View Full Version : PowerFLARM 2.71...WTF?
What am I missing?
Could someone please explain why PowerFLARM.US has not released the IGC approved version 2.71 for flight logs?
Ben
Mike the Strike
April 2nd 13, 03:29 AM
On Monday, April 1, 2013 6:38:37 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> What am I missing?
>
>
>
> Could someone please explain why PowerFLARM.US has not released the IGC approved version 2.71 for flight logs?
>
>
>
> Ben
Because they already have our money:)
Mike
Dan Daly[_2_]
April 2nd 13, 03:44 AM
On Apr 1, 10:29*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> On Monday, April 1, 2013 6:38:37 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > What am I missing?
>
> > Could someone please explain why PowerFLARM.US has not released the IGC approved version 2.71 for flight logs?
>
> > Ben
>
> Because they already have our money:)
>
> Mike
I expect they've been busy with the Portable recall... however, my
glider comes out of the hangar Saturday, and I am beginning to regret
selling my Volkslogger. I would be happy with 2.71 (beta). I have
seen reference to a version 2.8 on the Butterfly site. Are you
sitting down?
quote
(Updates through PowerFLARM will be available early summer 2013 with
PowerFLARM Software 2.8)
unquote
This is in the changelog to butterfly display update 3.1.; which I
cannot put in my display since I didn't get a cable that could do it
because they said it could be done through my Brick in Q1/2013.
I don't doubt a lot is being done; but it is EXTRAORDINARILY
FRUSTRATING to have zero information on the company website - North
American section - since 31 October last year.
What is happening? Do I get another IGC Flight Recorder for this
spring?????
Dan Daly[_2_]
April 2nd 13, 03:57 AM
And it occurs to me, that they don't see the problem - since they are
flying with 2.71 right now. If you have something, the urgency goes
away. Ridge days at Keystone - and no recorder to finish my Diamond
Badge.
Tom Bjork
April 2nd 13, 05:00 AM
At 02:57 02 April 2013, Dan Daly wrote:
>And it occurs to me, that they don't see the problem - since they are
>flying with 2.71 right now. If you have something, the urgency goes
>away. Ridge days at Keystone - and no recorder to finish my Diamond
>Badge.
>
>They are just taking lessons from ClearNav. Is it March 31 yet?????????
SF
The new way: Release something that's incomplete and fix it after you have some money.
CNv, PowerFLARM, and I've heard stories of LX but I can't remember which LX company or vario it was.
Enjoy the last hour of April Fools Day.
Jim
Evan Ludeman[_4_]
April 2nd 13, 01:37 PM
On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 12:00:37 AM UTC-4, Tom Bjork wrote:
>
> >They are just taking lessons from ClearNav. Is it March 31 yet?????????
>
>
>
> SF
Oww! Owwww!
CNv release notes and update process instructions being reviewed this morning. Pls stand by....
Evan Ludeman
Richard[_9_]
April 2nd 13, 01:47 PM
On Monday, April 1, 2013 11:11:16 PM UTC-7, JS wrote:
> The new way: Release something that's incomplete and fix it after you have some money. CNv, PowerFLARM, and I've heard stories of LX but I can't remember which LX company or vario it was. Enjoy the last hour of April Fools Day. Jim
It is now Arpil 2.
Do not put LX NAV in that category!! The last improvement to the LX9000 was a V9 vario module,it has 3 axis accelerometers,and 3 axis gyros sensors. I just received 2 9000s in Feb 2013 when they announced the V9 was replacing the V5 module. So I email LX NAV to get V9 modules and their response was : Not to worry Richard all LX9000 have been shipping with the V9 module since November 2012, V5 SN 2000 and up are V9 modules.
Needless to say I was impressed.
Richard
www.craggyaero.com
Back to topic...this is about customer service and product confidence. Where is PowerFLARM.US? Their silence is most disrespectful and their lack of support is inexcusable.
