Glider computers - what's important?

[[email protected]]

I have a datalogger, I have an IPAQ, and I have all the cabling etc.
I have spent considerable time at Cumulus Soaring, reading the
comparisons of glider software. What I lack is the experience to know
what is important. I've played with the features of SeeYou Mobile,
and frankly, most of the high end graphics stuff on the map just makes
it hard to read.
Many of you on this list have flown with this stuff, and done some
sorting out. I tend toward simpler and easier to use, rather than
bleeding edge, "every bit of information you could possibly want"
tools.
The only thing that is a go-nogo for me is a graphical display of
landing areas within glide under current conditions - a feature most,
if not all, seem to have.
Oh, another factor: a friend purchased WinPilot, SeeYou, and
StrePla. He's become used to WinPilot, and has offered to GIVE me
StrePla. Can it be set up so "Even a Caveman" can use it?

Thanks,
Jim

[ContestID67]

Nothing is very easy about the soaring programs which run on the
PDAs. People tend to purchase what their flying pals use. Tribal
knowledge is good but may be costly if you purchase something you
really don't like. I'm with you, all the bells and whistles look
great, an may be good for the very accomplished pilots, but for little
old me?

One thought is to get one of the free soaring programs and try those
for a while. Get your feet wet so to speak. Another idea is to go
with a minimalist program like Glide Navigator II which isn't too
expensive.

Good luck, John

[Marian Aldenhövel]

Hi,

> What I lack is the experience to know what is important.

Same for me. I can only second John and suggest you try one of the free
packages (for you that may include StrePla :-)).

I spent some quality time with my PDA and XCSoar[1] yesterday. Installation
was quite straightforward and maps and datafiles for germany easily found. I
drove the software from the NMEA-Generator found at [2].

I also did the same with GPS_LOG[3]. I even had two flights with the software
last summer, but not long enough to give a really well-funded opinion.

Overall I like XCSoar a little bit better now. Out-of-the-box it seems to do
a better job at automatically selecting and displaying useful information.

Especially regarding your requirement:

> The only thing that is a go-nogo for me is a graphical display of
> landing areas within glide under current conditions

In GPS_LOG you have to explicitly select "Get Landing site" to view a list
of options.

XCSoar has landing sites marked in the main map, highlighting those that are
reachable and showing at what altitude you will be arriving. You can tap
the magenta dot and be given detail information about the landing site. This
works with fat finger on IPAQ display, not only with pen and exact aiming, so
I guess it should be doable in the cockpit.

Both take current conditions into account including wind. Both can derive
wind (at least) from GPS fixes while circling.

Using a simulator (not necessarily a FLIGHT simulator), is a good and safe
way of getting acquainted. You have to fiddle with the knobs in the atlsoft
generator a lot to simulate live air, but even if you don't a lot of the
features of the programs become apparent.

> and frankly, most of the high end graphics stuff on the map just
> makes it hard to read.

Both free programs can be fine-tuned to your liking in that regard. In XCSoar
it is quite easy to switch the display of labels, terrain and topography
in-flight

Ciao, MM

[1] http://www.xcsoar.org
[2]
http://www.atlsoft.de/index.php/GPS%20Tools/Tools%20zur%20Simulation%20von%20GPS%20Daten/url/showartikel.php/art/149/kat/74/menu/1
[3] http://www.soaringpilotsoftware.com/GPS_LOGpage.htm
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"Success is the happy feeling you get between the time you
do something and the time you tell a woman what you did."

[alex8735]

I have found the Condor soaring simulator to be a great way to test
PDA software. I find it far more effective than the demo modes most
software has. It comes very close to the real thing. You can simulate
all kinds of situations and actually test how the PDA reacts. It also
has the advantage of having to concentrate on flying the simulator as
well as working with the PDA - just like in real life. This shows bad
usability far more quickly than pure demo modes.

[1SL]

One of those free programs is SoarPilot. It's got a dedicated following,
is comprehensive and is well supported by its creators.

You can read all about it here...
http://www.soaringpilot.org/dokuwiki/doku.php

And you can download it here...
http://www.soaringpilot.org/

And you can see the "support group" here...
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/soaringpilot/



ContestID67 wrote:
> Nothing is very easy about the soaring programs which run on the
> PDAs. People tend to purchase what their flying pals use. Tribal
> knowledge is good but may be costly if you purchase something you
> really don't like. I'm with you, all the bells and whistles look
> great, an may be good for the very accomplished pilots, but for little
> old me?
>
> One thought is to get one of the free soaring programs and try those
> for a while. Get your feet wet so to speak. Another idea is to go
> with a minimalist program like Glide Navigator II which isn't too
> expensive.
>
> Good luck, John
>

[[email protected]]

a friend purchased WinPilot, SeeYou, and
> StrePla. He's become used to WinPilot, and has offered to GIVE me
> StrePla. Can it be set up so "Even a Caveman" can use it?

Your friend may have inadvertently shortened your choice list, if he
kept the other 3 for himself.......

Simpler and easier do not exist, it's the nature of the software
richness and flexibility.

Ask the guys you fly with what they chose, they will be the ones to
help you in times of confusion.

If you already have desktop software for flight planning, get the
flight software which most easily shares the waypoints, terrain, etc.
set up on the desktop. And always spot check any transferred data for
accuracy. I learned that early with shareware solutions. In flight the
software products have equivalent functions, ease of use and their
data interface then become more important.

SeeYou Mobile lets you turn off any display feature which irritates
you, as do the others I'm sure. Keep in mind it has 2 map displays and
each is configured separately for whatever use you want to make of
that. Cruise with one map, thermal on the other.

Do you fly in various locations? Sharing the ship? Find the one that
lets you easily change sets of waypoints and airspace, terrain, etc.
The 'Profile' feature in SeeYou is quite good at managing named sets
of related files on the PDA and retaining personal display preferences
for multiple pilots.

Software locked to a hardware serial number is not as flexible in
'hardware failure recovery mode' as those which are not. A nit.

Keep ALL your data on SD or CF. And take a copy of that regularly.
Losing PDA power wipes memory, so have everything on external media.
Take regular PDA backups to both SD and desktop. I had an SD card
fail, it's ugly.

Keep your eyes out of the cockpit.

[Bill Daniels]

"alex8735" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I have found the Condor soaring simulator to be a great way to test
> PDA software. I find it far more effective than the demo modes most
> software has. It comes very close to the real thing. You can simulate
> all kinds of situations and actually test how the PDA reacts. It also
> has the advantage of having to concentrate on flying the simulator as
> well as working with the PDA - just like in real life. This shows bad
> usability far more quickly than pure demo modes.
>

I second the suggestion of Condor. It also works to output NMEA data from
SeeYou in animate mode so the PDA displays just what it would have during
the real flight.

In general, people tend to like the PDA software they know best. Simulators
let you get to know them all.

Bill Daniels

[CLewis95]

On Mar 8, 4:08 am, "alex8735" > wrote:
> I have found the Condor soaring simulator to be a great way to test
> PDA software. I find it far more effective than the demo modes most
> software has. It comes very close to the real thing. You can simulate
> all kinds of situations and actually test how the PDA reacts. It also
> has the advantage of having to concentrate on flying the simulator as
> well as working with the PDA - just like in real life. This shows bad
> usability far more quickly than pure demo modes.

Though Condor does simulate flight PDA computer software on-screen,
I'd like to point out/clarify that Condor allows you the option to
integrate a "REAL" PDA with the PC running the simulator. You are
actually manipulating your physical PDA (running "real" XC software)
on your desk the same as you would in flight. I can't imagine a
better training aid for today's PDA XC soaring software. One might
justify the cost of Condor on this alone....besides being a fantastic
racing simulator.

