R

rls14

Active Member
Has anyone managed to get an EFIS Lite G4 to talk to the TruTrak A/P. Surly someone has cracked the code. The trutrak is wired to serial port A with Nema selected, an the Trutrak checks out fine but will not talk to the EFIS in any fashion. Thanks Ron
 
Ron,

Hmm, I've got mine wired up but haven't checked to see if it was working yet....still quite a ways from flying. I've got the EFIS/Lite Plus G4. I know this has come up on the BMA forums on their website. I'm sure if it's not working and we can get the required NMEA statements to BMA, they will add it to the output stream.

I'll see if I can dig up the old appends on the BMA forum and ask the question again.

--
Michael
 
There is a uy named Brian o the bMA forums who I think has been doing Beta testing on a G4/Trutak ap.
 
I played around with the BMA EFIS/Lite Plus G4 today which is connected to a TruTrak DigiTrak AP. I setup Serial Port A on the BMA to output a NMEA datastream. I then setup the Digitrak to accept GPS NMEA data at 4800 baud. Both of these procedures are in the respective User Manuals. After following the Digitrak manual I received the "OFF" display which indicates "valid position data is available" from the GPS/BMA EFIS.

So it looks like the BMA is talking to the Trutrak!:D It will be awhile before I can verify if the track information is correct.

--
Michael
 
I'm the Bryan that's a BMA beta tester. Howdy!

I actually have a Trio EZ Pilot II driven by my G4, but the Trio & TruTrak use the same NMEA stream. I'm currently running a beta version of 3.17 & it's almost completely perfect in every mode with the autopilot. If you don't have software version 3.16 (the current release version), install that before you do anything else. Getting NMEA to work was my big push with the 3.16 beta work. It works perfectly in the following BMA EFIS autopilot modes: Heading Bug, Course Bug & GPS.

Make sure your BMA EFIS is set up to output NMEA to the serial port you want to connect your autopilot to. After that, make sure your autopilot is set up correctly (software, wiring, etc). Once all that's done, you should be ready to do some autopiloting. The BMA EFIS will output it's NMEA stream as soon as it has a valid GPS solution. From there, go to the BMA EFIS autopilot page (hit the AP button) and select the mode to be GPS (or either of the Bug modes). Go to the SET page & enter a GPS waypoint. Once that's done, engage your autopilot & it should fly your plane to the waypoint.

The BUG modes are something I dreamed up for BMA. They will send a fake waypoint out the NMEA stream so that your autopilot steers to whatever heading your EFIS bug is set to.

In 3.17 I've almost wrestled out every problem with the VirtualVOR NMEA autopilot stuff. There's only one more thing to fix before you can set up your EFIS in VVOR mode & fly the airways over the NMEA stream.

If this doesn't work, let me know & we'll get 'er going. BTW, I don't work for BMA...just a user.
 
Groucho I got the A/P working very well by rewiring the A/P to serial port A an putting the SL-30 on B,however now the Nav will not interface to the EFIS, in other words I have no VOR CDI indications on the G-4. I can overlay the GPS course over the VOR only. If I put SL-30 into the serial B block on the EFIS setup page, the GPS fails, the ADI tumbles, the heading info does a slow turn, an of course the TT will not work. With "none", in the B block everything works except the VOR interface I mentioned above. Ross from BM seems to think it is a software problem since I have had problems with this unit before. Hopefully will get the bugs out soon. I'm also running the beta version of 6.17 as instructed by Ross. Ron
 
Just as a PS to all the BMA G4 users. Bryan has done a tremendous job and helped immensly in debugging the G4 series and we all owe hima big thank you.
 
rls14 said:
If I put SL-30 into the serial B block on the EFIS setup page, (the sky falls)
Click to expand...
Yikes. They might have fixed this already, but for a while serial B couldn't talk at 4800bps. Faster worked though. Maybe bring that up with Ross & see if that could be the issue. I run my NMEA output on Serial A & it works well there.

Milt, thanks for the kind words. Milt's no slouch either! Pretty sure he had & was beta testing a G4 before I was. IMHO, 3.16 was a huge improvement to their EFIS line. 3.17 should be even better. For everyone else out there, if you don't have 3.16, get it.
 
Just as a PS to all the BMA G4 users. Bryan has done a tremendous job and helped immensly in debugging the G4 series and we all owe hima big thank you.
Click to expand...

Why should a device that is advertised and offered for sale have to be "debugged" by those who have paid for a functioning device?
 
Sam Buchanan said:
Why should a device that is advertised and offered for sale have to be "debugged" by those who have paid for a functioning device?
Click to expand...

I have the BMA's autopilot servo's, no debug required. I think part of the bum wrap BMA has gotten is that they are willing to open up and let people experiment with the product, interfaces, etc... This puts them at some risk. For the price and feature set, I have found the BMA product to be "as advertised".
 
Sam Buchanan said:
Why should a device that is advertised and offered for sale have to be "debugged" by those who have paid for a functioning device?
Click to expand...
Any software update requires debugging & all software has bugs. There's at least one guy here that beta tests for Garmin...BMA is not the only one that beta tests stuff. All the EFIS/GPS/etc manufacturers that I know of have some sort of beta test program.

The stuff I test for BMA is not released to the public yet. Make sense?
 
I think Sams point was that the BMA released code has a history of not being tested well. I can attest to that personally and Sam is absolutely correct in his statement.

We continue to get new released code that broke stuff that worked before and introduces new bugs that we have to deal with.

Out of all my equipment I update in my panel, BMA is the only one I have to dig deep into release notes, scratch my head, and ask myself if its REALLY worth the risk.

