Show Posts

You can view here all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas to which you currently have access.


Messages - marioair

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
General Discussion / Re: Rosetta FX
« on: March 07, 2024, 03:50:56 pm »
I’m in the SE of England.

I’ve opted for a regular Rosetta as  can’t see how the price point for the FX makes sense. I see it as twice the price for “just” smaller packaging and lower power consumption but a loss of bearing less and Audio out.

The data driven approach PAW have always had has been great - vector being an example.

Why can’t some stats be analysed to show by region or country the average differences ? Not only would it move everyone to FX But also help on discussions with regulators.

2
General Discussion / Suction mount advice
« on: March 07, 2024, 02:16:42 pm »
Does anyone have experience using the six suction cups that come with Rosetta? Do they stand up to the test when it’s warm. They are quite fiddly to get off the window (I move between aircraft)

Alternately, using 1/4inch camera thread - what suction mounts have people used with success, i like the idea of a single twist lock style one but they all seem to be large or come with an arm that’s too long.

3
General Discussion / Re: Rosetta FX
« on: March 03, 2024, 11:40:57 am »
Don’t get me wrong, I think PaW is great and have owned several. But if PAW themselves published the stats it would (a) kill any arguments about MLAT and (b) upsell  people to the FX.

The fact that the sales blurb goes to efforts to state that there is no mode s/c direct receive raises the question. Can we have it answered to kill the detractors.  Even if it was a small net lose - say 10% I’d live with that for the smaller unit, power draw, other features and the fact that in 5-10 years I hope mode s only will dry up

4
General Discussion / Re: Rosetta FX
« on: March 03, 2024, 09:26:04 am »
I find the logs a bit difficult to navigate.
How do I do a “diff” on direct receive versus MLAT for the same target?
I think it would be much more powerful; and statistically reliable if PAW did this analysis with bulk data. I’m hoping it’ll show how  much Igrid and atom has done for the benefit of GA

5
General Discussion / Re: Rosetta FX
« on: March 03, 2024, 08:26:24 am »
Funnily enough I’m too busy flying the plane to make a note of that!

I wonder if PAW have enough data to do some statistical analysis? Compare a set of flight logs versus the MLAT data available that day?

Right now, my conclusion is that unless having a small form factor or flarm is a critical issue then the FX is grossly overpriced for potentially less feature functionality.

6
General Discussion / Re: Rosetta FX
« on: March 02, 2024, 05:00:49 pm »
thats my point....i dont know how much to worry about the loss of bearingless :-)

7
General Discussion / Re: Rosetta FX
« on: March 02, 2024, 02:01:54 pm »
Thanks - that's only a partial answer though.

Yes - i agree that a chunck of the contacts i see on Rosetta are bearlngless.
The question then is, if i have an FX unit instead - how much of that do I lose. e.g. if 50% of the traffic i currently see if mode c/s and i only get 50% of that via rebroadcst (FX) then i've list 25% of the traffic i used to see.
i'm not picking fault - i'm just trying to figure out if buy a new rosetta or new rosetta fx

8
General Discussion / Re: Rosetta FX
« on: March 02, 2024, 11:51:26 am »
can of worms question....

so the FX doesn't receive ModeC or S directly.
is there any data (either from PaW direct or from third parties) as to what proportion of conflicts you'd miss out on? I know this is a hard question to ask, as it depends on performance (location, obscuration) of the onboard system to detect and the reception of igrid for MLAT.......

9
General Discussion / Re: When will we get a mobile app?
« on: November 27, 2022, 02:16:44 pm »
Any update on this?

10
General Discussion / Re: Enhancement Requests
« on: September 28, 2022, 08:28:43 pm »
I think that is part of a broader point about the ecosystem that’s grown around PAW and my moaning about the need for a decent App.

PaW shouldn’t lose its “start up” and use of “commodity” components roots.  But it’s ready not for prime time. Get a decent UX designer on the books.

11
General Discussion / Re: Enhancement Requests
« on: September 27, 2022, 09:42:38 am »
Is there not a release note with each update?

12
General Discussion / Re: Enhancement Requests
« on: September 08, 2022, 08:04:52 am »
I feel fundamentally different.
I don’t want more cables, controllers or things to keep charged.

At the moment I just fly with Skydemon and with paw audio plumbed straight into my intercom.

I actually managed to get a couple of iOS shortcuts to mute and unmute the audio but it’s hit and miss and the apis are not documented.  These are literally one button press.

But my point is much more general, about the lack of a decent user interface. We have great things like the METAR and weather capabilities. But  Inflight usability of the paw UI is awful.

Paw is awesome and the use of commodity components is great. However it’s mature enough now to move away from the amateur UI.


13
General Discussion / Re: Enhancement Requests
« on: September 07, 2022, 01:26:39 pm »
fair enough, but you're mixing up two issues

there already is an "app" - its the webpages for PAW> where you can change the volume, mute unmute. But UI/UX is awful. Particularly inflight.
secondly, i like to run a sterile cockpit. i suspect the large majority of people that run PAW also have a tablet of some form. what i definetly dont want it to run another cable and have a physical volume controllter just to control PAW

14
General Discussion / Re: Enhancement Requests
« on: September 07, 2022, 11:19:01 am »
I think an app would be much better as

(a) easier to support/patch
(b) not all installs give the pilot physical access to the PaW when in flight.

15
General Discussion / Re: Enhancement Requests
« on: September 03, 2022, 09:23:42 pm »
Please can we have this in a native app ?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7