Curt Lewis - 95

[Richard[_1_]]

James,

I sell both WinPilot & SeeYou. I have found after 5 years of
consulting on and selling PDA programs that:

1. They are as easy to use and learn as any flight computer or logger
and offer many more functions. It does require some time to learn
and you do have to read the manuals. If you install any flight
computer or PDA system in your glider and then expect to immediately
fly with it without the required learning you will be dissapointed.
2. The PDA systems allow you to learn almost anywhere, work, home, in
the back yard, on the sofa. The simulator programs in the software
allow you to do this on your PDA. WinPilot and SeeYou are fully
functional in the SIM mode.
3. I recommend that you bring up the manual for the program on your
desktop computer and with the PDA in hand go through the manual one
time. This at least this gives you an overview of what is available
in the program. And helps you learn the program. This can be done
with either program and does not require purchase.
4. As always I am reachable on the phone, most all the time, and if
not will return your call. Days, evenings and weekends. Usually it
is a simple thing to get you out of a jam. So a call will with PDA in
hand will save much time and frustration.
5. The hardest thing for most people is learning the file structure in
your desktop Windows PC, this is required with any flight computer,
logger or PDA system. It is not specific to PDA Systems. I spend
more time with people on this that the actual programs.
6. Free is a very good price, but generally you get what you pay for,
if anyone finds this not true please let us all know so we all can all
get this free stuff. The best free thing I have found is the SeeYou
Connect Me program.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

On Mar 7, 8:29 pm, wrote:
> I have a datalogger, I have an IPAQ, and I have all the cabling etc.
> I have spent considerable time at Cumulus Soaring, reading the
> comparisons of glider software. What I lack is the experience to know
> what is important. I've played with the features of SeeYou Mobile,
> and frankly, most of the high end graphics stuff on the map just makes
> it hard to read.
> Many of you on this list have flown with this stuff, and done some
> sorting out. I tend toward simpler and easier to use, rather than
> bleeding edge, "every bit of information you could possibly want"
> tools.
> The only thing that is a go-nogo for me is a graphical display of
> landing areas within glide under current conditions - a feature most,
> if not all, seem to have.
> Oh, another factor: a friend purchased WinPilot, SeeYou, and
> StrePla. He's become used to WinPilot, and has offered to GIVE me
> StrePla. Can it be set up so "Even a Caveman" can use it?
>
> Thanks,
> Jim

[Tuno]

The problem with this is that Condor terrain data sets don't exist
anywhere near the places I fly, and my PDA doesn't have any data for
the places Condor does have. (You can, of course, load up the PDA
data.)

If you're lucky and the terrains overlap, it's a great tool!

~ted/2NO

[Michael Huber]

"Richard" > wrote

> 6. Free is a very good price, but generally you get what you pay for,
> if anyone finds this not true please let us all know so we all can all
> get this free stuff. The best free thing I have found is the SeeYou
> Connect Me program.

GPS-LOG and XCSOAR are free, I´ve never tried XCSOAR, but GPS-LOG is a great
software.

Michael

[Mike[_8_]]

XCSOAR is a very good program that is easy to use. It takes about one
evening to understand using the "Quick Start" guide in the manual.

Mike



On Mar 8, 9:31 am, "Michael Huber" > wrote:
> "Richard" > wrote
>
> > 6. Free is a very good price, but generally you get what you pay for,
> > if anyone finds this not true please let us all know so we all can all
> > get this free stuff. The best free thing I have found is the SeeYou
> > Connect Me program.
>
> GPS-LOG and XCSOAR are free, I´ve never tried XCSOAR, but GPS-LOG is a great
> software.
>
> Michael

[Richard[_1_]]

Michael,

The question is have you compared the free programs with SeeYou or
WinPilot. We would all like to hear your comparison.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

On Mar 8, 8:31 am, "Michael Huber" > wrote:
> "Richard" > wrote
>
> > 6. Free is a very good price, but generally you get what you pay for,
> > if anyone finds this not true please let us all know so we all can all
> > get this free stuff. The best free thing I have found is the SeeYou
> > Connect Me program.
>
> GPS-LOG and XCSOAR are free, I´ve never tried XCSOAR, but GPS-LOG is a great
> software.
>
> Michael

[Richard[_1_]]

The question is have you compared the free programs with SeeYou or
WinPilot. We would all like to hear your comparison.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

On Mar 8, 9:16 am, "Mike" > wrote:
> XCSOAR is a very good program that is easy to use. It takes about one
> evening to understand using the "Quick Start" guide in the manual.
>
> Mike
>
> On Mar 8, 9:31 am, "Michael Huber" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Richard" > wrote
>
> > > 6. Free is a very good price, but generally you get what you pay for,
> > > if anyone finds this not true please let us all know so we all can all
> > > get this free stuff. The best free thing I have found is the SeeYou
> > > Connect Me program.
>
> > GPS-LOG and XCSOAR are free, I´ve never tried XCSOAR, but GPS-LOG is a great
> > software.
>
> > Michael- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[ContestID67]

On Mar 8, 11:25 am, "Richard" > wrote:
> The question is have you compared the free programs with SeeYou or
> WinPilot. We would all like to hear your comparison.
>
> Richardwww.craggyaero.com
>

Richard,

I think that everyone understands that the free programs do not give
you the features or support of the for-pay programs. SeeYou Mobile,
StrePla and WinPilot are great top-end programs. There is something
to be said for having someone to call to sort out problems. It is
great to have a friend who flies the same software to provide face to
face help.

That being said the for-pay programs are fairly expensive to just jump
straight into. The fear of spending money for something that is too
(much/complicated/fancy/annoying/etc) is real.

Thus the free software, while admittedly is not as good as the for-pay
stuff, can suffice for the new XC pilot. It allows him a stepping
stone to the more complicated programs, getting his feet wet so to
speak. To me the next step up is Glide Nav (for-pay) and then onto
the top drawer products.

Not everyone needs the feature sets of those for-pay programs. I know
that I don't as of yet but I can now see more clearly what those
benefits are and will one day move up.

- John DeRosa

[Mike[_8_]]

Why not do the comparison for us Richard? It is your question after
all. I would like to hear your unbiased report.

Mike

On Mar 8, 10:25 am, "Richard" > wrote:
> The question is have you compared the free programs with SeeYou or
> WinPilot. We would all like to hear your comparison.
>
> Richardwww.craggyaero.com
>
> On Mar 8, 9:16 am, "Mike" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > XCSOAR is a very good program that is easy to use. It takes about one
> > evening to understand using the "Quick Start" guide in the manual.
>
> > Mike
>
> > On Mar 8, 9:31 am, "Michael Huber" > wrote:
>
> > > "Richard" > wrote
>
> > > > 6. Free is a very good price, but generally you get what you pay for,
> > > > if anyone finds this not true please let us all know so we all can all
> > > > get this free stuff. The best free thing I have found is the SeeYou
> > > > Connect Me program.
>
> > > GPS-LOG and XCSOAR are free, I´ve never tried XCSOAR, but GPS-LOG is a great
> > > software.
>
> > > Michael- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Richard[_1_]]

Mike,

First of all you brought up the issue of how great the free programs
are - compared to what? WinPilot and SeeYou simulators are free,
both can be downloaded from my website for evaluation, you only need
the passwords to have a hassel free connection to your GPS.

