Are we moving too fast? Longevity...

[Bill Boyd]

Originally Posted by dynonsupport

I'm not quite sure the data is there to support the idea that experimental avionics are changing all the time and there's a treadmill of upgrades.

Dynon still sells the D10A that has been on the market since 2004. We've discontinued only one panel mounted product ever (the D10, which had the D10A drop in replacement). SkyView has existed since 2009 and almost all updates have been free software updates. Every product we've made except the D10 can be repaired and supported, and we'll sell you a D10A cheap to fix a broken D10.

We actually pride ourselves on not expecting a customer to rip up a panel every 5 years. When we sell a panel to a customer, the repeat business we get is from his buddy building another plane, not from trying to squeeze that same customer again.

I think there's a bit of associating glass cockpits with tablets, phones, and TV's just because they have a screen, but history shows a bit different. The D10A came out 3 years before the first iPhone, and SkyView 1.5 years before the first iPad, but clearly have not followed the path of those devices.

What is true however is that prospective customers generally ask the question "can your unit do XXX" and those questions get a bit more esoteric each year as everyone tries to decide between brand X, Y and Z. It's rare the customer that shops on user interface simplicity instead of feature sets. But we're trying with SkyView SE- and what's one of the first comments we get? "It doesn't do the one thing I need! Add just this one feature and I'll buy it"

--Ian @ Dynon

True. Sometimes the feature sought is not a matter of a product re-design but
more a reflection of corporate philosophy and risk-tolerance. For example, my "XXX" was synthetic approach to a private airport. After asking this question of all the vendors, I had to eliminate a few companies with excellent products, price point, customer service and product longevity. It's not always engineering that stands in the way of adding "just this one feature" that could've made the sale.

The fact that my avionics suite was lost to a catastrophe last year affords me the opportunity to re-assess my "needs" and preferences, and survey the landscape of offerings in days to come - makes me glad the landscape is evolving under consumer pressure, I must say. There are already new choices I have now that weren't available two years ago.

-Stormy

[ShortSnorter]

Originally Posted by Toobuilder

Personally, THAT'S what Id like to see in a PFD. Large format, crisp resolution, useful in IFR, no BS, familiar without reading a 500 page user manual, and supportable for decades.

As a Gen X'er I could not agree more. When I browse through various panel setups and their offerings, I reflect on real world experiences and sometimes find myself saying "Good God, I'd hate to be shooting and approach with all of that "clutter" on my pfd." I know these displays can be customized but even the moving artificial horizon in the background of the screen, not to mention synthetic vision, or boxes to fly through are detractors to me. I love that this technology is available to the experimental market for very attractive prices, but more, more, more is not always better.

I'd much rather see a information like this:



Than information like this:

[Mich48041]

and what's one of the first comments we get? "It doesn't do the one thing I need! Add just this one feature and I'll buy it"

That is me. And the one Dynon feature that I am waiting for is a dual band 1090-978 ADS-B IN receiver.

[Jesse]

Originally Posted by ShortSnorter

As a Gen X'er I could not agree more. When I browse through various panel setups and their offerings, I reflect on real world experiences and sometimes find myself saying "Good God, I'd hate to be shooting and approach with all of that "clutter" on my pfd."

I am a Gen Xer too, but I don't think I could disagree much more. I have flown hard IFR with a six-pack and I have flown with a fully modern Skyview, Garmin and AFS system. I have also done it with a GRT-WS, Dynon D10A and a Dynon D-180. I would take the fully modern panel hands down. It can be a bit overwhelming at first, but once you know what information you have available and where to look for it, you learn to focus on what is important for each phase of flight. Without synergic vision you just hope that you have everything tuned and communicating correctly so when you break out you are actually in the vicinity of a runway. With Synthetic vision you still fly the needles, but having a flight path marker that is sitting near the threshold of a runway on the screen is priceless. You don't fly that, you fly the needles. That is just one great confirmation that what you are doing is right. Also, when you break out, you easily know which way to look for the runway without having to think about wind correction angle.

I'm also not a big fan of HITS, but I know that some wouldn't go without it. On an approach it would be nice, but en route it is distracting IMHO.

[GalinHdz]

Originally Posted by ShortSnorter

As a Gen X'er I could not agree more. When I browse through various panel setups and their offerings, I reflect on real world experiences and sometimes find myself saying "Good God, I'd hate to be shooting and approach with all of that "clutter" on my pfd." I know these displays can be customized but even the moving artificial horizon in the background of the screen, not to mention synthetic vision, or boxes to fly through are detractors to me. I love that this technology is available to the experimental market for very attractive prices, but more, more, more is not always better.

I'd much rather see a information like this:



Than information like this:

-------------------------
Even though I am a dinosar, I am the other way around. I prefer this:


To this:

Thankfully, we now have a choice as to what works best in our airplane.

[flion]

I think the real problem is not the rate of advances or that companies come and go. I think that it's the lack of standards in the industry. One example: if my 'steam' airspeed indicator fails and is unrepairable, I can get a replacement even if the original is no longer available. The replacement will fit in the panel with no modification and the connections will be the same.