Just my experience.
 
Kahuna said:
I think Sams point was that the BMA released code has a history of not being tested well. I can attest to that personally and Sam is absolutely correct in his statement.

We continue to get new released code that broke stuff that worked before and introduces new bugs that we have to deal with.

Out of all my equipment I update in my panel, BMA is the only one I have to dig deep into release notes, scratch my head, and ask myself if its REALLY worth the risk.

Just my experience.
Click to expand...


It is a pretty sophisticated piece of equipment. I dont think they have been dishonest or falsely advertised, but I keep hearing comments from folks that feel differently I guess. These posts are a great place to bash products so I just think we need to be careful. I respect both Sam's opinions as a valuable contributor to the RV world and your experiences as well, so you folks weigh more on these posts than most.
 
Suffice to say i had BMA equipment in my Lancair and it required the most technical expertise to keep operational and updated. I think that the G4 is a significant uptick for them but I would be very hesitant to fly in IFR with a pre- G4 BMA attitude indicator. (realize that even Garmin had issues recently with their certified AHARS ) Forums should help others learn from our collective experience. I loved my trutrack autopilot and have had good experiences with UPSAT and Garmin equipment.

just one person's 0.02
 
JonJay said:
It is a pretty sophisticated piece of equipment. I dont think they have been dishonest or falsely advertised, but I keep hearing comments from folks that feel differently I guess. These posts are a great place to bash products so I just think we need to be careful. I respect both Sam's opinions as a valuable contributor to the RV world and your experiences as well, so you folks weigh more on these posts than most.
Click to expand...

Jon,
Neither of us said anything about false advertising or being dishonest. Neither of us bashed the product either. We are just stating the facts of our experiences with their product. This should not be construde as bashing.
I would hope that we would carry weight because we give a no BS response and have considerable experience on the matter. Sam and I go back years with BMA. I currently fly behind one and have owned a couple and installed still others.
Best,
 
Kahuna said:
Jon,
Neither of us said anything about false advertising or being dishonest. Neither of us bashed the product either. We are just stating the facts of our experiences with their product. This should not be construde as bashing.
I would hope that we would carry weight because we give a no BS response and have considerable experience on the matter. Sam and I go back years with BMA. I currently fly behind one and have owned a couple and installed still others.
Best,
Click to expand...

Appreciate it and should not have use such a harsh phrase. One of the problems with email is tone and intent are difficult to discern. Thanks.
 
Bryan,

Thanks for all the work you're doing with BMA and "other" Autopilots. I look forward to the day when I'll be able to use the stuff in the panel. I just need to light a fire under me and get the project in the air!!!!

--
Michael
 
groucho said:
Any software update requires debugging & all software has bugs. There's at least one guy here that beta tests for Garmin...BMA is not the only one that beta tests stuff. All the EFIS/GPS/etc manufacturers that I know of have some sort of beta test program.

The stuff I test for BMA is not released to the public yet. Make sense?
Click to expand...

JonJay said:
It is a pretty sophisticated piece of equipment. I dont think they have been dishonest or falsely advertised, but I keep hearing comments from folks that feel differently I guess. These posts are a great place to bash products so I just think we need to be careful. I respect both Sam's opinions as a valuable contributor to the RV world and your experiences as well, so you folks weigh more on these posts than most.
Click to expand...

Maybe this was one of those instances where I should have just walked away from the keyboard. ;)

I have no intention of being unfair to any vendor, being in business myself I know how frustrating it can be to have someone peddle inaccurate gossip.

I am very concerned about flight/safety critical equipment that is shipped when obvious defects are still present. Guess I just struggle with the business model of having the end user deal with ironing out issues that should have been resolved before the equipment was released...but maybe I'm just old-fashioned in this regard.

I am very familiar with beta testing, have done a fair share of it myself for a couple of aviation vendors. Matter of fact, I did alpha (!!?!!) testing for a particular EFIS vendor back in 2002 when it was revealed the device they sold me had never flown in a plane. :eek: Contrary to that involuntary bit of testing, I was later privileged to participate in true beta testing with a vendor that has a sterling reputation for integrity and customer support. In that case, the product was withheld from the market until all the code was deemed to be solid. This seems to be the rule for most vendors in the experimental community.

So the approach to marketing stuff to our community is as varied as the individuals involved. All in all, I think we deal with a fine bunch of vendors who are dedicated to making sure their customers receive the service and safe operation of their product that the customers deserve.

I apologize to those who feel I may have stepped out of bounds with my original post. I do appreciate the trust extended to me by members of this forum.
 
Why should a device that is advertised and offered for sale have to be "debugged" by those who have paid for a functioning device?
Click to expand...

The best answer is we aren't testing anything that has been paid, for but as Brian mentioned we are beta testing new products and coding that has yet to be released.

The best reason to do this is it's fun and we actually get to have rather significant input on the design and functionality of new products.

I agree that BMA is the most technically challenging to install udate and keep running but once again some of us like that. The others are pretty much plug and play and thats great too but I am certain someone is beta testing their new releases also.
 
who feel I may have stepped out of bounds with my original post
Click to expand...

Sam,
Not to worry, your comments do not even come close to out of bounds especially when measured against some real BMA bashing in the past.

Much of it, I might add, was deserved. By discussing it and keeping a public awareness will hopefully make all potential purchasers fully aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the product before they buy.

I think BMA has learned a lot and come a long wy over th last 2 years and many of thir problms are behid them.
 
Wow, I spend a little time at work and miss all kinds of good conversation. :D FWIW, new beta software I get from BMA runs much better than new software we get to test on the planes at work.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.