VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Avionics / Interiors / Fiberglass > Glass Cockpit
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-12-2006, 05:40 PM
fodrv7's Avatar
fodrv7 fodrv7 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Torquay, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 826
Default And Or

I imagine some sharp Software guru developed it with a complex and/or program.

Seven screens is cetainly beyond manual selection. For me anyway.
Pete.
__________________
Peter James.
Australia Down Under.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-13-2006, 03:39 AM
SweetJellyDonut SweetJellyDonut is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: America's Hi-tech Cowtown
Posts: 50
Thumbs up I like how this product is coming together...

Mark,

I have been following the development of this product with some interest, myself. There are 2 yahoo groups (Users Group ) and (Developers Group ) with additonal information about the enigma. One is for users, one is for developers. Rainier Lamers (the founder/inventor) regularly posts to the groups.

What I like about his system, is it appears to be very roubust and does a good job of future proofing the product. I've been reading all that is available on the enigma and like what i see, so far. For instance:

1) You can connect up 9 enigmas together, each being a fully self contained AHRS-EFIS/EMS/MFD. They will all get their baro and other info from the primary, but if it goes TU, they each operate independently. I like this as I am planning (wishing) for 2 enigmas in my plane. Having your backup look just like your primary makes contingency flying as simple as normal flying. No complicated switch overs, crossfeeds or partial panels (although I am considering keeping a 2.25 pictorial t&b around as a tie-breaker).

2) I was concerned about the AHRS itself, as he (Rainer) designed and built it himself. But after researching this more, I'm feeling more comfortable with it. As he has stated himself, most of the lower end MEMS and associated parts of the AHRS usually come from the same few suppliers that most other EFIS manufacturers use. This guy has built different AHRS and heading systems (SP1, SP2c,SP3hc,and SP4), and they are being employed in aircraft all around the world. Even though they are rock solid, he readily recommends you dont use them for IFR without backup (the same thing that Dynon says). He is introducing the SP5, which is an AHRS with components made by British Aerospace (the same ones they use in their airliners). You can hook up any one of the AHRS to the Enigma at any time (you can start with a SP3hc and work your way up).

3) You have the ability to layout the screen any way you choose. Your are not limited to preset screen layouts (this can be a good thing, or a bad thing). You can tailor your screens (up to 9) for different phases of flight.

4) You can build maps and charts to meet your mission profile. All the information it uses for building maps, charts and NAV info come from open sources. NO MORE $$$ UPDATES!

5) The processor and memory are on removable, upgradeable circuit boards. What this means is, if in the future, the company uses a newer, faster processor or more memory, you dont have to buy a whole new box. You merely take out the old processor board and replace it with the new one.

Okay, I will quit there. This is getting long and I'm starting to sound like a commerical. I don't know Rainier and I'm not affiliated with MGL in any way shape or form. I just prefer to post from a position of research, facts and value-added contiributions. I thought I would give some information that I have found on the subject (and can provide more links if so desired) so others can make informed decisions and opinions.
__________________
Hamp

RV-9A Preview Plans (A.I.P)
Now waiting for RV-12 (for fun with the Mrs.)
RV-10 or CH-640 (to bring the family along)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-13-2006, 07:13 AM
tysonb tysonb is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Atlanta, LZU
Posts: 27
Default

I've been following the Enigma pretty closely, and it looks like it has some amazing support from the devloper (Rainier)...

The email from him stating they are developing a COM and a NAV/COM is exciting - based on the rest of the product line they should be great performers for an awesome price...

I'd love to see them come out with a transponder - I don't want 30 year old used gear, but I've got issues shelling out 1400 for a new one... In todays world with software defined radios and DSP there is no reason (other than limited demand for new) that transponders cost what they do... If I wasn't so lazy I'd just design one myself
__________________
Tyson
http://sonexproject.com
Sonex #1005
VAF #677
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-13-2006, 08:02 AM
markpsmith markpsmith is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 17
Default Updated buttons and remote I/O

Here is a response from Rainier regarding questions asked earlier in this thread...

>Are you planning on changing the color scheme from yellow to a
>different color?

We already have. All currently built Enigmas have silver metallic
buttons (and two blue ones at the bottom). Looks very nice.


>Also, will there be an option to remotely mount the key pad?

Enigma will soon feature an optional I/O extender which can be used
for all sorts of things. One of them are remote, assignable buttons
on a joystick for example.


Mark
RV-8 Emp
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-13-2006, 08:28 AM
apatti apatti is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Middle Georgia
Posts: 654
Default Dreaming...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike S
After mulling this over for a while, I think I have found the answer to all of this.

All that needs to happen is for ALL of the folks making electronic gizmos to make them all talk to each other, one common style of plug, one common data "language".

Mike

I don't understand why all of the instruments can't be made to talk to one another via an Ethernet interface. Better yet, go wireless. The ideal instruments would only need power and ground for sure. Depending on the instrument, sensors and antennas may also need to be connected.
__________________
Tony
RV8A
N97AP
Warner Robins, GA
Phase I complete
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-13-2006, 09:57 AM
tysonb tysonb is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Atlanta, LZU
Posts: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by apatti
I don't understand why all of the instruments can't be made to talk to one another via an Ethernet interface. Better yet, go wireless. The ideal instruments would only need power and ground for sure. Depending on the instrument, sensors and antennas may also need to be connected.

