[sjarrell]

I'm using the full IFR versions of both Foreflight and Garmin Pilot. Both have their pros and cons, but for me the most important feature that Foreflight has that Garmin Pilot is missing is the Elevation Profile view. What I'd love to see in a future version of Garmin Pilot is a profile view that not only shows terrain like Foreflight currently shows, but also the airspaces that I'd fly through at a given altitude (similar to Seattle Avionics Windows program.)

I personally find Foreflight more intuitive and easier to use for flight planning but a lot of this is because Garmin has, for good reasons, tried to emulate the same interface that they have on the GTN series navigators as closely as possible so there's more jumping around than there is on Foreflight.

However, I love the VFR and IFR maps (not charts, maps) on the pilot, and the fact that it connects directly with the GDL39 and the GTN650 and G3X is a big advantage.

Both are fantastic values IMO. Competition is great and it will drive both to be better!

 

[Mike S]

---for me the most important feature that Foreflight has that Garmin Pilot is missing is the Elevation Profile view. What I'd love to see in a future version of Garmin Pilot is a profile view that not only shows terrain like Foreflight currently shows, but also the airspaces that I'd fly through at a given altitude

We just switched to ForeFlight from Garmin Pilot at OSH this year. Got real tired of the "failed to load" messages in Pilot.

We were very impressed by the elevation profile view in ForeFlight, but the guy doing the demo failed to tell us that it was not available on the basic subscription Only found that out after buying a subscription and trying to use the elevation tool.

I personally find Foreflight more intuitive and easier to use for flight planning ---------

That is "fore" sure

However, I love the VFR and IFR maps (not charts, maps)

VFR map is super, wish ForeFlight had something like that.

Both are fantastic values IMO. Competition is great and it will drive both to be better!

What (IMHO) will drive both to even better heights is open code for the hardware/device interface-------after spending $8 or 900 for a Stratus, or a GDL, you are locked in to a program that you may later want to change, but that will cost you another big chunk of change.

For a lot of years now I have been wishing/hoping/asking for a common language for all avionics to use----think MIDI for you music types----either wired, or wireless. What a great feature for us, the end users to have----and would probably be good for the software vendors too. Trouble is that might impact the bottom line of the hardware vendors, who are in bed with the program vendors.

Hmmmmmmmm maybe there is a market out there for someone smarter that I am to make an interface box that translates the various "languages"???