Butterfly display (displaying a big red logo under normal flight conditions)

[RuudH]

Hello all,
The Butterfly screen that indicates Flarm or PowerFlarm operation is normal, but is not receiving other traffic within range, is depicted on https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/35654093/butterfly-no-traffic.png.
A big red indication (butterfly logo) that is not described in the manual.

A big red indication usually is an indication of any abnormal situation in a cockpit, especially in a cockpit of a power-plane.
For this reason I have asked the developers of Butterfly to remove the big red butterfly from the screen during flight, because it's distracting pilot's attention.
This is the answer that I received a few days ago from Butterfly:

-------------------------------------------------------------
Aktualisiert von: Joachim Fetzer, 16. Sep 09:11 (CEST):
Hello Ruud,

thanks for your email.

We know that a red logo is not optimal in an aircraft cockpit but it´s the logo of our company. We will not remove it, sorry.

For any questions we are happy to assist you.

Best wishes,
Joachim Fetzer
AIR Store
Butterfly Avionics GmbH & Garrecht Avionik GmbH
-------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously displaying their logo is more important than an optimal indication in a cockpit...

[son_of_flubber]

Boh oh oh oh gus. (Does that translates to Slovenian?)

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

RuudH wrote, On 9/18/2013 9:06 AM:
> Hello all, The Butterfly screen that indicates Flarm or PowerFlarm
> operation is normal, but is not receiving other traffic within range,
> is depicted on
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/35654093/butterfly-no-traffic.png.
>
>
A big red indication (butterfly logo) that is not described in the manual.
>
> A big red indication usually is an indication of any abnormal
> situation in a cockpit, especially in a cockpit of a power-plane. For
> this reason I have asked the developers of Butterfly to remove the
> big red butterfly from the screen during flight, because it's
> distracting pilot's attention. This is the answer that I received a
> few days ago from Butterfly:
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Aktualisiert von: Joachim Fetzer, 16. Sep 09:11 (CEST): Hello Ruud,
>
> thanks for your email.
>
> We know that a red logo is not optimal in an aircraft cockpit but
> it´s the logo of our company. We will not remove it, sorry.
>
> For any questions we are happy to assist you.
>
> Best wishes, Joachim Fetzer AIR Store Butterfly Avionics GmbH &
> Garrecht Avionik GmbH
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Obviously displaying their logo is more important than an optimal
> indication in a cockpit...

I don't look at the screen until I hear a beep, which means the red
butterfly has been replaced with a "threat alert", or at least a
potential threat alert.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

[RuudH]

Op woensdag 18 september 2013 18:06:24 UTC+2 schreef RuudH:
> Hello all,
>
> The Butterfly screen that indicates Flarm or PowerFlarm operation is normal, but is not receiving other traffic within range, is depicted on https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/35654093/butterfly-no-traffic.png.
>
See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxbRmKkWtjs&feature=player_embedded

[SF]

I can't see my Butterfly Display most of the time, as a result I only look at it when the circle of death pops up. Other than that one function I find it almost worthless. From what I can discern I'm not the only dissatisfied customer, the trade in value is zero. The LXNAV FlarmView appears to be a better product. Maybe the Butterfly guys should branch out into Graphic design services since that is what they seem to be the most proud of. Does it work better if you keep your hand on it during launch? Maybe the dim display is the result of global warming. Or it could be the result of some right wing extremist plot. All they need is better marketing, that will fix it right up.

[Juanman]

On Monday, October 14, 2013 10:03:07 PM UTC-4, SF wrote:
> I can't see my Butterfly Display most of the time, as a result I only look at it when the circle of death pops up. Other than that one function I find it almost worthless. From what I can discern I'm not the only dissatisfied customer, the trade in value is zero. The LXNAV FlarmView appears to be a better product. Maybe the Butterfly guys should branch out into Graphic design services since that is what they seem to be the most proud of. Does it work better if you keep your hand on it during launch? Maybe the dim display is the result of global warming. Or it could be the result of some right wing extremist plot. All they need is better marketing, that will fix it right up.