I think the basic answer would be simplicity - ethernet would add additional overhead to the simple processors being used in EFIS systems.

Serial is cheap and easy to implement, and very easy to design a data structure for.

Ethernet would be much faster, but the devices would then have to manage the overhead associated with TCP/IP in a client/server fashion - this involves connections, stacks, and other fun complexities... When you have unlimited processing power (in a PC) its no big deal... It would require the addition of another processor and all its associated bits & pieces to implement.

Here comes a statement that may stir up the pot, but I'm saying it anyway as a generality (not FACT):

All microprocessors have an integrated serial interface - it takes about 4~6 lines of code to implement a FIFO buffer and it can be run via an interrupt on the processor in the background...

I think wireless+aircraft instruments = BAD... there are enough issues with RFI already - forget to turn off your cellphone in your flight bag and the EFIS "loses" its connection to the attitude box when the phone tries to find a tower... That could get interesting (And don't forget the 400w pulse at 1.2Ghz from the transponder)
__________________
Tyson
http://sonexproject.com
Sonex #1005
VAF #677
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-13-2006, 10:45 AM
rv7boy's Avatar
rv7boy rv7boy is offline
Forum Peruser
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Austinville, Alabama
Posts: 2,458
Default Feeling electron deprived...

Wow, when this thread first started, I was gonna say something like, "It would be nice to have gph instead of Lph." Now, I think I'll just shrink back under my shell and keep reading...
__________________
Don Hull
RV-7 Wings
KDCU Pryor Field
Pilots'n Paws Pilot
N79599/ADS-B In and Out...and I like it!

?Certainly, travel is more than the seeing of sights;
it is a change that goes on, deep and permanent, in the ideas of living." Miriam Beard
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-13-2006, 11:43 AM
jcoloccia jcoloccia is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,110
Default

Ethernet is not a good idea for this sort of thing. There's really no way to insure the timeliness of the communications other than to say "it's really fast so it doesn't matter". That doesn't cut it in the realtime world. Things need to show up reliably at the right time, the same time, everytime. That allows you to create a very tight system, especially when it's safety critical.

Fiber is out just because it's so expensive, and frankly my experience is it's quite flaky until it's up and running (fiber card manufactures can't seem to follow a simple standard for FPDP protocols....no one gets it right. Oddly enough, manufacture's cards are compatible with themselves but can throw fits with other manufacturers products. Hmmmmm.....).

Interesting discussion, though. I'd love to architect an "instrument bus" for general aviation. I think some sort of multi-drop serial bus is the ticket for simplicity, light weight and low cost. Something like RS422 or RS485. Also ease of hookup. Everything could connect via simple RJ25. Or maybe just straight USB (don't know enough about USB to know if it's appropriate).

Hey...neat ideas and possibilities to be realized in the next 10 years
__________________
John Coloccia
www.ballofshame.com
Former builder, but still lurking 'cause you're a pretty cool bunch...
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-13-2006, 11:45 AM
apatti apatti is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Middle Georgia
Posts: 654
Default

Admittedly, my embedded systems experience is 10-15 years old so what I am about to say may be a bit naive...

The hardware to implement ethernet can't be all that expensive. I just googled "network interface card" and found several for under $10! It is amazing how cheap this stuff is. Economies of scale is a wonderful thing.

As for the CPU overhead... Don't the NIC's do most of the grunt work (i.e. network access layer and internet layer)? Like I said, the systems I worked with didn't involve networking. I just assumed this is the way they worked.

And, there must be overhead associated with serial interfaces as well. ACK'ing, NACK'ing, retries, keeping count of retries before declaring comm errors, etc. So, while in prinicple, it may be only a few lines of code to send and receive something, a fair amount of work is needed for robustness.

If they are currently using serial interfaces, that means that the data rates can't be particularly high. Using ethernet does not mean they have to increase the data rates between devices (thus increasing CPU load). It just means that the data that gets sent will go faster and there will be more dead time on the bus. That lowers the likelihood of data collisions and requires fewer re-transmissions. Of course, once the bus can accommodate faster data rates, sure enough someone will want to watch "Three Stooges" videos on their MFD.

I worry about wireless in the cockpit as well. I just think it would be nice (if they can make it reliable).
__________________
Tony
RV8A
N97AP
Warner Robins, GA
Phase I complete
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-13-2006, 11:54 AM
lucaberta's Avatar
lucaberta lucaberta is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Milan, Italy
Posts: 94
Default

I like the idea of ethernet into the cockpit Tony, I like it a lot!

The fact that I work for a company that made its fortune out of the commoditization of ethernet has nothing to do with the thought above...

While on a line of principle the idea would work great, at the higher layers I wonder what kind of mess we would have... taking about TCP/IP and the intricacy of setting things up, for instance, in a small network at home... think DHCP and you've figured out what worries me! Probably some middleware to take care of the basic services would need to be implemented too.

Or maybe we could just run ethernet and send bare frames at layer 2...

Food for networking geeks -er, pilots with networking background- maybe.

Ciao, Luca
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:01 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.