non directional Warning Screen:"
>
> http://www.gliderpilot.org/PowerFlarmDisplays
>
> Please look into this. I saw some exchanges on XCSoar forum on this
> subject but the thread died. Thank you in advance.
>
> Andrzej

By the way I am asking for it here as there is a ticket for it already
but priority was moved to LOW. Having this feature implemented would
allow many of us to get rid of extra displays polluting our cockpits.
To me this is more important than many other features. I guess there
are many others who think this way.

[Ramy]

On Monday, March 25, 2013 7:16:20 PM UTC-7, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Mar 25, 10:12*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 13, 8:37*pm, Max Kellermann > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:51:57 PM UTC+1, Bernie wrote:
>
> > > > Re #1603 'sticky zoom' or 'independent map scale'; thank you! That is something that I and my friends have long waited for and I very much appreciate you adding this overnight, fantastic work. XSoar just got better, and I already loved it!
>
> >
>
> > > I just uploaded XCSoar 6.6_preview1 with that feature to Google Play:https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.xcsoar.testing
>
> >
>
> > > (Should be visible in an hour or so)
>
> >
>
> > Max, if you guys could implement PowerFlarm Mod S/Mod C traffic that
>
> > would be awesome.
>
> >
>
> > Please look at this page under "Non directional Warning Screen:"
>
> >
>
> > http://www.gliderpilot.org/PowerFlarmDisplays
>
> >
>
> > Please look into this. I saw some exchanges on XCSoar forum on this
>
> > subject but the thread died. Thank you in advance.
>
> >
>
> > Andrzej
>
>
>
> By the way I am asking for it here as there is a ticket for it already
>
> but priority was moved to LOW. Having this feature implemented would
>
> allow many of us to get rid of extra displays polluting our cockpits.
>
> To me this is more important than many other features. I guess there
>
> are many others who think this way.

Andrzej, if you looking for using XCSoar for traffic collision instead of a dedicated display such as butterfly, you will need much more than Mode C/S support. The flarm functionality in XCSoar is mostly for buddy flying and situational awarness, but it was not designed for collision alerts as it does not have such a mode, nor audio alerts. For true and reliable collision alert, you need a dedicated display IMHO.
Having said that, if you would like to see improvement in XCSoar flarm support, you may want to add your comments and feedback to the existing tickets, or create new ones, this may attract more attention from the developers.


Ramy

[Max Kellermann[_2_]]

On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:02:11 AM UTC+1, Ramy wrote:
> Having said that, if you would like to see improvement in XCSoar flarm support, you may want to add your comments and feedback to the existing tickets, or create new ones, this may attract more attention from the developers.

Agree. Our bug tracker is the way to express wishes: http://bugs.xcsoar.org/newticket

Posting on RAS may or may not be seen by a XCSoar developer. On the bug tracker, you get feedback by email whenever a developer updates the ticket status, and you can subscribe to existing tickets.

(Ramy: I know your FLARM tickets, but it won't fit in XCSoar 6.6. Some of it needs some more refactoring of the internal FLARM traffic storage.)

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Mar 27, 3:40*am, Max Kellermann > wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:02:11 AM UTC+1, Ramy wrote:
> > Having said that, if you would like to see improvement in XCSoar flarm support, you may want to add your comments and feedback to the existing tickets, or create new ones, this may attract more attention from the developers.
>
> Agree. Our bug tracker is the way to express wishes:http://bugs.xcsoar.org/newticket
>
> Posting on RAS may or may not be seen by a XCSoar developer. On the bug tracker, you get feedback by email whenever a developer updates the ticket status, and you can subscribe to existing tickets.
>
> (Ramy: I know your FLARM tickets, but it won't fit in XCSoar 6.6. Some of it needs some more refactoring of the internal FLARM traffic storage.)

Yes, I saw the tickets. They were downgraded to low priority and that
was the reason I posted here as I saw Max reacting to over requests.
Ramy created a couple of tickets and I did not see anyone really
responding to those tickets so I gave up.

[Max Kellermann[_2_]]

On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:05:17 PM UTC+1, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> Ramy created a couple of tickets and I did not see anyone really
> responding to those tickets so I gave up.

Don't give up just yet. XCSoar 6.5 was a major milestone for us: after 4 years of code cleanup, the XCSoar code base is finally "ready". Now we can focus on features, we can start to process all the tickets people have submitted.