Now I expect to hear that electronic avionics aren't the same - components differ, how can we expect manufacturers to conform to a standard, yadda yadda. And yet the computer industry has been doing it for decades with few problems. My Surface Pro 3 can still play floppy disks through a drive with an added USB interface. The drive is the same old tech, just the interface added and it works just the same as it did back in the 80s in a PC connected to internal bus. Or look at the cards on motherboards. The standard changed and yet motherboards often supported all types, while card makers went out of their way to ensure their cards would fit standard motherboard configurations. I remember when multi-processor graphics cards came out and you could get essentially two cards slaved together and arranged so they would drop into adjacent slots on motherboards available at the time. One final example: I have a TI-99/4A that I wanted to demo to my class as an example of assembly language on a tightly constrained machine (relatively, compared to modern PCs). It has NTSC video outputs that no TV supports today, and an adapter that was intended to be attached to the antenna inputs of an analog color TV. I had no problem getting an adapter to HDMI and connecting it to my home TV or the overhead projectors in my classroom.

I would have far less angst if the avionics firms would quit using unique connections, unique form factors, etc. and standardize. I am faced with redoing my entire panel to replace my Blue Mountain EFIS, and not just because no other EFIS will fit in the panel space. I also have to redo all the instrumentation, connections to radios, transponder, etc. Nothing is standardized, and whatever I decide to replace it with will have the same problems when it comes time to be replaced in the future.

[GalinHdz]

Originally Posted by flion

I think the real problem is not the rate of advances or that companies come and go. I think that it's the lack of standards in the industry. One example: if my 'steam' airspeed indicator fails and is unrepairable, I can get a replacement even if the original is no longer available. The replacement will fit in the panel with no modification and the connections will be the same.

Now I expect to hear that electronic avionics aren't the same - components differ, how can we expect manufacturers to conform to a standard, yadda yadda. And yet the computer industry has been doing it for decades with few problems. My Surface Pro 3 can still play floppy disks through a drive with an added USB interface. The drive is the same old tech, just the interface added and it works just the same as it did back in the 80s in a PC connected to internal bus. Or look at the cards on motherboards. The standard changed and yet motherboards often supported all types, while card makers went out of their way to ensure their cards would fit standard motherboard configurations. I remember when multi-processor graphics cards came out and you could get essentially two cards slaved together and arranged so they would drop into adjacent slots on motherboards available at the time. One final example: I have a TI-99/4A that I wanted to demo to my class as an example of assembly language on a tightly constrained machine (relatively, compared to modern PCs). It has NTSC video outputs that no TV supports today, and an adapter that was intended to be attached to the antenna inputs of an analog color TV. I had no problem getting an adapter to HDMI and connecting it to my home TV or the overhead projectors in my classroom.

I would have far less angst if the avionics firms would quit using unique connections, unique form factors, etc. and standardize. I am faced with redoing my entire panel to replace my Blue Mountain EFIS, and not just because no other EFIS will fit in the panel space. I also have to redo all the instrumentation, connections to radios, transponder, etc. Nothing is standardized, and whatever I decide to replace it with will have the same problems when it comes time to be replaced in the future.

VHS vs BetaMax, MSDOS vs TRSDOS, Laserdisk vs DVD and the list goes on. Eventually an "industry standard" evolves and other standards drop out. The buyers mainly decide what the "industry standard" winds up, which is a good thng.

[ShortSnorter]

Originally Posted by Jesse

I am a Gen Xer too, but I don't think I could disagree much more. I have flown hard IFR with a six-pack and I have flown with a fully modern Skyview, Garmin and AFS system. I have also done it with a GRT-WS, Dynon D10A and a Dynon D-180. I would take the fully modern panel hands down. It can be a bit overwhelming at first, but once you know what information you have available and where to look for it, you learn to focus on what is important for each phase of flight. Without synergic vision you just hope that you have everything tuned and communicating correctly so when you break out you are actually in the vicinity of a runway. With Synthetic vision you still fly the needles, but having a flight path marker that is sitting near the threshold of a runway on the screen is priceless. You don't fly that, you fly the needles. That is just one great confirmation that what you are doing is right. Also, when you break out, you easily know which way to look for the runway without having to think about wind correction angle.

I'm also not a big fan of HITS, but I know that some wouldn't go without it. On an approach it would be nice, but en route it is distracting IMHO.

To put into context, my post was written the real world IFR mindset. Personally, I don't want my flight critical instruments watered down with ancillary data. To be fair, I don't own or currently fly any of the experimental avionics that were captured in the screen shots.

In other words, I love that all of that "other information" is available, but I would like the option to not see it bundled in with my flight critical data (maybe this already is an option).

By the way what is HITS?

[Toobuilder]

Originally Posted by dynonsupport

....It's rare the customer that shops on user interface simplicity instead of feature sets. But we're trying with SkyView SE- and what's one of the first comments we get? "It doesn't do the one thing I need! Add just this one feature and I'll buy it" ?..

I'm well aware that the consumer is driving the show here. I also appreciate that my own requirements conflict, and feature creep is a very easy rabbit hole to fall into. I don't fauult any of the manufacturers for not reading my mind (whatever it is at the moment).

My contribution to this thread is little more than general whining. I think its great that all these features are available to those that want them. 10 years from now the feature set of today is going to seem "quaint" in comparison.

That said, I'll bet that a market exists for a standardized large format "electronic six pack" (not literally, but funcionally) including an HSI that talks to an IFR nav that retails for $999.

I'll bet it would be a gateway product that will drag the last holdouts from their steam panels, and would be the "new standard" for the next generation. Heck, the Horizon product that supports the Stratus is almost there, and it is a free ap!

[Toobuilder]

Originally Posted by ShortSnorter

By the way what is HITS?

Highway In The Sky
(Flying through the floating boxes, etc)