On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 2:05:37 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
I'm with Evan on this (and yes, I'm also a ClearNav guy). I recently posted to a similar thread on our Appalachian Mountains Soaring Group, but to summarize:



- I nearly tossed a working IPAQ Aero 1520 out the apple core window into the Susquehanna River thanks to the frustrations of trying to poke at a touchscreen while moving along at 100kts in +/- 2G turbulence.

- All of the aircraft in high intensity environments use HOTAS (hands on throttle and stick) controls with various buttons and switches.

- Trackballs are miserable in an unstable environment like glider; impossible to point and click on the target; even worse than pointing your finger.

- You will quickly learn the patterns in a device with large buttons arranged on a remote (stick mounted or tethered). I can zoom in, zoom out, and select without ever having to look down.



So, I'm another vote for a well laid out, button-based remote. IIRC, someone recently demoed a primitive COTS solution using XC Soar or LK 8000 (one of the Android crew).



Erik Mann

P3







On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 4:03:53 PM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:

On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 3:49:08 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:







but the huge number of touch interface flight computers in use indicates



the efficacy of the method.







I'd make the argument that their numbers reflect the easy availability and economy of these consumer devices myself... but the important thing is that you have devices that work well for your use and *don't* require a lot of head in the cockpit time.







best,







Evan Ludeman

Eric,

I am almost positive that you have never used a track ball in the cockpit. I have and find it works easily and is nothing like you describe, it is not miserable it is wonderful and easy to use.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com