My biased opinion is the SeeYou and WinPilot are as easy or easier to
use than the free programs, they will be supported in the future, they
allow the new pilot all the features from just flying around the
patch, to badges, records and contest.
The real question is if you own a sailplane how much did you pay for
it and is the cost of one of these programs significant? If it is, I
would suggest a chart with mileage and altutude circles is more cost
effective, I believe you are still required to carry a chart.

I also provide support to those that are considering purchasing
WinPilot or SeeYou from Craggy Aero.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

On Mar 8, 10:12 am, "Mike" > wrote:
> Why not do the comparison for us Richard? It is your question after
> all. I would like to hear your unbiased report.
>
> Mike
>
> On Mar 8, 10:25 am, "Richard" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > The question is have you compared the free programs with SeeYou or
> > WinPilot. We would all like to hear your comparison.
>
> > Richardwww.craggyaero.com
>
> > On Mar 8, 9:16 am, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > > XCSOAR is a very good program that is easy to use. It takes about one
> > > evening to understand using the "Quick Start" guide in the manual.
>
> > > Mike
>
> > > On Mar 8, 9:31 am, "Michael Huber" > wrote:
>
> > > > "Richard" > wrote
>
> > > > > 6. Free is a very good price, but generally you get what you pay for,
> > > > > if anyone finds this not true please let us all know so we all can all
> > > > > get this free stuff. The best free thing I have found is the SeeYou
> > > > > Connect Me program.
>
> > > > GPS-LOG and XCSOAR are free, I´ve never tried XCSOAR, but GPS-LOG is a great
> > > > software.
>
> > > > Michael- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mike[_8_]]

First of all I did not bring up how great free programs were- you
brought up how worthless they are-if you care to check your post. I
mentioned however that XCSOAR is a good program -which it is.


Come on Richard, tell us point by point how superior See You is over
XCSOAR . Prove your point to us-that it is a worthless program-you
know....as you say that it is worth what you pay for it.

Mike










On Mar 8, 11:58 am, "Richard" > wrote:
> Mike,
>
> First of all you brought up the issue of how great the free programs
> are - compared to what? WinPilot and SeeYou simulators are free,
> both can be downloaded from my website for evaluation, you only need
> the passwords to have a hassel free connection to your GPS.
>
> My biased opinion is the SeeYou and WinPilot are as easy or easier to
> use than the free programs, they will be supported in the future, they
> allow the new pilot all the features from just flying around the
> patch, to badges, records and contest.
> The real question is if you own a sailplane how much did you pay for
> it and is the cost of one of these programs significant? If it is, I
> would suggest a chart with mileage and altutude circles is more cost
> effective, I believe you are still required to carry a chart.
>
> I also provide support to those that are considering purchasing
> WinPilot or SeeYou from Craggy Aero.
>
> Richardwww.craggyaero.com
>
> On Mar 8, 10:12 am, "Mike" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why not do the comparison for us Richard? It is your question after
> > all. I would like to hear your unbiased report.
>
> > Mike
>
> > On Mar 8, 10:25 am, "Richard" > wrote:
>
> > > The question is have you compared the free programs with SeeYou or
> > > WinPilot. We would all like to hear your comparison.
>
> > > Richardwww.craggyaero.com
>
> > > On Mar 8, 9:16 am, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > > > XCSOAR is a very good program that is easy to use. It takes about one
> > > > evening to understand using the "Quick Start" guide in the manual.
>
> > > > Mike
>
> > > > On Mar 8, 9:31 am, "Michael Huber" > wrote:
>
> > > > > "Richard" > wrote
>
> > > > > > 6. Free is a very good price, but generally you get what you pay for,
> > > > > > if anyone finds this not true please let us all know so we all can all
> > > > > > get this free stuff. The best free thing I have found is the SeeYou
> > > > > > Connect Me program.
>
? > > > > > GPS-LOG and XCSOAR are free, I´ve never tried XCSOAR, but
GPS-LOG is a great
> > > > > software.
>
> > > > > Michael- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[John Scott]

I initially used GPS-Log. GPS-Log does have a PC simulator. It gave me
some insight into the value of a flight computer.

I subsequently switched to SeeYou Mobile for ease in loading my PDA with
maps, airspace, waypoints, etc. I may not have fully understood GPS-Log,
but I was doing a lot of handcrafting of files. Also, I think SeeYou Mobile
screens are more customizable. I keep changing mine as I haven't yet
settled on what I like best.

On the support side, Henryk Birecki (software developer) was always very
responsive to emails I sent. He is active in the Yahoo Group for GPS_Log.

Finally, my choice of SeeYou Mobile over Pocket Strepla or WinPilot was
based on the fact that I had previously purchased and learned to use SeeYou.
I'm very happy with SeeYou and I believe my life would be less complicated
if I used the PDA version of the product in the air.

John

[Richard[_1_]]

Mike,

I reread my post but and never saw the word worthless. But now I
will go to my corner and look up the word sufferance.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

On Mar 8, 11:26 am, "Mike" > wrote:
> First of all I did not bring up how great free programs were- you
> brought up how worthless they are-if you care to check your post. I
> mentioned however that XCSOAR is a good program -which it is.
>
> Come on Richard, tell us point by point how superior See You is over
> XCSOAR . Prove your point to us-that it is a worthless program-you
> know....as you say that it is worth what you pay for it.
>
> Mike
>
> On Mar 8, 11:58 am, "Richard" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Mike,
>
> > First of all you brought up the issue of how great the free programs
> > are - compared to what? WinPilot and SeeYou simulators are free,
> > both can be downloaded from my website for evaluation, you only need
> > the passwords to have a hassel free connection to your GPS.
>
> > My biased opinion is the SeeYou and WinPilot are as easy or easier to
> > use than the free programs, they will be supported in the future, they
> > allow the new pilot all the features from just flying around the
> > patch, to badges, records and contest.
> > The real question is if you own a sailplane how much did you pay for
> > it and is the cost of one of these programs significant? If it is, I
> > would suggest a chart with mileage and altutude circles is more cost
> > effective, I believe you are still required to carry a chart.
>
> > I also provide support to those that are considering purchasing
> > WinPilot or SeeYou from Craggy Aero.
>
> > Richardwww.craggyaero.com
>
> > On Mar 8, 10:12 am, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > > Why not do the comparison for us Richard? It is your question after
> > > all. I would like to hear your unbiased report.
>
> > > Mike
>
> > > On Mar 8, 10:25 am, "Richard" > wrote:
>
> > > > The question is have you compared the free programs with SeeYou or
> > > > WinPilot. We would all like to hear your comparison.
>
> > > > Richardwww.craggyaero.com
>
> > > > On Mar 8, 9:16 am, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > > > > XCSOAR is a very good program that is easy to use. It takes about one
> > > > > evening to understand using the "Quick Start" guide in the manual.
>
> > > > > Mike
>
> > > > > On Mar 8, 9:31 am, "Michael Huber" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > "Richard" > wrote
>
> > > > > > > 6. Free is a very good price, but generally you get what you pay for,
> > > > > > > if anyone finds this not true please let us all know so we all can all
> > > > > > > get this free stuff. The best free thing I have found is the SeeYou
> > > > > > > Connect Me program.
>
> ? > > > > > GPS-LOG and XCSOAR are free, I´ve never tried XCSOAR, but
> GPS-LOG is a great
>
>
>
> > > > > > software.
>
> > > > > > Michael- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mike[_8_]]

