Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There
Just a Personal Looking-Glass Perspective (my 2 cents only):
For my EFIS system and autopilot, I?m going with AFS. Why? What ?schu? said; particularly flight testing, human factors engineering (screen design, software display/sequencing, button design, etc.), value for the money, proven Trutrak and Garmin integration, free GPS map updates, geo-referenced IFR charts, reasonable IFR Approach Plate update prices, and great product support. My avionics choice: mainly Garmin.
Why I didn?t go with:
GRT: No plans to develop geo-referenced IFR charts. (Note: GRT is still an excellent choice, though.)
Garmin G3X: Somewhat overpriced even with rebates. Expensive updates; separate for each Garmin component. Like a few others, I prefer some ?asymmetric redundancy? rather than all my IFR equipment eggs on one manufacturer?s basket. Garmin?s product support is reportedly not as responsive and ?personal? as AFS?s or GRT?s. A personal preference only: I like the AFS (and GRT or Skyview) landscape screen design. I don?t like Garmin?s long-screen, portrait mode as much. When I looked at the G3X?s synthetic vision display, I felt that I was looking through an arrow slot rather than out a picture window ala AFS, GRT, and Dynon Skyview. Also, a personal ?quirk:? I don?t like glancing up and down for flight information when IFR; a side-to-side scan seems more natural, for me anyway.
Dynon Skyview and MGL Odyssey/Voyager: Dynon and MGL are apparently in the process of developing their own separate, closed-system architectures (integrated, sole-source EFIS, Autopilot, and Avionics systems). I hope they are both successful. On the other hand, I feel it is too early in their respective development cycles, without enough integrated systems flying, to commit; particularly for IFR flying. Also, again, I personally like some asymmetric redundancy rather than an ?all eggs in one basket? approach. That being said, it would be great if Dynon or MGL decide to develop their own IFR-certified avionics; particularly with an open, rather than closed, architecture approach. Personal Opinion: Autopilot-wise, Dynon and MGL have a long way to go to catch up with Trutrak.
As others have said, the EFIS decision is largely a personal preference based on your own perspective and experience, current and future operational requirements, financial resources, and the current EFIS state-of-the-art.
Given the rapid evolution of glass panels, the only ?fast? rule seems to be to wait as late as possible in your build cycle (Finishing Kit +) to make your panel decisions and purchases!
Good Luck!
Bill Palmer