XCSoar / LK8000

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

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

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

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



"Max Kellermann" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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

(That list is far from complete)

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

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

Facts check: https://www.ohloh.net/p/compare?metr...ect_1= LK8000

Another piece of advice.

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

Another piece of advice.

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

+1

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

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

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

http://forum.naviter.com/threads/479...r-on-the-Oudie
http://forum.naviter.com/threads/256...ghlight=xcsoar

Good luck, John

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

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

So, Max, Paolo or US pilots:

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

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

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

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

John Cochrane