On Mar 8, 12:45 pm, "Richard" > wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I reread my post but and never saw the word worthless. But now I
> will go to my corner and look up the word sufferance.
>
> Richardwww.craggyaero.com
>
> On Mar 8, 11:26 am, "Mike" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > First of all I did not bring up how great free programs were- you
> > brought up how worthless they are-if you care to check your post. I
> > mentioned however that XCSOAR is a good program -which it is.
>
> > Come on Richard, tell us point by point how superior See You is over
> > XCSOAR . Prove your point to us-that it is a worthless program-you
> > know....as you say that it is worth what you pay for it.
>
> > Mike
>
> > On Mar 8, 11:58 am, "Richard" > wrote:
>
> > > Mike,
>
> > > First of all you brought up the issue of how great the free programs
> > > are - compared to what? WinPilot and SeeYou simulators are free,
> > > both can be downloaded from my website for evaluation, you only need
> > > the passwords to have a hassel free connection to your GPS.
>
> > > My biased opinion is the SeeYou and WinPilot are as easy or easier to
> > > use than the free programs, they will be supported in the future, they
> > > allow the new pilot all the features from just flying around the
> > > patch, to badges, records and contest.
> > > The real question is if you own a sailplane how much did you pay for
> > > it and is the cost of one of these programs significant? If it is, I
> > > would suggest a chart with mileage and altutude circles is more cost
> > > effective, I believe you are still required to carry a chart.
>
> > > I also provide support to those that are considering purchasing
> > > WinPilot or SeeYou from Craggy Aero.
>
> > > Richardwww.craggyaero.com
>
> > > On Mar 8, 10:12 am, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > > > Why not do the comparison for us Richard? It is your question after
> > > > all. I would like to hear your unbiased report.
>
> > > > Mike
>
> > > > On Mar 8, 10:25 am, "Richard" > wrote:
>
> > > > > The question is have you compared the free programs with SeeYou or
> > > > > WinPilot. We would all like to hear your comparison.
>
> > > > > Richardwww.craggyaero.com
>
> > > > > On Mar 8, 9:16 am, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > XCSOAR is a very good program that is easy to use. It takes about one
> > > > > > evening to understand using the "Quick Start" guide in the manual.
>
> > > > > > Mike
>
> > > > > > On Mar 8, 9:31 am, "Michael Huber" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > "Richard" > wrote
>
> > > > > > > > 6. Free is a very good price, but generally you get what you pay for,
> > > > > > > > if anyone finds this not true please let us all know so we all can all
> > > > > > > > get this free stuff. The best free thing I have found is the SeeYou
> > > > > > > > Connect Me program.
>
> > ? > > > > > GPS-LOG and XCSOAR are free, I´ve never tried XCSOAR, but
> > GPS-LOG is a great
>
> > > > > > > software.
>
> > > > > > > Michael- Hide quoted text -
You are funny Richard. Lets see your unbiased comparison.>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[[email protected]]

On Mar 8, 11:45 am, "Richard" > wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I reread my post but and never saw the word worthless. But now I
> will go to my corner and look up the word sufferance.
>
> Richardwww.craggyaero.com
>
> On Mar 8, 11:26 am, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > First of all I did not bring up how great free programs were- you
> > brought up how worthless they are-if you care to check your post. I
> > mentioned however that XCSOAR is a good program -which it is.
>
> > Come on Richard, tell us point by point how superior See You is over
> > XCSOAR . Prove your point to us-that it is a worthless program-you
> > know....as you say that it is worth what you pay for it.
>
> > Mike
>
> > On Mar 8, 11:58 am, "Richard" > wrote:
>
> > > Mike,
>
> > > First of all you brought up the issue of how great the free programs
> > > are - compared to what? WinPilot and SeeYou simulators are free,
> > > both can be downloaded from my website for evaluation, you only need
> > > the passwords to have a hassel free connection to your GPS.
>
> > > My biased opinion is the SeeYou and WinPilot are as easy or easier to
> > > use than the free programs, they will be supported in the future, they
> > > allow the new pilot all the features from just flying around the
> > > patch, to badges, records and contest.
> > > The real question is if you own a sailplane how much did you pay for
> > > it and is the cost of one of these programs significant? If it is, I
> > > would suggest a chart with mileage and altutude circles is more cost
> > > effective, I believe you are still required to carry a chart.
>
> > > I also provide support to those that are considering purchasing
> > > WinPilot or SeeYou from Craggy Aero.
>
> > > Richardwww.craggyaero.com
>
> > > On Mar 8, 10:12 am, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > > > Why not do the comparison for us Richard? It is your question after
> > > > all. I would like to hear your unbiased report.
>
> > > > Mike
>
> > > > On Mar 8, 10:25 am, "Richard" > wrote:
>
> > > > > The question is have you compared the free programs with SeeYou or
> > > > > WinPilot. We would all like to hear your comparison.
>
> > > > > Richardwww.craggyaero.com
>
> > > > > On Mar 8, 9:16 am, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > XCSOAR is a very good program that is easy to use. It takes about one
> > > > > > evening to understand using the "Quick Start" guide in the manual.
>
> > > > > > Mike
>
> > > > > > On Mar 8, 9:31 am, "Michael Huber" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > "Richard" > wrote
>
> > > > > > > > 6. Free is a very good price, but generally you get what you pay for,
> > > > > > > > if anyone finds this not true please let us all know so we all can all
> > > > > > > > get this free stuff. The best free thing I have found is the SeeYou
> > > > > > > > Connect Me program.
>
> > ? > > > > > GPS-LOG and XCSOAR are free, I´ve never tried XCSOAR, but
> > GPS-LOG is a great
>
> > > > > > > software.
>
> > > > > > > Michael- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -


To All:

I have in my iPAQ GN II and WinPilot that my buddy Richard sold me.
Richard is a very nice guy and some of you have misinterpreted his
posting. Now, as I said, I have GN II and WinPilot and I fly with GN
II...why? because I like the simplicity of GN II and the information
available on the screen of my PDA. The WinPilot has a bunch of
features that I don't think I'll ever use or need. There is simply to
much information displayed. But again, we are creatures of habit and I
think that we fly with what we feel most comfortable with. But then
again, download the free simulator and try it. See what you like and
make your own mind. Don't relay 100% on opinions of other pilots.

Jacek
Washington State

[Mike[_8_]]