I agree, it is a very poorly designed display. It's so dark that with sunglasses on I can't see anything. And the letters/numbers are still very small. Fortunately I connected the PowerFlarm to my Oudie where I can clearly see the other Flarm equipped gliders and receive a legible warning when necessary. I also have it connected to the SN10 which tells me in what direction to look for the oncoming traffic.

[Ramy]

Folks the issue is polarization. The butterfly display is plenty bright but if you use polarized sunglasses you can only use the display in vertical orientation. I hope butterfly will eventually address this issue and provide additional polarization option. No issue with the panel display only the rectangular.

Ramy

[Juanman]

On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 11:59:45 AM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> Folks the issue is polarization. The butterfly display is plenty bright but if you use polarized sunglasses you can only use the display in vertical orientation. I hope butterfly will eventually address this issue and provide additional polarization option. No issue with the panel display only the rectangular.
>
>
>
> Ramy

Beg to disagree. I have the panel display and even without glasses it is half as bright as my other instruments. And the letters/numbers are still small even after the latest software upgrade.

[Marc - Butterfly Avionics]

Juan, SF,

please get in touch with us and provide pictures of your installation and close-ups of your display:

Its a transflective display -> it gets brighter in sunlight and looks dim when not in sunlight. If you install it in an unfavorable angle or in the shadow of your glareshield, or if using polarized glasses it won't bring much fun using it.

Looking forward to helping you.

Marc

[Marc - Butterfly Avionics]

> See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxbRmKkWtjs&feature=player_embedded

:) Thanks Ruud for the feedback, seriously. See, we *really* love our logo, but we will find a solution. Technically you are of course right.

Regarding readability: The video shows how it looks when installed good.

Cheers
Marc

[kd6veb]

Hi Gang
A reminder. The Butterfly polarizer which is an integral part of any LCD display is orientated so that the Butterfly Display can only be viewed in the portrait (vertical) mode if you use polarized sunglasses whereas the portable PowerFlarm display requires a landscape (horizontal) mounting. Why? You figure that out.
My DG1001M came with the 2 Butterfly Displays mounted in the landscape mode so I purchased a pair of articulating arms to mount the Butterfly Displays. These arms can be rotated through at least 180 degrees and fixed the polarizer problems. If I had to do it all again there is no way I would purchase PowerFlarms. Instead for the DG 1001M a couple of MRX PCAS units is so clearly the best solution to collision avoidance. My 2 cents worth after battling the PowerFlarms for more than a couple of years.
Dave

[[email protected]]

Here's an option: How about the PF team bring their two systems back in line to each other? Meaning, the Portable display is the nice radar screen all the time, while the Core Butterfly displays show the logo. Why the difference?

Make both systems have the same user interface and sreens... or allow the user to choose what they'd prefer.

I've emailed the PF team about this disparity a couple months ago. Their reply in short: they'd think about it, but its not on the priority list. Maybe if we get enough momentum?

This doesn't solve any polarization issues of course, and people are already switching to other displays which just work.
-Britton

[Juanman]

On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:39:22 AM UTC-4, Marc - Butterfly Avionics wrote:
> Juan, SF,
>
>
>
> please get in touch with us and provide pictures of your installation and close-ups of your display:
>
>
>
> Its a transflective display -> it gets brighter in sunlight and looks dim when not in sunlight. If you install it in an unfavorable angle or in the shadow of your glareshield, or if using polarized glasses it won't bring much fun using it.
>
>
>
> Looking forward to helping you.
>
>
>
> Marc

Will try to take pictures before our season winds down.

