Avidyne Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Entegra Release 9 > Release 9 Insiders - Anyone can post
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Most Desired R9 Features
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Most Desired R9 Features
 Post Reply Post Reply
Poll Question: Of the following features, which do you most desire?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
1 [3.33%]
4 [13.33%]
16 [53.33%]
0 [0.00%]
9 [30.00%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Most Desired R9 Features
    Posted: 27 Aug 2009 at 10:49pm

The features in the poll above were taken from a recent COPA post by Alex Fitzgibbons.  Avidyne's present position on the TAWS page is that the information will be presented in a much more usable manner with synthetic vision.  Feel free to comment if you feel otherwise.  Engine data will be displayed on the PFD in Release 9.0.2, which is due out within weeks. 


1. Flight timer - only from when the avionics are turned on.  There is no proper flight timer like on the garmin transponder.  This is ludicrous.  Likewise there is no count down timer.

2. Lack of engine data on PFD.  Only shows percentage.  Why not fuel flow,  MP, etc as per previous entegra

3. No audible alerts. When it says switch tanks no alert.  When you are reaching altitude it gives no alerts.  When there are red cautions there are no audible alerts.

4. I fly North Up on the map page.  Traffic as a result can't be displayed on the map page.  I know this is an FAA decision but it irritates me.

5. Transponder.  One touch more to get the transponder code.  Before you would just input it straight into the garmin transponder but now you have to press transponder than input.  And with my memory I can forget it in the meanwhile especially if I am being given extra info over the radio.  And yes I do write info down but I miss that immediate ability to input the code.

6. The charts don't automatically load your destination charts in.  They just immediately sunch back to last chart you used - even on a previous flight.  This seems crazy.

7. System warns you of airspace ahead but rather than telling you how long you have till you penetrate that airspace it tells you how long since it gave you the warning.  Useless information.  I'd much rather know how long I have till I am in serious trouble.

8. user guide.  I actually think this is a bit thin considering how much money we'be spent on the system. There really should be a desktop simulator as per garmins so you can get your head even more around the system.

9. Lack of terrain page. I really miss this.  Even just for that extra peace of mind.

10. Trip data.  It takes that little bit longer in R9 top figure out when you are going to reach a certain waypoint.  I miss the trip page on the entegra systems.



Edited by mnuffort - 27 Aug 2009 at 10:52pm
Back to Top
PlattAir View Drop Down
Release 9 Insiders
Release 9 Insiders
Avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2009
Location: KLZU
Status: Offline
Points: 5 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PlattAir Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Sep 2009 at 11:56pm
SVT doesn't remove the need for a plan view terrain presentation much like on a Garmin 430. That allows a quick view of the terrain in all directions assessed for threat level. THe Honeywell terrain page was too complex in how it colored data and was oriented towards the direction of travel. Consider taking off in the mountains where you need to make a turn after takeoff.  It is nice to make sure you are turning towards lower terrain. Initially that terrain will not be in the field of view of SVT.

Not on your list is access to AIRMET data. Just seeing an area outlined for turbulence or icing means little without the associated altitudes.

Paul
Back to Top
evanevery View Drop Down
Release 9 Insiders
Release 9 Insiders


Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 9 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote evanevery Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Oct 2009 at 2:38pm

The MAP page now has Pan/Scan capability!  Yea!  But what's up with NOT being able to retrieve TAFs and METARs for airports under the cursor.  I know you can do this by manually inputting the airport code into the INFO page on FMS, but why can't we simply get the data displayed along with the airport and airspace info under the cursor?

When flying into a destination airport (in an area of "troubled" weather), it would sure be nice to pan/scan around the map (perhaps using the radar overlay as guidance) to help see the weather for potential alternates.
 
Having the little blue/green/yellow/red flags is not an adequate representation of weather conditions.  There is a big difference in blue flags when one is clear/variable and another is clear with crosswinds 30 gusting 45!
 