On Mar 8, 12:45 pm, "Richard" > wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I reread my post but and never saw the word worthless. But now I
> will go to my corner and look up the word sufferance.
>
> Richardwww.craggyaero.com
>
> On Mar 8, 11:26 am, "Mike" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > First of all I did not bring up how great free programs were- you
> > brought up how worthless they are-if you care to check your post. I
> > mentioned however that XCSOAR is a good program -which it is.
>
> > Come on Richard, tell us point by point how superior See You is over
> > XCSOAR . Prove your point to us-that it is a worthless program-you
> > know....as you say that it is worth what you pay for it.
>
> > Mike
>
> > On Mar 8, 11:58 am, "Richard" > wrote:
>
> > > Mike,
>
> > > First of all you brought up the issue of how great the free programs
> > > are - compared to what? WinPilot and SeeYou simulators are free,
> > > both can be downloaded from my website for evaluation, you only need
> > > the passwords to have a hassel free connection to your GPS.
>
> > > My biased opinion is the SeeYou and WinPilot are as easy or easier to
> > > use than the free programs, they will be supported in the future, they
> > > allow the new pilot all the features from just flying around the
> > > patch, to badges, records and contest.
> > > The real question is if you own a sailplane how much did you pay for
> > > it and is the cost of one of these programs significant? If it is, I
> > > would suggest a chart with mileage and altutude circles is more cost
> > > effective, I believe you are still required to carry a chart.
>
> > > I also provide support to those that are considering purchasing
> > > WinPilot or SeeYou from Craggy Aero.
>
> > > Richardwww.craggyaero.com
>
> > > On Mar 8, 10:12 am, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > > > Why not do the comparison for us Richard? It is your question after
> > > > all. I would like to hear your unbiased report.
>
> > > > Mike
>
> > > > On Mar 8, 10:25 am, "Richard" > wrote:
>
> > > > > The question is have you compared the free programs with SeeYou or
> > > > > WinPilot. We would all like to hear your comparison.
>
> > > > > Richardwww.craggyaero.com
>
> > > > > On Mar 8, 9:16 am, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > XCSOAR is a very good program that is easy to use. It takes about one
> > > > > > evening to understand using the "Quick Start" guide in the manual.
>
> > > > > > Mike
>
> > > > > > On Mar 8, 9:31 am, "Michael Huber" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > "Richard" > wrote
>
> > > > > > > > 6. Free is a very good price, but generally you get what you pay for,
> > > > > > > > if anyone finds this not true please let us all know so we all can all
> > > > > > > > get this free stuff. The best free thing I have found is the SeeYou
> > > > > > > > Connect Me program.
>
> > ? > > > > > GPS-LOG and XCSOAR are free, I´ve never tried XCSOAR, but
> > GPS-LOG is a great
>
> > > > > > > software.
>
Good idea Richard, and while you are at it, try contemplating the
meaning of your own words.

A lot of time and talent from some very dedicated, large hearted guys
went in to these very functional and free programs. To claim they are
worth zero -what we paid for them(worthless) seems an insult. When you
find the meaning of sufferance, apply it to the guys giving us these
programs, when their hard work is refered to as having no worth.

Let us see your unbiased comparison of XCSOAR and See You.

Mike


Richard,

Good idea! When you find the meaning apply it to the large hearted,
talented guys who have spent so much time providing great support for
soaring with no view for profit, to have their efforts refered to as
having no worth-you know, worth what we paid for it . You may want to
contemplate the meaning of your own words too.

I really would like to see your unbiased comparison of XCSOAR and See
You.

Mike

> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Richard[_1_]]

Mike wrote "You are funny Richard. Lets see your unbiased comparison"

I will come out of my corner for one more round.

Unbiased! Mike you are looking for something in this newgroup that
is almost nonexistent especially from a sailplane equipment dealer.

And I haven't often been accused of being funny, thanks.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[[email protected]]

On Mar 8, 12:42 pm, "Richard" > wrote:
> Mike wrote "You are funny Richard. Lets see your unbiased comparison"
>
> I will come out of my corner for one more round.
>
> Unbiased! Mike you are looking for something in this newgroup that
> is almost nonexistent especially from a sailplane equipment dealer.
>
> And I haven't often been accused of being funny, thanks.
>
> Richardwww.craggyaero.com

RE-ENGAGING:
Rather than talk about which glide computer program is best... what I
need to know is: What INFORMATION/FEATURES do you experienced guys
find MOST useful in XC soaring. I've done only a very little XC (one
flight, Tonopah - Austin - Tonopah), and what I wanted most during
that flight was an easily interpreted bearing and required glideslope
to known good runways/landlouts. I know that once I have that, I'll
start thinking of other features that would be helpful. The question
is, what features do you find most useful?
thermal optimizer?
FAI triangle thing?
Final glide calculator?
Thermal history?
........

BTW Richard: Loved your Ventus landing!

Jim




Optimizing speed for a task isn't a top priority, I have a relief
system ;-)

[Doug Hoffman]

On Mar 8, 10:54 am, "Tuno" > wrote:
> The problem with this is that Condor terrain data sets don't exist
> anywhere near the places I fly, and my PDA doesn't have any data for
> the places Condor does have.

No. That is not an issue. Read on.

> (You can, of course, load up the PDA data.)

There. You have answered your own question. All you need is a
dataset for the terrain you use in Condor. The Condor website has
these data or links to them. Then just turn off the on-screen Condor
PDA (put it in a benign screen mode) and start flying using *just*
your own real PDA and its software. It is a great way to *safely*
learn to use your PDA and its glider software.

-Doug Hoffman

[Eric Greenwell]

Mike wrote:
> Why not do the comparison for us Richard? It is your question after
> all. I would like to hear your unbiased report.

It's asking too much of a dealer to give unbiased reports on products he
does not sell, and even it the dealer managed to achieve it, many would
still just assume his monetary interest took priority. So, the dealer
spends a lot of time for very little return.

In fact, it is just plain difficult to write an unbiased report on these
products, even if you aren't selling them. These programs have many
features, most of them in common but with variations, and the value and
appeal of each feature/variation depends a lot on the pilot's
personality, where he flies, what he flies, and how he flies.

It gets worse: a really experienced pilot comparing these products will
write quite a different review than one with moderate experience.

And worse: after a pilot flies with a particular product for year or so,
he'll often find he uses it differently than when he started. Try to
account for that in a review!

So, download the programs and try them in simulator mode. I like the
suggestion to "fly" with it on flight simulator like Condor. And keep in
mind they all do the basics, which it is 80-90% of what most of us need
done.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Bill Daniels]

> RE-ENGAGING:
> Rather than talk about which glide computer program is best... what I
> need to know is: What INFORMATION/FEATURES do you experienced guys
> find MOST useful in XC soaring. I've done only a very little XC (one
> flight, Tonopah - Austin - Tonopah), and what I wanted most during
> that flight was an easily interpreted bearing and required glideslope
> to known good runways/landlouts. I know that once I have that, I'll
> start thinking of other features that would be helpful. The question
> is, what features do you find most useful?
> thermal optimizer?
> FAI triangle thing?
> Final glide calculator?
> Thermal history?
> .......

For me, I want to know in real-time exactly how far I can glide in all
directions computed from my polar, McCready setting, ballast, bugs, wind and
terrain elevation. I don't want a list of airports or airports with green
or magenta circles. I want my glide footprint on the moving map. This
tells me a lot about options, alternates and helps with strategy. So far as
I know, only two programs have implemented this GPS_LOG WinCE and XC-Soar.
I use GPS_LOG WinCE which does a better job of it.

While I'm at it, I'd like this feature on SeeYou animationl. That would
make it easier to see exactly what the pilots options were as the flight
progressed.

Bill Daniels

[Stewart Kissel]

Ahh, PDA's and software...don't let anyone tell you
any of this is 'simple'. You like MS ActiveSync?,
constantly keeping the PDA out of the sun but on a
charger?, trying to read a screen in the sunlight?,
dealing with downloading to the OLC, or worse yet..a
badge claim?


But having said that....you do adapt to them....and
they make us fly faster and farther IMVHO. I recall
a fellow at Boulder one day who was extremely excited
about his new color PDA and the advanced software on
it...I was just passing through and it seemed to me
that with strong lift conditions....he might be flying
rather then on the ground dweebing.

On the flip side there are those who don't want to
go near the things. They do make decision making more
linear in my opinion.

So try the sims...and then analyze your needs....like
most everyone else...you either decide to go more simple,
or more features. Even the simplest are a big help.
Even the most complex can be simplified.

And my favorite axiom on this topic...no 2 glider pilots
in the world have the same software-flight computer-data
logger...configured in the same manner...so you end
up with your own version anyway.

[Marian Aldenhövel]

Hi,

> I want my glide footprint on the moving map.

This depends very much on accurate terrain elevation data. I am not sure
how good the publicly available data is. It does paint pretty pictures
in any case.