Message to Ian Strachan,(ian at ukiws.demon.co.uk) , Chairman, IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee:
This lack of manufacture's support establishes a dangerous precedent in the soaring market. Whereas it benefits the manufacture, it penalizes the soaring community worldwide. Please move to restructure all IGC flight recorder approval to condition approval only if tested and approved operating software is publicly available to the soaring domain. IGC approval of something not readily available is worthless.
Respectfully,
Ben
Sean F (F2)
April 2nd 13, 02:58 PM
I am going to have to agree with the frustration being expressed here. I have had my portable for 1.7 years approximately (Uvalde, August, 2011). Like you I am still waiting for the final IGC approved logger function firmware update. Yes, that is a bit "tardy." By the time it is released it will have been nearly 2 years for me. I needed to purchase a Collibri 2 as a backup logger (awesome unit by the way!)
That said, I have experienced first hand the PowerFlarm protecting me (and the other pilots) from numerous very possible collisions. One I honestly feel would have absolutely happened without Flarm. We we dead to rights, I got a warning, dove out of the way and he never moved or made any turn. Sobering to think about but a reality of flying. 1:1,000,000 does happen eventually. And in gliders its probably more like 1:10,000.
I strongly believe that PowerFlarm greatly improves glider safety as we glider pilots always head to the same places and fly the same path's, often opposed. Regardless of if we are racing or fun flying. I think it is worth every penny of the price.
I think we should be mindful of the importance of this primary PowerFlarm goal: collision avoidance. We should make sure that we restrain ourselves from injuring the company's reputation so much as to impede adoption of others considering a PowerFlarm purchase. I think it's more important to praise PowerFlarms almost magical (just as advertised) capability to call out traffic in conjunction with any criticism of the approved logger function delay.
I think PowerFlarm is critical to improving general glider - tow aircraft safety and as ADS-B continues to roll out, a broad adoption of PowerFlarm within the USA from glider pilots will become increasingly important in preventing general airplane / glider collisions.
I thank PowerFlarm for stepping forward, taking the risks to develop this product and for delivering a FCC approved Flarm product in the USA that works extremely well.
Regardless of the tardiness on the logger, I give you guys an A+.
Thank You.
Now hurry up with that logger update :-)!
Sean
F2
kirk.stant
April 2nd 13, 04:11 PM
Hmm, I see a market for rental IGC loggers. I know of a nice low time VL that is gathering dust at SLSA, somebody make an offer!
Kirk
66
Themi + SN10 + PFB + Oudie = too many darn loggers!
Sean, et al; please understand, this is an issue of disrespect to supporting users before it is an issue of approved flight recorder.
Yes, the soaring community is safer with the advent of PowerFLARM and certainly, the collision avoidance value of PowerFLARM is not in question.
However, it was PowerFLARM who took the initiative to submit software to IGC for evaluation and approval. When IGC approval was received, PowerFLARM had a fiduciary responsibility to make the software available to their supporting customers. So once again, where is PowerFLARM and especially PowerFLARM.US? Gentlemen, the longer you are unresponsive, the more disrespect you project.
The soaring distributor and consumer needs to send a stronger message to manufactures and not "enable" them with acceptance of poor customer support by adopting the "whatever" attitude. Unless you, the end user, openly express your displeasure, this type of customer treatment will only increase.
So, less sizzle and more steak please.
Ben
Ramy
April 2nd 13, 07:33 PM
On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 8:12:55 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Sean, et al; please understand, this is an issue of disrespect to supporting users before it is an issue of approved flight recorder.
>
>
>
> Yes, the soaring community is safer with the advent of PowerFLARM and certainly, the collision avoidance value of PowerFLARM is not in question.
>
>
>
> However, it was PowerFLARM who took the initiative to submit software to IGC for evaluation and approval. When IGC approval was received, PowerFLARM had a fiduciary responsibility to make the software available to their supporting customers. So once again, where is PowerFLARM and especially PowerFLARM.US? Gentlemen, the longer you are unresponsive, the more disrespect you project.
>
>
>
> The soaring distributor and consumer needs to send a stronger message to manufactures and not "enable" them with acceptance of poor customer support by adopting the "whatever" attitude. Unless you, the end user, openly express your displeasure, this type of customer treatment will only increase.
