Flight Computer Input Devices

Evan Ludeman wrote, On 2/25/2014 10:18 AM:
On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 11:10:21 AM UTC-5, Mike the Strike
wrote:
I'm about to upgrade my Discus 2 panel with a more modern flight
computer (5.6" class 640x480 display) and in reviewing the various
options I am interested in user opinions about input devices.



My panel is just out of easy reach, so I'll need some input device
- either stick-mount or cord-mount. Pros, cons and comments about
the various approaches (button, trackball, etc.) would be useful.



Mike

Beware any device that requires precision analog hand / eye
coordination. It will add up to an awful lot of head in the cockpit
time. A push button interface ("digital", not analog), stick
mounted, works well for most pilots (and works great on ClearNav).

"It depends" a lot on what your flying is like. I've used SeeYou Mobile
on an iPaq (600+ hours), and currently a ClearNav (600+ hours), and
found the touch interface to be quicker, easier, more intuitive, and
required less eye contact with the display.

If I flew on turbulent ridges routinely, perhaps I'd feel differently,
but the huge number of touch interface flight computers in use indicates
the efficacy of the method.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

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

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

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

That was Paolo for LK8000 (Windows mobile based)

Craig
7Q

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