Elevations for airfields are very accurate and those for charted landouts
at least at GPS-accuracy.

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"Success is the happy feeling you get between the time you
do something and the time you tell a woman what you did."

[Bill Daniels]

I'm using an elevation database accurate to less than one meter on a 100m
grid. That's far more that accurate enough to provide a glide footprint. I
choose not to display this as a visible map since it make more important
data hard to read and takes processing power. I just display airports,
turnpoints and the glide footprint.

Bill Daniels

"Marian Aldenhövel" > wrote in message
...
Hi,

> I want my glide footprint on the moving map.

This depends very much on accurate terrain elevation data. I am not sure
how good the publicly available data is. It does paint pretty pictures
in any case.

Elevations for airfields are very accurate and those for charted landouts
at least at GPS-accuracy.

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"Success is the happy feeling you get between the time you
do something and the time you tell a woman what you did."

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> I'm using an elevation database accurate to less than one meter on a 100m
> grid. That's far more that accurate enough to provide a glide footprint.

What is the advantage of a glide footprint to your soaring? Is it useful
in the mountains, or only in flatter terrain? Knowing I can reach an
unknown patch of ground doesn't sound useful, so I suspect I'm missing
something.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Eric Greenwell]

An "ide footprint"? That was supposed to be "glide footprint"!


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Wayne Paul]

Eric,

Most soaring software that I have seen simply evaluates whether you will
clear obstacles along the flight path from your current position to the
selected destination. If the route is over Pikes Peak, it doesn't consider
going around it. Is there any software that identifies and calculates the
altitude require for the best route to a field?

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/


"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:SmgIh.11700$ig.1130@trndny01...
> An "ide footprint"? That was supposed to be "glide footprint"!
>
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> * "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Eric Greenwell]

Wayne Paul wrote:
> Eric,
>
> Most soaring software that I have seen simply evaluates whether you will
> clear obstacles along the flight path from your current position to the
> selected destination. If the route is over Pikes Peak, it doesn't consider
> going around it. Is there any software that identifies and calculates the
> altitude require for the best route to a field?

I don't know of any that does it automatically or even manually in an
easy way. I've encouraged SeeYou to add a feature that lets the pilot
"drag" the middle of the flight path to a new location, so you have an
adjustable two leg flight path around an obstacle. No feature yet.

I think the feature would very useful, and not just for mountains, but
for avoiding airspace, bad landing areas, and poor soaring areas
(wlakes, wet fields, wave or ridge downdrafts). You could also align the
path for good soaring areas.

All of them will let you set up a task to do it, but that's usually a
lot of picking and clicking at an inconvenient time. For repeating
situations, you can add waypoints in passes and valleys to your
database, so it's easier to set up a task in flight.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Bill Daniels]

Eric, it's a matter of laying all options on the table. I have found that
GPS_LOG WinCE showed options that I would not have otherwise considered. It
wasn't a mater of not being able to compute (or estimate) all options, but
of being too focused on the flight plan to see them.

An example is a flight where it had become clear that I wasn't getting home
so the task became getting as close as possible, landing at a convienient
airport to reduce the retrieve distance. Playing back the IGC file on
SeeYou with output to the PDA showed that for about two minutes I had a safe
glide to an airport that would have cut the retrieve by 200 miles of
mountain driving. During those two minutes, I was distracted and didn't see
the option. If I had a glide footprint display, it would have been too
obvious to miss.

A moving map with a glide footprint display is very easy to interpret so I
won't miss good alternatives again. I will never fly without it again even
though I own licenses for Glide Navigator II and WinPilot. If I use those,
it will be on a second PDA showing only the data boxes.

A "glide footprint" shows clearly how to cross a mountain range since it
computes glide distance in all directions. The courseline may happen to
cross the range at a high peak so a list type display will show the goal as
unreachable but the "glide footprint" will show that a slight change in
course will easily clear the terrain.

There is also the case where known lift is available in the distance -
perhaps from good clouds or from radio chatter coming from other pilots. If
this area isn't near an airport, list displays aren't useful. With a glide
footprint it's easy to see when the lift is reachable. Then there's
landable terrain that isn't in the airport database. Just knowing that good
landout options are reachable reduces stress and allows the pilot to
concentrate on the task.

It answers at a glance the question of, "Where can I go from right here,
right now at the current McCready setting?" For everyone who has watched a
simulation of a glide footprint display, there's a big "AHA!" moment.

Bill Daniels


"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:SmgIh.11700$ig.1130@trndny01...
> An "ide footprint"? That was supposed to be "glide footprint"!
>
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> * "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Marian Aldenhövel]

Hi,

> What is the advantage of a glide footprint to your soaring?

The programs I've seen determine reachable landing sites along a straight
line only. XCSoar can also show where that direct path would intersect
terrain (computed using a safety margin, so it is not really the point
of impact, but I like to think of it that way).

But it does so only for the current "goto" path, that is along the task set
or to a selected landing site.

The glide footprint simultaneously provides the same information for all
sites on the map.

Ideally it can also tell you wether you can reach a field by "flying
around a mountain" and escape routes when flying in mountains (Although
when I ever get that far in my training I hope to have them ready long
before I get to need them).

I have not checked the programs I tried for this. I suspect they just shoot
a few radials out from the current position and connect the intersections
with terrain they find that way for a closed footprint. A real pathfinding
algorithm sounds too computationally expensive to me.

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"Success is the happy feeling you get between the time you
do something and the time you tell a woman what you did."

[Andy[_1_]]

> RE-ENGAGING:
> Rather than talk about which glide computer program is best... what I
> need to know is: What INFORMATION/FEATURES do you experienced guys
> find MOST useful in XC soaring.

The most useful thing for me is instant access to safety glide
information. By that I mean knowing what safe landing sites are in
range, the glide margin available, and where they are relative to
current position. Knowing whether it is safe to push on and, if not,
knowing which way to divert, makes a huge difference to cross country
flying.


Andy

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Daniels wrote:

> A "glide footprint" shows clearly how to cross a mountain range since it
> computes glide distance in all directions. The courseline may happen to
> cross the range at a high peak so a list type display will show the goal as
> unreachable but the "glide footprint" will show that a slight change in
> course will easily clear the terrain.

I can use that feature!

>
> There is also the case where known lift is available in the distance -
> perhaps from good clouds or from radio chatter coming from other pilots. If
> this area isn't near an airport, list displays aren't useful. With a glide
> footprint it's easy to see when the lift is reachable.

Actually, this is something I've really wanted, but hadn't thought about
how a glide footprint would help.

Then there's
> landable terrain that isn't in the airport database. Just knowing that good
> landout options are reachable reduces stress and allows the pilot to
> concentrate on the task.

I reduce my stress by carrying an "iron thermal"! But your other points
are well chosen, and I like the idea. I've informed SeeYou it's now on
my wish list.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Stefan]

Eric Greenwell schrieb:

>> landable terrain that isn't in the airport database. Just knowing
>> that good landout options are reachable reduces stress

> I reduce my stress by carrying an "iron thermal"!

Dangerous tactic. Your personal thermal may or may not work.

[Henryk Birecki]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:

>Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>> A "glide footprint" shows clearly how to cross a mountain range since it
>> computes glide distance in all directions. The courseline may happen to
>> cross the range at a high peak so a list type display will show the goal as
>> unreachable but the "glide footprint" will show that a slight change in
>> course will easily clear the terrain.
>
>I can use that feature!

Use GPS_LOG WinCE. It has it.