>
>
>
> So, less sizzle and more steak please.
>
>
>
> Ben
There is a 2.7 beta version which is working well and with some pressure I am sure they will post it publicly soon. Perhaps try posting to their official forum at
http://flarm.invisionzone.com/index.php?showforum=6
Ramy
Whether it was LX Nav or LX Navigation, it was one of the 57mm single cutout instruments that looks the same as the 57mm single cutout instrument by the company across the street, around the corner, or wherever they are.
"Doesn't do what it says it'll do" was the pilot comment.
A few (in this business 3 might even be considered a lot) companies are doing the same thing. Aren't we used to it yet?
Jim
On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 5:47:42 AM UTC-7, Richard wrote:
> Do not put LX NAV in that category!!
Andrzej Kobus
April 2nd 13, 10:23 PM
On Apr 2, 2:33*pm, Ramy > wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 8:12:55 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Sean, et al; please understand, this is an issue of disrespect to supporting users before it is an issue of approved flight recorder.
>
> > Yes, the soaring community is safer with the advent of PowerFLARM and certainly, the collision avoidance value of PowerFLARM is not in question.
>
> > However, it was PowerFLARM who took the initiative to submit software to IGC for evaluation and approval. When IGC approval was received, PowerFLARM had a fiduciary responsibility to make the software available to their supporting customers. So once again, where is PowerFLARM and especially PowerFLARM.US? Gentlemen, the longer you are unresponsive, the more disrespect you project.
>
> > The soaring distributor and consumer needs to send a stronger message to manufactures and not "enable" them with acceptance of poor customer support by adopting the "whatever" attitude. Unless you, the end user, openly express your displeasure, this type of customer treatment will only increase.
>
> > So, less sizzle and more steak please.
>
> > Ben
>
> There is a 2.7 beta version which is working well and with some pressure I am sure they will post it publicly soon. Perhaps try posting to their official forum athttp://flarm.invisionzone.com/index.php?showforum=6
>
> Ramy
I think posting it here is more appropriate as more people will see
how bad this manufacturer is. This has been going on for way too long.
They just don't give a ****! They sold us features that either are not
implemented or they don't work properly. Isn't this a breach of
agreement?
Craig Funston[_2_]
April 2nd 13, 10:41 PM
On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:23:12 PM UTC-7, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Apr 2, 2:33*pm, Ramy > wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 8:12:55 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> > > Sean, et al; please understand, this is an issue of disrespect to supporting users before it is an issue of approved flight recorder.
>
> >
>
> > > Yes, the soaring community is safer with the advent of PowerFLARM and certainly, the collision avoidance value of PowerFLARM is not in question.
>
> >
>
> > > However, it was PowerFLARM who took the initiative to submit software to IGC for evaluation and approval. When IGC approval was received, PowerFLARM had a fiduciary responsibility to make the software available to their supporting customers. So once again, where is PowerFLARM and especially PowerFLARM.US? Gentlemen, the longer you are unresponsive, the more disrespect you project.
>
> >
>
> > > The soaring distributor and consumer needs to send a stronger message to manufactures and not "enable" them with acceptance of poor customer support by adopting the "whatever" attitude. Unless you, the end user, openly express your displeasure, this type of customer treatment will only increase.
>
> >
>
> > > So, less sizzle and more steak please.
>
> >
>
> > > Ben
>
> >
>
> > There is a 2.7 beta version which is working well and with some pressure I am sure they will post it publicly soon. Perhaps try posting to their official forum athttp://flarm.invisionzone.com/index.php?showforum=6
>
> >
>
> > Ramy
>
>
>
> I think posting it here is more appropriate as more people will see
>
> how bad this manufacturer is. This has been going on for way too long.
>
> They just don't give a ****! They sold us features that either are not
>
> implemented or they don't work properly. Isn't this a breach of
>
> agreement?