[Ramy]

Recommending an MRX over a powerflarm is like recommending a flip phone over a smartphone. If powerflarm is too overwhelming for you, you will still be safer if you turn it on without ever looking at it than if you use an MRX, since it will warn other gliders of your presence. After the earliy PCAS issues were resolved, I continued flying with both MRX and my PF brick (with butterfly display) side by side for another 100 hours or so and here are my unbiased observations:
1- PF has better reception most of the time
2- altitude difference is always correct in PF. It can be totally wrong in MRX almost half the time especially after flying close to someone else it seem to confuse the altitude calculation for a while.
3- MRX will sound an audio alert too late most of the time as it only sounds an alert when the traffic is 1 mile or so away. PF with the latest butterfly firmware will sound a short alert whenever it detects a new traffic within the max distance you configured.
4- MRX has reliability issues. Mine went back to the factory more than 5 times over the 5+ years I used it. To Zaon credit they never charged me and have an excellent customer service.
Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with neither Flarm nor Butterfly.

Ramy

[RuudH]

The suggestion to bring the displays of PF portable and Butterfly in line with each other, so you have identical indications on both displays is the best option. I fully support this.

[J. Murray]

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:43:10 AM UTC-6, RuudH wrote:
> The suggestion to bring the displays of PF portable and Butterfly in line with each other, so you have identical indications on both displays is the best option. I fully support this.

Hi all. Would most of you Flarm/butterfly display users support switching the functionality of the knob so that it would not be necessary to press/turn to change the range? I appreciate the multi-functioning of the knob, but mostly I use it inflight to adjust the range not select a target. Or am I missing something?

Thanks, jim

[Andy[_1_]]

On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 8:34:06 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:

"After the early PCAS issues were resolved"

PCAS issues are still not resolved if you fly with a transponder. The fix for continous "own ship" alerting appears to have been to inhibit reporting of co-altitude targets. My portable still does not perform the function it was purchased for (traffic awareness and collision warning for my airplane).

I hope the "other issues" the FLARM team are working on include making PCAS work. That functionality is long overdue.


Andy

[Ramy]

I have hundreds of hours with transponder and PF without a single false alarm. None of the 50 pilots or so that flying in our region with both PF and transponder are reporting this issue. So it is time for you to conclude this is likely a unique issue with your setup or send your PF to repair.

Ramy

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:58:59 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> I have hundreds of hours with transponder and PF without a single false alarm. None of the 50 pilots or so that flying in our region with both PF and transponder are reporting this issue. So it is time for you to conclude this is likely a unique issue with your setup or send your PF to repair.
>
>
>
> Ramy

Ramy,
I have Trig 22 and unfortunately I don't have flawless operation. I hear beeps alerting me to my own transponder (from time to time not consistently with errors in a log file failed to detect own transponder or something like that). Are you suggesting that some of us have faulty units?

I am going to mount soon the PF in my other glider that also has a transponder (different make) and see if I still get false alerts.

[Ramy]

I have no doubt that there are faulty units around. I seen units which either don't receive well or don't transmit well. Could also be a setup issue or antenna issues. Just like with radios. Some installations work better than others. In my case I had PCAS issues until I replaced my PCAS antena. Could also be some sort of a comparability issue with some transponders if we can identify a trend. I have a mode C Becker and have no issues. I should also point out that I did not necessarily follow the installation recomendations. My PF antennas are telatively close to each other in the nose of my glider close to the pedals and not completely vertical yet the reception is pretty good, even from behind. I've seen installations partially below the glare shield which also work relatively well.

Ramy

[Dan Marotta]

My "own transponder" functionality works just fine and I never get a self
alert.

I'm not sure what it's doing early in the flight - pressing the right switch
to the left, it shows a transponder code of 4707 (IIRC) and, shortly later,
it shows 1202, my squawk. It's fine after that.

"Andy" > wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 8:34:06 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:

"After the early PCAS issues were resolved"

PCAS issues are still not resolved if you fly with a transponder. The fix
for continous "own ship" alerting appears to have been to inhibit reporting
of co-altitude targets. My portable still does not perform the function it
was purchased for (traffic awareness and collision warning for my airplane).

I hope the "other issues" the FLARM team are working on include making PCAS
work. That functionality is long overdue.