Henryk Birecki

[bumper]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
. ..
> Eric Greenwell schrieb:
>
>>> landable terrain that isn't in the airport database. Just knowing that
>>> good landout options are reachable reduces stress
>
>> I reduce my stress by carrying an "iron thermal"!
>
> Dangerous tactic. Your personal thermal may or may not work.


Actually, Eric flies an ASH26E, so his "iron thermal" is the indescribably
smooth and reliable Wankel rotary engine. It always works :c)

bumper
ASH26E
Minden

[Eric Greenwell]

Stefan wrote:
> Eric Greenwell schrieb:
>
>>> landable terrain that isn't in the airport database. Just knowing
>>> that good landout options are reachable reduces stress
>
>> I reduce my stress by carrying an "iron thermal"!
>
> Dangerous tactic. Your personal thermal may or may not work.

It doesn't have to be perfect to be a stress reducer! I always have a
good field in easy reach before I attempt to start; so far, only one
failure to start out of 165 in-flight restart attempts. That's a lot
less stress than 164 retrieves.

For a detailed look at how I use the "iron thermal" it's advantages for
the pursuit of soaring, read my "Guide" - see below for the download link.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Marian Aldenhövel]

Hi,

> Use GPS_LOG WinCE.

I do.

> It has it.

Can you enlighten me on on how the footprint is computed?

Just by looking in a few directions, determining the "points of impact" in
those directions and connecting them? Or is it more complicated?

Would a single mountain on a vast plane look like an island in the glide
footprint?

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"Success is the happy feeling you get between the time you
do something and the time you tell a woman what you did."

[Michael Huber]

"Richard" > wrote

>The question is have you compared the free programs with SeeYou or
>WinPilot. We would all like to hear your comparison.

I have compared GPS-LOG to SeeYou Mobile, and I am flying with GPS-LOG. It
gives me everything I need (X-country flying, no competitions) in a way I
like. It automatically switches between climb and cruise mode and displays
the relevant data for each mode without any need to touch the PDA. It gives
me the glide footprint on the map like discussed in another part of this
thread and AFAIK it was also the first PDA software to implement FLARM voice
warnings.

The only advantage I see in the commercial packages is the very easy
transfer of map and airspace from the desktop software (SeeYou ->
SeeYouMobile, .....).

Michael

[Bill Daniels]

"Marian Aldenhövel" > wrote in message
...
Hi,

> Use GPS_LOG WinCE.

I do.

> It has it.

Can you enlighten me on on how the footprint is computed?

Just by looking in a few directions, determining the "points of impact" in
those directions and connecting them? Or is it more complicated?

It simply looks in 48 directions around the compass and computes the maximum
glide in each direction considering wind, polar, McCready, balast and bugs.
It terminates each glide at the 'safety altitude' you have selected. It
then connects these glide termination points with a line that forms a 48
sided polygon. It does this about once a minute.

Would a single mountain on a vast plane look like an island in the glide
footprint?

A single isolated mountain on a plain would be a "notch" in the polygon, not
an island. If you know the terrain, it's obvious that you can glide around
the mountain and land in the notch on the other side.

Bill Daniels

[Andy[_1_]]

On Mar 12, 5:08 am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:

> It simply looks in 48 directions around the compass and computes the maximum
> glide in each direction considering wind, polar, McCready, balast and bugs.

Plase confirm this function uses current MC. I browsed the on-line
manual and I thought it said ZERO MC which is not the implementation I
would want.

Is anyone using the terrain functions on an Aero 1550? If so is
performance adequate?

thanks

Andy

[Rory O'Conor]

I would also want a user-definable reserve height of maybe 500ft when I
got there.=20
especially as this is different from a final glide to a known landing
spot
=20
ie consider wind, polar, mcready, balast, bugs and reserve height.
=20
For those in the mountains, a computation that can cope with corners
round ridges would be nice, but that is probably step 2.
=20
ps: I would not plan to use my own "iron thermal" unless over landable
terrain
=20
=20
Rory
=20
Subject: Re: Using a "GLIDE footprint"
Author: Andy > <mailto:Andy >>

Date/Time: 14:40 12 March 2007

________________________________

On Mar 12, 5:08 am, "Bill Daniels" wrote:

> It simply looks in 48 directions around the compass and computes the
maximum
> glide in each direction considering wind, polar, McCready, balast and
bugs.

[Henryk Birecki]

"Andy" > wrote:

>On Mar 12, 5:08 am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>
>> It simply looks in 48 directions around the compass and computes the maximum
>> glide in each direction considering wind, polar, McCready, balast and bugs.
>

Yes it does. 48 seemed like a good compromise between computation time
and "precision". This could be made a user input parameter in future
editions if there is a general concensus that it would be useful.

>Plase confirm this function uses current MC. I browsed the on-line
>manual and I thought it said ZERO MC which is not the implementation I
>would want.

You are right about documentation. I will need to check in the code.
It may well be ZERO MC as it is a "safety" feature. If you are looking
for a safe place to land you want to fly at best glide angle, not best
time. Anyone would like to comment?

>
>Is anyone using the terrain functions on an Aero 1550? If so is
>performance adequate?
>

I am. I have not seen any problems so far, and I usually do fly in the
mountains.

Henryk Birecki

[Henryk Birecki]

"Andy" > wrote:

>On Mar 12, 5:08 am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>
>Plase confirm this function uses current MC. I browsed the on-line
>manual and I thought it said ZERO MC which is not the implementation I
>would want.

I forgot to add in my previous post: If you really want to have "real
time" feedback in GPS_LOG for whether you can clear a mountain range
on course, you would not be looking at the GLIDE footprint, but at
forward looking terrain plot. This gives you glide path at your
current speed, wind... plotted with the ground profile. Got me through
several passes that I would have never attempted without that
information.

Henryk Birecki

[Henryk Birecki]

"ContestID67" > wrote:

>I think that everyone understands that the free programs do not give
>you the features or support of the for-pay programs.

Well,... Speak for yourself. It is exactly this kind of attitude that
gives free programs a "bad name".

Personally I always hear how awfull the support for paid for programs
is :).

Cheers,
Henryk Birecki

[Eric Greenwell]

Henryk Birecki wrote:

>
>> Plase confirm this function uses current MC. I browsed the on-line
>> manual and I thought it said ZERO MC which is not the implementation I
>> would want.
>
> You are right about documentation. I will need to check in the code.
> It may well be ZERO MC as it is a "safety" feature. If you are looking
> for a safe place to land you want to fly at best glide angle, not best
> time. Anyone would like to comment?

A MC = 0 glide path is very shallow, making it sensitive to small errors
in the assumptions - headwind, bugs, sink, polar. It is very likely to
go wrong. A MC = 4 glide path is much steeper, and by flying it at a MC
= 1 (for example), you have a lot of extra altitude to handle the same
problems. As you point out, if you are trying to get to some place
safely, there's no need to rush!

I would never trust my safety to a MC = 0 glide path, instead, I
routinely use MC = 4. This has proven reliable (but not 100%) over 30
years of soaring in several different gliders.

On days with wave, in the mountains, or gliding over poor landing areas,
I'll use MC = 5, possibly higher, or raise my arrival altitude setting.