For heaven's sake folks, it seems like you're trying to put PF on the same level as a large corporation like Samsung, Apple or Microsoft. PF has done the US soaring community a huge service by being brave enough to introduce a challenging technology into our market. It's very hard to make a living in general aviation, let alone a decent living. I doubt these folks are getting rich at this. There are inevitable bugs in any technology development and I'd much rather have the PF capabilities sooner and help debug them than to wait until it's fully "mature". Perfect is the enemy of good. Yes, I'd love to have the logging function up for this season, but if it's a choice between enhanced PCAS or logging, I'll wait for the logging.
Small companies, limited resources. That's our world in soaring and I'm constantly amazed at the creativity and passion that's brought to bear on improving our sport.
A happy PF customer.
Andrzej Kobus
April 2nd 13, 10:49 PM
On Apr 2, 5:41*pm, Craig Funston >
wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:23:12 PM UTC-7, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 2:33*pm, Ramy > wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 8:12:55 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> > > > Sean, et al; please understand, this is an issue of disrespect to supporting users before it is an issue of approved flight recorder.
>
> > > > Yes, the soaring community is safer with the advent of PowerFLARM and certainly, the collision avoidance value of PowerFLARM is not in question.
Gentlemen...again my point is misunderstood. In order to receive IGC approval, software version 2.71 must already exist. There is no development time or expense involved to make it available to supporting customers so PowerFLARM, please explain the delay.
Andrzej Kobus
April 3rd 13, 12:05 AM
On Apr 2, 6:40*pm, wrote:
> Gentlemen...again my point is misunderstood. In order to receive IGC approval, software version 2.71 must already exist. There is no development time or expense involved to make it available to supporting customers so PowerFLARM, please explain the delay.
Ben, I support you 100%! You are right!
Dan Daly[_2_]
April 3rd 13, 01:27 PM
> There is a 2.7 beta version which is working well and with some pressure I am sure they will post it publicly soon. Perhaps try posting to their official forum athttp://flarm.invisionzone.com/index.php?showforum=6
>
> Ramy
Ramy, with respect, I've been asking since October on the official
forum, and after 2.6 beta was released (on very short notice, which
was very good of them), there has been silence from the company. 3
February, 4 March, 3 April posts... deafening silence. Even an auto
response ("Your business is important to us" - which normally bother
me) would be nice.
A lot of people view the requests, but no one posts to say they agree
- one voice from the wilderness is apparently easy to ignore.
I'll buy you a beer - Canadian beer - if you send me 2.7 beta. I
promise, no one will ever know... really, I can keep my mouth shut
(though reviewing my posts on their website doesn't look like it).
I am very happy with the anti-collision, and PCAS functions, of my
Brick. I wish I had FLARMnet data in my display, but I'm more
concerned by what is out there, and less of "who".
Dan
Dan Daly[_2_]
April 3rd 13, 01:30 PM
On Apr 3, 8:27*am, Dan Daly > wrote:
> > There is a 2.7 beta version which is working well and with some pressure I am sure they will post it publicly soon. Perhaps try posting to their official forum athttp://flarm.invisionzone.com/index.php?showforum=6
>
> > Ramy
>
> Ramy, with respect, I've been asking since October on the official
> forum, and after 2.6 beta was released (on very short notice, which
> was very good of them), there has been silence from the company. 3
> February, 4 March, 3 April posts... deafening silence. *Even an auto
> response ("Your business is important to us" - which normally bother
> me) would be nice.
>
> A lot of people view the requests, but no one posts to say they agree
> - one voice from the wilderness is apparently easy to ignore.
>
> I'll buy you a beer - Canadian beer - if you send me 2.7 beta. *I
> promise, no one will ever know... really, I can keep my mouth shut
> (though reviewing my posts on their website doesn't look like it).
>
> I am very happy with the anti-collision, and PCAS functions, of my
> Brick. I wish I had FLARMnet data in my display, but I'm more
> concerned by what is out there, and less of "who".
>
> Dan
I also have sent e-mail to my dealer, for him to pass on to the
company; I recommend everyone do that as well. To their dealers, of
course, not mine!
Dan
FLARM
April 3rd 13, 02:13 PM
Feature complete PowerFLARM v3.0 firmware will be released before the end of April.