Just look at the XCSoar 6.6 changelog (work in progress), these are the features that were implemented after only 3 weeks:

http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/master/xcsoar.git/tree/NEWS.txt

[6PK]

On Monday, March 11, 2013 6:01:31 AM UTC-7, waremark wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 March 2013 02:11:53 UTC, MNLou wrote:
>
> > I am about to make my first foray into the world of soaring software.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I will, most likely, be using a Naviter Oudie Lite hooked up to a Cambridge 302. My focus will be cross country flight (versus contest flying) for the foreseeable future.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I have read reviews and comments about both XCSoar and LK8000. They both appear to be fine products with excellent functionality.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I would be interested in your comments on ease of use (both on the ground and in the air), learning curve / ease of set up, and if one is better suited for cross country flying.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Thanks in advance for your help!
>
>
>
> On the choice of hardware, between Oudie 2 and Vertica V2/GliderGuider/WingsandWheels AVier (all the same unit), there are pros and cons. The Oudie 2 uses less battery (probably c 0.2 Ah vs 0.3 Ah, in either case I suggest plugging into the glider fully charged), and has more internal memory and a faster processor which seems to give faster screen redrawing. The Vertica etc has an internal GPS which is more suitable for gliding and so is the device I would recommend if you expect to use the internal GPS rather than always rely on an external GPS source. I bought the GliderGuider to replace my original model Oudie - the GliderGuider was good value in the UK and came with excellent service. I am running SeeYou Mobile on it, which for me makes the things I do often easier than the free programs.

Guys; are the Oudie2 Vertica2/Avier the same physical size ? Are the cables interchangeable? I'm considering to buy the Vertica2 as a backup and as a platform to try other software programs without having to change wiring and cradle. Can't really get a straight answer.
Thanks in advanced. 6PK

[waremark]

Oudie 2 and the others are extremely close in size, but mount differently in the brackets they come with.

The interface cables are different, mainly because the Vertica/Avier/GliderGuider has 2 serial ports sharing the same 10 pin mini-usb socket, whereas the Oudie uses a 5 pin mini USB socket. The Oudie comes with an appropriate interface cable for most connections, with the others the suppliers offer appropriate cables as extras.

All these units are excellent. The screens really are superb - nothing to choose between them.

[6PK]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:21:25 PM UTC-7, waremark wrote:
> Oudie 2 and the others are extremely close in size, but mount differently in the brackets they come with.
>
>
>
> The interface cables are different, mainly because the Vertica/Avier/GliderGuider has 2 serial ports sharing the same 10 pin mini-usb socket, whereas the Oudie uses a 5 pin mini USB socket. The Oudie comes with an appropriate interface cable for most connections, with the others the suppliers offer appropriate cables as extras.
>
>
>
> All these units are excellent. The screens really are superb - nothing to choose between them.

Thank you very kindly 6PK

[[email protected]]

Having just got into gliding and looking to what software will run, what it offers etc i came across lk8000 and xcsoar, both very good. My first reaction is that two groups of very capable developers have gone separate ways( it doesn't matter why) to develop for the good of glider pilots. Now everyone in life wants different, the world over! Both free, people can download both and sample which they prefer. I personally found lk8000 easier to set up. But haven't used either enough to pick one. As a fixed wing power jock I use skydemon on a mini iPad. I think this suits MY purpose over the others.
With lk8000 and xcsoar you could use both on a tablet pc.
Lets stop the public debate from the developers claiming who has the best! I think it very unprofessional and doesn't affect my judgement as to which I prefer, once I've used both I have no doubt that I will pick one ov er the other.
To the develops, just go out to have in your opinion the best product, don't worry about the competition. The end user will decide on the best. They probably isn't a best as everyone has different ideas on what they require.
Lets all be thankfully that we have a free choice and that people are able to develop software of this complexity and give it away.
From me thanks to both the lk8000 and xcsoar team. Keep up the good work.

[[email protected]]

I use a car navigation system, (a Mio Moov, was cheap, like $100 if I recall) and it runs LK8000 great. The display can be a little hard to read in the sun but the new airspace views of LK8000 (both top and side) have been fantastic... our gliderport is underneath the edge of a class B so it's been really helpful to keep track of where I am regarding the airspace above.

Also, clicking through the screens is fast and easy.. the earlier versions of XCSoar (I can't speak for the newest) required clicking tiny little buttons and scroll bars, and thats something that just isn't going to work for me in the cockpit. LK8000 is designed around quick and easy navigation between screens with minimal distraction.. in fact you can identify screens by the sound they make as you switch without looking.

Try both is my advice... read the manuals for both... and watch youtube for examples of how things are done, then test fly them in sim mode or on a simulator.