Andy

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:01:14 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> I have no doubt that there are faulty units around. I seen units which either don't receive well or don't transmit well. Could also be a setup issue or antenna issues. Just like with radios. Some installations work better than others. In my case I had PCAS issues until I replaced my PCAS antena. Could also be some sort of a comparability issue with some transponders if we can identify a trend. I have a mode C Becker and have no issues. I should also point out that I did not necessarily follow the installation recomendations. My PF antennas are telatively close to each other in the nose of my glider close to the pedals and not completely vertical yet the reception is pretty good, even from behind. I've seen installations partially below the glare shield which also work relatively well.
>
>
>
> Ramy

My antennas are on the top of the glare shield according to instructions with the right separation and no compass in my glider. My glider is not a flying museum :).

I will see how my unit works in the other glider.

[Ramy]

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:15:14 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> My "own transponder" functionality works just fine and I never get a self
>
> alert.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure what it's doing early in the flight - pressing the right switch
>
> to the left, it shows a transponder code of 4707 (IIRC) and, shortly later,
>
> it shows 1202, my squawk. It's fine after that.
>
>
>
> "Andy" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 8:34:06 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
>
>
>
> "After the early PCAS issues were resolved"
>
>
>
> PCAS issues are still not resolved if you fly with a transponder. The fix
>
> for continous "own ship" alerting appears to have been to inhibit reporting
>
> of co-altitude targets. My portable still does not perform the function it
>
> was purchased for (traffic awareness and collision warning for my airplane).
>
>
>
> I hope the "other issues" the FLARM team are working on include making PCAS
>
> work. That functionality is long overdue.
>
>
>
>
>
> Andy

I used to notice the same with my MRX. When you fly close to another aircraft it will throw off both the squawk code and altitude for a while, until it eventually correct itself, or if you recycle the power. The same (for altitude) does not happen with PF PCAS.

Ramy

[Dan Marotta]

I guess my old-fashioned Lithuanian sailplane (vintage 2001) is a museum
piece. The flight manual lists a compensated magnetic compass as required
equipment.

Not I know that the electronic instruments are far better than a mag
compass, but what's the FAA (or your governing body) going to say if you're
not in compliance with your flight manual?


> wrote in message
...

<snip>

My antennas are on the top of the glare shield according to instructions
with the right separation and no compass in my glider. My glider is not a
flying museum :).

I will see how my unit works in the other glider.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 3:58:59 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> I have hundreds of hours with transponder and PF without a single false alarm. None of the 50 pilots or so that flying in our region with both PF and transponder are reporting this issue. So it is time for you to conclude this is likely a unique issue with your setup or send your PF to repair.
>
>
>
> Ramy

But are you, and the 50 others you cite, using the PF portable? Not that I suspect there is any difference in this respect.

Did you read the firmware release notes that describe the failure to detect co-altitude targets. If so, why do you dismiss FLARM's own assertion that there is an issue?

Wonderful that you have no false alerts but don't you have any concern that the manufacturer knows that co-altitude targets, the only ones that can hit you, may not be detected?

Andy

[Ramy]

I know of at least 5 pilots flying with portable and transponder and have no false alerts. I only know one locally who has the same issue. I would also like to hear the response from the factory. It seem that portables have more issues than brick. I recommend people to get the brick.

Ramy

[[email protected]]

Thinking again about the displays...

the Portable unit has the large radar screen, with the bottom sliver cut off (and thats ok!) giving good situational awareness (SA) to the sectors of interest, large icons, etc.

The BF display has the complete radar screen, with data to the right. So this display is more setup for a tactical awareness (TA) purpose.

If/When the BF team get around to bringing their products back in-line to each other, it would be nice for the user to be able to select the option of either the SA or the TA display.

I agree with the statement that any rotation of the knob should be first and foremost for zoom levels, rather than target selection.. heck that could be another user selectable feature.