Documentation, webpage and communication updates are in process too, but firmware has top priority, for now.
The version which was tested by IGC/GFAC for the approval did fulfill their requirements, but did not contain some of the collision avoidance and other features which will be in v3.0.
Our release testing has become much lengthier and elaborate over the years; 'I think it works' is not sufficient...
Sorry for not monitoring R.A.S frequently, for completeness here our previous post:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.aviation.soaring/Y8RHd8wV-Js/2ShK5S6nXN8J
FLARM
Dan Daly[_2_]
April 4th 13, 11:38 AM
On Apr 3, 9:13*am, FLARM > wrote:
> Feature complete PowerFLARM v3.0 firmware will be released before the end of April.
Thank you for the information.
Dan
Thank you FLARM for your response. We look forward to v3.0 and hope you will commit to show more respect to your customers through better communication.
On Wednesday, April 3, 2013 9:13:10 AM UTC-4, FLARM wrote:
> Feature complete PowerFLARM v3.0 firmware will be released before the end of April.
>
> Documentation, webpage and communication updates are in process too, but firmware has top priority, for now.
>
>
>
> The version which was tested by IGC/GFAC for the approval did fulfill their requirements, but did not contain some of the collision avoidance and other features which will be in v3.0.
>
> Our release testing has become much lengthier and elaborate over the years; 'I think it works' is not sufficient...
>
>
>
> Sorry for not monitoring R.A.S frequently, for completeness here our previous post:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.aviation.soaring/Y8RHd8wV-Js/2ShK5S6nXN8J
>
>
>
> FLARM
Andy[_1_]
April 4th 13, 09:32 PM
On Wednesday, April 3, 2013 6:13:10 AM UTC-7, FLARM wrote:
> Feature complete PowerFLARM v3.0 firmware will be released before the end of April. Documentation, webpage and communication updates are in process too, but firmware has top priority, for now. The version which was tested by IGC/GFAC for the approval did fulfill their requirements, but did not contain some of the collision avoidance and other features which will be in v3..0. Our release testing has become much lengthier and elaborate over the years; 'I think it works' is not sufficient... Sorry for not monitoring R.A.S frequently, for completeness here our previous post: https://groups.google..com/d/msg/rec.aviation.soaring/Y8RHd8wV-Js/2ShK5S6nXN8J FLARM
Will version 3.0 offer any improvement in PCAS performance? As you say "I think it works" is not sufficient.
Andy
FLARM
April 4th 13, 11:08 PM
v3.0 will include PCAS improvements.
Unfortunately PCAS is not an exact science, so don't expect miracles (yet)...
Jim[_31_]
April 5th 13, 10:00 PM
On Thursday, April 4, 2013 6:08:09 PM UTC-4, FLARM wrote:
> v3.0 will include PCAS improvements.
>
> Unfortunately PCAS is not an exact science, so don't expect miracles (yet)...
As long as it works at least as good as a Zaon it will be sufficient.
-Jim
Andrzej Kobus
April 5th 13, 11:09 PM
On Apr 4, 6:08*pm, FLARM > wrote:
> v3.0 will include PCAS improvements.
> Unfortunately PCAS is not an exact science, so don't expect miracles (yet)...
Are you saying ZAON is a miracle?
Brian[_1_]
April 6th 13, 02:38 PM
2 of us flew with the 2.6 firmware yesterday, My understanding was that the 2.6 logger was supposed to work ok with OLC, but OLC is showing both flights as invalid.
Is there a trick to making it work on OLC?
Brian
brianDG303[_2_]
April 6th 13, 03:46 PM
One week ago I updated my core to 2.60 with a USB drive connected to the remote USB socket. At the end of the day I downloaded the flight using the same USB stick and the menu option on the 57mm butterfly display and uploaded it to the OLC on someone else's PC. Easiest upload to the OLC I have ever done.
