PilotAware
British Forum => Technical Support => Topic started by: marioair on May 25, 2020, 11:33:28 am
-
What does Skydemon do differently using PilotAware versus GDL90 as the Navigation source?
I have PilotAware setup as a wifi. I've noticed I can get SD to work either using the PaW option or GDL90. Is there a loss of functionality if choosing one or the other?
The reason for the question is that I also have an ADL Weather unit which can transmit weather using GDL. So if i select GDL as the nav source in SD will I loose anything from the PaW capabilities?
-
There is no mechanism for bearingless targets over gdl90 I’m afraid
Thx
Lee
-
There is no mechanism for bearingless targets over gdl90 I’m afraid
That makes a serious hole in PAW functionality. Thanks, filed for future reference.
-
Lee does paw transmit GDL or Flarm?
-
There is no mechanism for bearingless targets over gdl90 I’m afraid
That makes a serious hole in PAW functionality. Thanks, filed for future reference.
Hi Steve
This is a limitation of gdl90, not PAW.
The protocol does not support bearingless targets
Thx
Lee
-
Lee does paw transmit GDL or Flarm?
Both
Thx
Ler
-
Thanks Lee.
Do you know in Skydemon why there’s an option for GDL compatible devices and a separate one for pilotaware. Is it because of the fact paw transmits both Flarm and GDL and Skydemon can then listen on both? This is in context of being able to receive ADL weather over GDL at the same time as all the PaW data.
-
Thanks Lee.
Do you know in Skydemon why there’s an option for GDL compatible devices and a separate one for pilotaware. Is it because of the fact paw transmits both Flarm and GDL and Skydemon can then listen on both? This is in context of being able to receive ADL weather over GDL at the same time as all the PaW data.
In Skydemon, the choices are mutually exclusive - either/or.
If I recall correctly - EasyVFR is an enable, so both can be enabled at the same time
Thx
Lee
-
So should I try selecting EasyVFR?
I’ve posted a feature request to SD. please add your support to it to Timothy listens!
http://forums.skydemon.aero/Topic31236.aspx?Update=1
-
There is no mechanism for bearingless targets over gdl90 I’m afraid
That makes a serious hole in PAW functionality. Thanks, filed for future reference.
This is a limitation of gdl90, not PAW.
The protocol does not support bearingless targets
Hi Lee,
I understand this, it shapes a choice is setting up a PAW, no criticism of PAW intended. If the maximum functionality for bearingless targets is a priority, and it would be for me, then select PAW as navigation source.
-
I understand this, it shapes a choice is setting up a PAW, no criticism of PAW intended. If the maximum functionality for bearingless targets is a priority, and it would be for me, then select PAW as navigation source.
Hi Steve,
thanks, understood. In order to get bearingless targets over GDL90, there needs to be some co-development between ourselves and the EFB provider. GDL90 provides the capability of user-defined messages, we can construct a 'bespoke' message to describe bearingless targets, but there is a requirement for the EFB to decode that message correctly.
Thx
Lee
-
Lee
what is your preference?
1) work with Sd to get them to accept an extension of GDL
2) work with Sd to get them to accept dual format?
how well do you know Tim D?
-
Well enough to know that he's refused to do (1) in the past! :o ;D
-
:-)
I 100% agree with Tim on that one. Standards are there for a reason
so option (2) it is then?
-
Clarification
Tim refused to overload one of the existing (unused) fields in the GDL90 traffic report
He would prefer to create a new user specific format including bearingless targets and ModeS/3D ambiguity
so this could be done, needs agreement on all sides
thx
Lee
-
hmmm...i revoke my last comment
extending a GDL may be better than supporting both GDL and Flarm concurrently :-)
-
Does it need agreement of all the other EFB software authors, to ensure an unexpected user message doesn't upset their code. or is it the natural way of things that these things naturally get ignored if you are not specifically expecting them?
-
Does it need agreement of all the other EFB software authors, to ensure an unexpected user message doesn't upset their code. or is it the natural way of things that these things naturally get ignored if you are not specifically expecting them?
I am in contact with PocketFMS and Airbox, whom I consult.
There are unique codes for user specified content, but there is always the risk that two different vendors adopt the same user content code, which could cause an issue, but I think that is pretty unlikely in all honesty
Thx
Lee
-
Meta-meta config Lee :-)