It is possible to use an MC = 0 safely if you set a very high "arrival
altitude". To have the same margins I get with MC = 4 and a 1000' AGL
arrival, I estimate it would have to be at least 2000' AGL. Perhaps
someone can comment on the relative merits of a higher MC with a lower
arrival altitude, versus doing the reverse.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Henryk Birecki]

Thanks Eric,

The way I read your post is that you are using MC setting as a safety
margin thing to avoid false hopes. GPS_LOG uses pattern altitude to
accomplish that. On the other hand it just says that different people
have different preferences. Since philosophy behind GPS_LOG is to
allow users to configure it as much as possible to their preferences
rather than me telling them what they should use, I will add a YABO
(Yet Another Bloody Option) in next release of the program.

And yes, code says program is currently using zero MC.

Henryk Birecki

Eric Greenwell > wrote:

>Henryk Birecki wrote:
>
>>
>>> Plase confirm this function uses current MC. I browsed the on-line
>>> manual and I thought it said ZERO MC which is not the implementation I
>>> would want.
>>
>> You are right about documentation. I will need to check in the code.
>> It may well be ZERO MC as it is a "safety" feature. If you are looking
>> for a safe place to land you want to fly at best glide angle, not best
>> time. Anyone would like to comment?
>
>A MC = 0 glide path is very shallow, making it sensitive to small errors
>in the assumptions - headwind, bugs, sink, polar. It is very likely to
>go wrong. A MC = 4 glide path is much steeper, and by flying it at a MC
>= 1 (for example), you have a lot of extra altitude to handle the same
>problems. As you point out, if you are trying to get to some place
>safely, there's no need to rush!
>
>I would never trust my safety to a MC = 0 glide path, instead, I
>routinely use MC = 4. This has proven reliable (but not 100%) over 30
>years of soaring in several different gliders.
>
>On days with wave, in the mountains, or gliding over poor landing areas,
> I'll use MC = 5, possibly higher, or raise my arrival altitude setting.
>
>It is possible to use an MC = 0 safely if you set a very high "arrival
>altitude". To have the same margins I get with MC = 4 and a 1000' AGL
>arrival, I estimate it would have to be at least 2000' AGL. Perhaps
>someone can comment on the relative merits of a higher MC with a lower
>arrival altitude, versus doing the reverse.

[Paul Remde]

Hi Eric,

I agree that higher MacCready settings are safer. I have found that many
glider pilot find that point difficult to get their heads around - probably
because using a higher MC causes your glide computer to show that you need
more altitude, and because you will be flying faster (which seems less
conservative) if you follow the speed director.

But you are correct that it gives you a less shallow glide with more
options. Also, if you slow down and fly at best L/D you should do much
better than the glider computer thinks you can do.

I never fly with my MacCready ring or speed director set to zero. I think
that is unsafe.

Here in Minnesota I don't use a MacCready of 4 though. I use about 1/2 to
3/4 of the value of my actual measure climb rates in thermals.

I suppose that higher arrival altitudes can be used to do the same thing -
increase safety.

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:sYoJh.9072$S06.356@trndny08...
> Henryk Birecki wrote:
>
>>
>>> Plase confirm this function uses current MC. I browsed the on-line
>>> manual and I thought it said ZERO MC which is not the implementation I
>>> would want.
>>
>> You are right about documentation. I will need to check in the code.
>> It may well be ZERO MC as it is a "safety" feature. If you are looking
>> for a safe place to land you want to fly at best glide angle, not best
>> time. Anyone would like to comment?
>
> A MC = 0 glide path is very shallow, making it sensitive to small errors
> in the assumptions - headwind, bugs, sink, polar. It is very likely to go
> wrong. A MC = 4 glide path is much steeper, and by flying it at a MC = 1
> (for example), you have a lot of extra altitude to handle the same
> problems. As you point out, if you are trying to get to some place safely,
> there's no need to rush!
>
> I would never trust my safety to a MC = 0 glide path, instead, I routinely
> use MC = 4. This has proven reliable (but not 100%) over 30 years of
> soaring in several different gliders.
>
> On days with wave, in the mountains, or gliding over poor landing areas,
> I'll use MC = 5, possibly higher, or raise my arrival altitude setting.
>
> It is possible to use an MC = 0 safely if you set a very high "arrival
> altitude". To have the same margins I get with MC = 4 and a 1000' AGL
> arrival, I estimate it would have to be at least 2000' AGL. Perhaps
> someone can comment on the relative merits of a higher MC with a lower
> arrival altitude, versus doing the reverse.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> * "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Eric Greenwell]

Henryk Birecki wrote:
> Thanks Eric,
>
> The way I read your post is that you are using MC setting as a safety
> margin thing to avoid false hopes.

Yes, the flight computer MC setting is based on safety, usually with a
MC=4 setting to give me a conservative glide to airports and landing
areas. The MC setting on my 302 vario set to the speed-to-fly I am
using; typically, that's 1 or 2 knots, except in very good conditions.

So, two MC settings, two different purposes: safety and speed.

> GPS_LOG uses pattern altitude to
> accomplish that.

I also use an "arrival altitude" of 1000'. My experience is a 1000'
arrival altitude and an MC=0 glide is very risky business.

> On the other hand it just says that different people
> have different preferences. Since philosophy behind GPS_LOG is to
> allow users to configure it as much as possible to their preferences
> rather than me telling them what they should use, I will add a YABO
> (Yet Another Bloody Option) in next release of the program.

For people like me, using the same MC setting the flight computer is
using would be ideal. It would be interesting to hear how other pilots
use the MC settings in their flight computer and vario, and now a third
choice: the glide footprint setting.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Tuno]

> I agree that higher MacCready settings are safer. I have found that many
> glider pilot find that point difficult to get their heads around - probably
> because using a higher MC causes your glide computer to show that you need
> more altitude, and because you will be flying faster (which seems less
> conservative) if you follow the speed director.

I was flying a contest last year and made the bone-headed error of
increasing my MC when I hit bad sink on final glide. I don't recall if
it was nerves, fatigue, or what, but during the last 12-15 miles
across the tiger terrain west of Turf, the sink got worse and worse,
and instead of reducing my MC, I increased it.

Of course, that would have been the proper action during my last
climb, but I got my wires crossed when the vario turned into a
divining rod after I passed up the last landing option. I ended up
doing a rolling finish, and being most thankful that the mistake did
not damage anything beyond my ego!

~ted/2NO

[bagmaker]

XCSoar has all that, and more.
You can preset a safety MC setting for final glide, you get a glide range footprint, all the bells and whistles.
The support is really good in that the open source base is available for anyone to change. If a user comes up with a worthwhile suggestion for another option, it is added to the program!
A dedicated nabble group assists in anyones problems, not just the programmers. Its free, what more do you need?

did I mention free?
FREE


bagger

[Andy[_1_]]

On Mar 13, 8:32 am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> I agree that higher MacCready settings are safer. I have found that many
> glider pilot find that point difficult to get their heads around
>
> I never fly with my MacCready ring or speed director set to zero. I think
> that is unsafe.

Paul you may need to be more flexible with your use of the MC
setting. Using a hi setting to estimate glide margin does not
preclude using a low setting to drive the speed director. Using a
zero MC glide is not unsafe, it's the only sensible thing to do if the
glide is marginal, but planning a safe glide margin on MC 0 may well
be unsafe.

As an example if I see my MC4 glide margin eroding to mins I'll head
for the best landable at reduced MC, perhaps zero MC. My MC knob is
not a fixed setting but a variable input to several what if questions.
What is my glide margin, how high should I climb in this thermal, how
fast should I fly a safety glide, how fast should I fly final glide.

With the 302/GNII combination, glide margin and speed director can use
different MC setting and be completely independent. You can also keep
them linked and set the MC appropriate to the situation.

The other use for the MC setting is to make the speed director shut up
when you fly at the speed you want to.


Andy