-Britton

[Andy[_1_]]

On Friday, October 18, 2013 9:35:13 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> I know of at least 5 pilots flying with portable and transponder and have no false alerts. I only know one locally who has the same issue. I would also like to hear the response from the factory. It seem that portables have more issues than brick. I recommend people to get the brick. Ramy

You're just not getting it. The latest firmware fixes the spurious own transponder alerts at the expense of reliable co-altitude alerting. Saying that you have no spurious alerts contributes nothing. Tell me instead about how many alerts you have had for transponder targets that maintained the same altitude as you while in the alerting volume.

If you fly only a glider you may never see this scenario. If you fly a powered airplane then it is not only possible but likely.

Andy

[Ramy]

Ok, I missunderstood your comment. I suspect this suppression only happens at the exact same altitude consistsntly. I didn't notice targets disappearing when flying together, and I am flying with latest firmware since it was released. I assume their algorithm is smart enough to make it a non issue. Did you experienced targets disappearing when you fly power at the same altitude as other traffic?

Ramy

[[email protected]]

On Friday, October 18, 2013 10:38:52 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I guess my old-fashioned Lithuanian sailplane (vintage 2001) is a museum
>
> piece. The flight manual lists a compensated magnetic compass as required
>
> equipment.
>
>
>
> Not I know that the electronic instruments are far better than a mag
>
> compass, but what's the FAA (or your governing body) going to say if you're
>
> not in compliance with your flight manual?
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> My antennas are on the top of the glare shield according to instructions
>
> with the right separation and no compass in my glider. My glider is not a
>
> flying museum :).
>
>
>
> I will see how my unit works in the other glider.

It is off topic but if you have a magnetic solid state compass it will pass in experimental but I guess it will not pass in type certified glider.

[RuudH]

Op woensdag 16 oktober 2013 17:16:07 UTC+2 schreef Marc - Butterfly Avionics:
> > See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxbRmKkWtjs&feature=player_embedded
>
> :) Thanks Ruud for the feedback, seriously. See, we *really* love our logo, but we will find a solution. Technically you are of course right.
>
> Regarding readability: The video shows how it looks when installed good.
>
> Cheers
> Marc


Marc has send me an update of the firmware.
This is how it looks now

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/35654093/blackbutterfly.jpg

I see this as an improvement, because you can much better make the distinction between red and green without a large red logo beside the TX and GPS indication.

Next step is growing up and getting rid of all non-essential information?
Or maybe paying some extra money to get rid of commercials like in some iPhone apps?

[Ramy[_2_]]

Would also be helpful if the time will show local time instead of GMT.

Ramy

[Jock Proudfoot]

At 16:06 18 September 2013, RuudH wrote:
>Hello all,
>The Butterfly screen that indicates Flarm or PowerFlarm operation
isnormal
>, but is not receiving other traffic within range, is depicted on
>https://d=
>l.dropboxusercontent.com/u/35654093/butterfly-no-traffic.png.
>A big red indication (butterfly logo) that is not described in the
manual.
>A big red indication usually is an indication of any abnormal situation in
a cockpit, especially in a cockpit of a power-plane.
>For this reason I have asked the developers of Butterfly to remove the big
red butterfly from the screen during flight, because it's distracting
pilots attention.
>This is the answer that I received a few days ago from Butterfly:
-------------------------------------------------------------
>Aktualisiert von: Joachim Fetzer, 16. Sep 09:11 (CEST):
>Hello Ruud,
>thanks for your email.
>We know that a red logo is not optimal in an aircraft cockpit but its the
logo of our company. We will not remove it, sorry.
>For any questions we are happy to assist you.
>Best wishes,
>Joachim Fetzer
>AIR Store
>Butterfly Avionics GmbH & Garrecht Avionik GmbH
-------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously displaying their logo is more important than an optimal
indication in a cockpit...

Will the red logo be change to - air avionics (black)
http://www.air-avionics.com/air/images/air-avionics.png ?

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:37:05 AM UTC-6, Ramy wrote:
> Would also be helpful if the time will show local time instead of GMT.
>
>
>
> Ramy

or both?