We finally got a cursor on our map!  Lets put it to good use!
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Oct 2009 at 11:53am
This is a good point, Paul, that plan view is a valuable perspective (at this risk of using a bad word).  We agree.  Our TAWS depiction will not only display on the SynVis display but will also appear on the 2D map.  So you will have the choice of displaying the half map below the SynVis display on the left IFD or the full-screen SynVis with TAWS depictions on the map on the right IFD. 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Oct 2009 at 1:41pm
The suggestion about using the Map pointer to access METAR data is excellent and is something we have been seriously considering.  Your input makes it that much more likely to be included in a future release.  I made sure this requested feature is on the to-do list. 

  

Edited by mnuffort - 13 Oct 2009 at 1:45pm
Back to Top
PlattAir View Drop Down
Release 9 Insiders
Release 9 Insiders
Avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2009
Location: KLZU
Status: Offline
Points: 5 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PlattAir Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Dec 2009 at 10:51pm
I continue to be frustrated because I can't zoom in on a map area and get a useful sector altitude. Even on the MAP (not MAP+) display, when zoomed way in, the altitude shown as the max terrain altitude will often be higher than the terrain on the display. When I pan the altitude goes away which is even worse. 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Dec 2009 at 8:52am
Originally posted by PlattAir PlattAir wrote:

I continue to be frustrated because I can't zoom in on a map area and get a useful sector altitude. Even on the MAP (not MAP+) display, when zoomed way in, the altitude shown as the max terrain altitude will often be higher than the terrain on the display. When I pan the altitude goes away which is even worse. 


The reason for this is that we load a larger terrain tile than the one that is being viewed.  That allows for smooth panning and proper performance when in a turn.  Since the viewable map area is a rectangle, we need to load enough terrain so that a turn will produce a smooth rendering (rotating the rectangle would produce gaps in the terrain data displayed if a larger texture was not loaded).  The behavior is the same as the classic Entegra system, except that the R7 system didn't need to account for panning.  All that being said, I think there is an opportunity to sample only the terrain data for the viewable area to determine the highest point.  Obviously we are more conservative with the present approach.     
Back to Top
tshembekar View Drop Down
Release 9 Insiders
Release 9 Insiders


Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tshembekar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 2010 at 6:24pm
There are 1 feature that I would like to see on R9.  Ironically, it is was reinforced for me at the most recent CPPP:

1. When selecting a GPS approach, you can not determine if it is an LPV, LNAV+V, or LNAV/VNAV until you are actually in the middle of it.  It would be helpful if you could see this info at the time of selecting the approach.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 2010 at 10:59pm
Originally posted by tshembekar tshembekar wrote:

There are 1 feature that I would like to see on R9.  Ironically, it is was reinforced for me at the most recent CPPP:

1. When selecting a GPS approach, you can not determine if it is an LPV, LNAV+V, or LNAV/VNAV until you are actually in the middle of it.  It would be helpful if you could see this info at the time of selecting the approach.




TJ, I agree completely.  I wrote a job for this functionality back in the fall and plan to get it into one of the upcoming releases.  I think R9 can do an even better job alerting you to what comes next.  For example, on an LNAV/VNAV the GS will auto-couple, but it requires pilot action on a LNAV+V.  I don't want pilots to have to remember that detail.  Our philosophy has always been that the system should not require you to remember where things are or how to do them -- it should be intuitive and obvious what will happen and what action is required.  R9 meets that requirement with flying colors in many regards, but I agree that this is an area in which we can improve the system. 
Back to Top
evanevery View Drop Down
Release 9 Insiders
Release 9 Insiders


Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 9 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote evanevery Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Feb 2010 at 10:52am
Hmmm...

I always rationalized  - - - that on an LNAV+V approach it was MEANT to be the pilots decision whether he/she wanted to couple the AP to the calculated glide slope or just "Dive and Drive" by setting the MDA and telling the AP to go for it.

I would consider whether the Pilot should actually be making this decision ("Dive and Drive" or Couple the Glide Slope).  Different situations and circumstances will determine whats best for a particular approach.  The LNAV+V is rather unique in that both options will ultimately bring you to the same MDA.  (ie.  An argument could be made that Glide slope coupling on an ILS would be the preferred operation since it usually gets you down lower than a Dive and Dive on the same localizer approach)

I had always thought this behavior (requiring pilot input) was by design...