Bob Gibbons[_2_]
April 7th 13, 03:04 AM
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 06:38:11 -0700 (PDT), Brian >
wrote:
>2 of us flew with the 2.6 firmware yesterday, My understanding was that
>the 2.6 logger was supposed to work ok with OLC, but OLC is showing both
>flights as invalid. Is there a trick to making it work on OLC?
>
>Brian
>
We're seeing the same thing at TSA, one of our members who has been
submitting v2.60 PowerFlarm logs to OLC since November 2012, and
getting 'blue" OK ( position recorder) flags, got a "red" fail on
today's log submitted to OLC.
Just a guess on my part, but since v2.7 has now received IGC approval
for secure logging, I'm guessing the OLC is flagging PowerFlarm logs
not submitted with this latest release as invalid.
Bob
FLARM
April 9th 13, 11:46 PM
Implementing the new IGC FLARM encryption somehow broke OLC's old (non-IGC) FLARM validation setup a few days ago...
We are working with OLC to resolve this as soon as possible.
FLARM
April 10th 13, 07:14 PM
A v3.0 pre-release has been distributed to testers.
Please email us if you would like to be our guinea-pig.
Pre-release is only running for 60 days so testers will have to do another update later.
OLC issues should be resolved, let us know if your files still do not validate properly.
On Wednesday, April 3, 2013 6:13:10 AM UTC-7, FLARM wrote:
> Feature complete PowerFLARM v3.0 firmware will be released before the end of April.
Hi, any update on this?
Mike the Strike
May 1st 13, 12:48 AM
They didn't say which April!
Mike
Evan Ludeman[_4_]
May 1st 13, 12:58 AM
On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:48:54 PM UTC-4, Mike the Strike wrote:
> They didn't say which April!
>
>
>
> Mike
http://www.powerflarm.aero/index.php/en/knowledge-and-support
Jim[_31_]
May 1st 13, 03:10 AM
On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:58:18 PM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:48:54 PM UTC-4, Mike the Strike wrote:
>
> > They didn't say which April!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Mike
>
>
>
> http://www.powerflarm.aero/index.php/en/knowledge-and-support
I was going to try out the 2.79 BETA Version but it "expires" June 16th, that's only about 6 weeks from now. I wasn't sure if that would render my PF inop at that time. Does anyone know exactly what "expires" means in this context?
-PC
Mike the Strike
May 1st 13, 04:29 AM
Expires is what Monty Python's parrot does! I am sure the software/firmware does the same.
Andrzej Kobus
May 2nd 13, 03:11 AM
On Apr 30, 7:58*pm, Evan Ludeman > wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:48:54 PM UTC-4, Mike the Strike wrote:
> > They didn't say which April!
>
> > Mike
>
> http://www.powerflarm.aero/index.php/en/knowledge-and-support
Another broken promise!
Tony[_5_]
May 2nd 13, 03:20 AM
OK I have trouble keeping track of this stuff. I need to register my portable and send it in for an upgrade by the end of the month ago that I can avoid paying $100 for that. If I do that will it be automatically updated to the latest software. If so I need to understand more about this expiration business.
Paul Remde
May 2nd 13, 03:32 AM
Hi Tony,
I'd be glad to talk with you about it anytime if you have questions. What
is not clear? The PowerFLARM Portable hardware upgrade is free and highly
recommended. FLARM is doing their best to make it as painless as possible
with free shipping both ways. It is understandable that they don't want the
upgrade process to stretch on indefinitely.
The software upgrades are very, very easy to do at any time using a microSD
memory card. I recommend upgrading the software to the latest version now,
and with every new software version. The software upgrades are not tied to
the hardware upgrade.
I don't know whether the people doing the hardware upgrade would also
install the latest software. It would be nice of them to do that, but
fortunately it is also easy for you to do at any time.
I also hope they release the IGC approved software very soon. I do know
they are working hard on it and making progress.
Best Regards,
Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
_____________________________________
"Tony" wrote in message
...
OK I have trouble keeping track of this stuff. I need to register my
portable and send it in for an upgrade by the end of the month ago that I
can avoid paying $100 for that. If I do that will it be automatically
updated to the latest software. If so I need to understand more about this
expiration business.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.