Not a big deal, but probably will be more important with the DFC100 as the altitude management becomes more automated.  The important thing, however, is that the behavior is well though out and especially consistent.  I, for one, would rather understand why something is happening rather than memorizing a whole collection of seemingly independent rules...
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Feb 2010 at 11:08am
Originally posted by evanevery evanevery wrote:

Hmmm...

I always rationalized  - - - that on an LNAV+V approach it was MEANT to be the pilots decision whether he/she wanted to couple the AP to the calculated glide slope or just "Dive and Drive" by setting the MDA and telling the AP to go for it.

I would consider whether the Pilot should actually be making this decision ("Dive and Drive" or Couple the Glide Slope).  Different situations and circumstances will determine whats best for a particular approach.  The LNAV+V is rather unique in that both options will ultimately bring you to the same MDA.  (ie.  An argument could be made that Glide slope coupling on an ILS would be the preferred operation since it usually gets you down lower than a Dive and Dive on the same localizer approach)

I had always thought this behavior (requiring pilot input) was by design...

Not a big deal, but probably will be more important with the DFC100 as the altitude management becomes more automated.  The important thing, however, is that the behavior is well though out and especially consistent.  I, for one, would rather understand why something is happening rather than memorizing a whole collection of seemingly independent rules...


Please do not misunderstand me.  I was not saying that LNAV+V should auto-couple GS.  It should not.  It is incumbent upon the pilot on a LNAV+V approach to ensure all step-down fixes are met.  The virtual glideslope created by R9 is a great tool, but it does not necessarily ensure that you will be above all step-down fixes for all approaches.  A pilot action certainly will be required to couple the GS on LNAV+V.

My comment was that I would like R9 to do a better job annunciating when the auto-coupling will occur and when it will not.  That will just be a display issue, not a functionality issue.     
Back to Top
evanevery View Drop Down
Release 9 Insiders
Release 9 Insiders


Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 9 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote evanevery Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Feb 2010 at 2:48pm
Originally posted by mnuffort mnuffort wrote:

...For example, on an LNAV/VNAV the GS will auto-couple, but it requires pilot action on a LNAV+V.  I don't want pilots to have to remember that detail...


I guess the above quote (from your reply a couple of messages back) makes it appear that you would like R9 to auto-couple the GS on LNAV+V...  (Like on LNAV/VNAV)
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Feb 2010 at 6:16pm
Originally posted by evanevery evanevery wrote:

Originally posted by mnuffort mnuffort wrote:

...For example, on an LNAV/VNAV the GS will auto-couple, but it requires pilot action on a LNAV+V.  I don't want pilots to have to remember that detail...


I guess the above quote (from your reply a couple of messages back) makes it appear that you would like R9 to auto-couple the GS on LNAV+V...  (Like on LNAV/VNAV)


I can see the reason for confusion.  I don't want pilots to have to remember that they need to auto-couple the autopilot.  I still want LNAV+V to require manual pilot action.  In fact, I believe it's a regulatory requirement.  But I don't want pilots to have to remember which approaches auto-couple and which do not -- the system should make it clear when action is required and when it is not. 
Back to Top
rdawson View Drop Down
Release 9 Insiders
Release 9 Insiders
Avatar

Joined: 09 Mar 2010
Location: Daytona Beach
Status: Offline
Points: 14 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rdawson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2010 at 8:25pm
On the topic of the CO Guardian interface. I hope that the system will accommodate the panel mounted combination PulseOx and CO Detector. I also hope that the system will display the actual CO concentration in PPM rather than just a warning at a given set point. (Of course, it will also have to display the percent O2 saturation.)
Back to Top
vvogel View Drop Down
Release 9 Insiders
Release 9 Insiders
Avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote vvogel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Apr 2010 at 12:09pm
The poll begs the question because all 5 responses are desirable. Let's correct all of them, not just the most desired.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.266 seconds.