Messages

3256

General Discussion / Re: Multiple iPad connections possible?

« on: September 09, 2015, 04:35:51 pm »

There may also be a call (need?) for say one SD connection, one RunwayHD connection etc ... so perhaps having a mix'n'match ability would be useful?

I don't think it would make a difference to be honest what the NAV software was (so long as it was supported)

3257

General Discussion / Re: Multiple iPad connections possible?

« on: September 09, 2015, 11:47:51 am »

Interesting I had the same request a number of times at the LAA Rally.

Yes this is possible, without getting too technical, it is a simple matter of spawning multiple
threads for each additional WiFi connection.

As you say only one device can provide the GPS input, which makes sense.

I wouldn't propose to make this an additional license feature, I am not a proponent of a 'nickle and dime'
license approach.

It just needs coding up and a bit of testing.
Would be prudent to set a max number of connections for resource reasons, eg 4 simultaneous

3258

General Discussion / Re: Enhancement Requests

« on: September 08, 2015, 03:36:04 pm »

I'll do it later - I'm just timing how long my ChargePak holds up to run the thing. Looking good so far.

The slice is nice  but it needs a bit of modding to fit the case, but it gives a nice bit of support and structure and makes soldering up a doddle. I'm surprised no one else has used the thing.

To get a good figure for the battery usage, you need to ensure the ARF is transmitting,
so have you run up CollisionAware and connected your NAV tool ?
If not then the transmitter will not be pulsing, so may give a false reading regarding
the battery run time

Thx
Lee

3259

General Discussion / Re: Enhancement Requests

« on: September 08, 2015, 03:33:28 pm »

Hi Trapdoor,
Cool

Can you write down an inventory and supplier list for the Antenna and MCX/SMA converter
does the antenna for the SDR dongle stay fixed ?
I thought that adding an MCX/SMA converter would make it a bit loose

Thx
Lee

3260

General Discussion / Re: ADS-B receiver only

« on: September 08, 2015, 02:01:23 pm »

Hi David,

As Andy explains, an ADS-B system is perfectly feasible in a technical sense, but not really in the spirit of PilotAware.
The purpose of PilotAware is safety.
Safety is enhanced through visibility and mass deployment.
By making the system as cost effective as possible we want to try and saturate the market, but of course if we have installations which are ADS-B only then that is not helpful to those who do not have ADS-B transponders, but wish to be seen by those that do.
Take a look at this close call at around 1:00 into the video
https://www.youtube.com/embed/H4TuJM3uuzY

I had an interesting discussion with somebody at the LAA rally who asked could he setup a receive only and turn off his transmitter, I wasn't sure if he was pulling my leg or not 

Regarding a first stage build, I wholeheartedly agree that it is a good confidence boost to see traffic on the NAV screen, but I would emphasize this should be seen only as a preliminary testing phase.

I know there have been discussions on other forums to only build an ADS-B In system, I think we should discourage this, and may even put a timeout into the software when an ARF is not detected, this would allow for testing of a partial system, but would discourage intending to use this as a final build.

I hope you don't find this unreasonable, but I think for the cost of an extra £30 on such a low cost system, this is something upon which we should not compromise, do you agree ?

Thx
Lee

3261

General Discussion / Re: Help for PilotAware Virgin

« on: September 08, 2015, 01:11:11 pm »

Hi,

Deep breath!

So firstly confirm you have the 3.3v regulator version of the digole, the JMP can be simply nudged out of the way with a hot soldering iron.
To be honest, it appears I have been the only one unlucky enough to have had the faulty boards

You do not need to load NOOBS, simply unpack the contents of the PilotAware.zip file into the root of the previously formatted SD card

You need CollisionWare irrespective of whether the GPS is internal or external

TBD regarding the setup, but in the meantime, how about here for the info
http://forum.pilotaware.com/index.php/topic,13.0.html

Thx
Lee

3262

General Discussion / Re: Enhancement Requests

« on: September 08, 2015, 12:29:54 pm »

Hi All

Just seen these last couple of comments.
You should have had one of the following messages

either
    ARF-RS232: Programming End

or
    ARF-RS232: Communication Failure

Did you not get either of these messages on the console (assuming you connected an HDMI display) ?

Thx
Lee

3263

General Discussion / Re: Android

« on: September 07, 2015, 08:07:46 pm »

Hi Chris

Busy at show, hence I have been quiet.

I am guessing there are a number of ways to get this to repeat.
I presume the code is in java, so I am not much use on the syntax, but....

You either need to spawn a thread with a constant delay loop, like 1 second, or
Register a function callback on a timer event to perform the send

I am sure java would have these constructs available

Thx
Lee

3264

General Discussion / Re: Traffic / Contact Filters

« on: September 07, 2015, 08:02:10 pm »

I think SkyMap does not have the traffic altitude filter feature. Would it be possible to add a filter option to the Collision App?

Hi
I think it sounds like an enhancement request for skymap really.
All the other nav tools have this feature I think ?

Thx
Lee

3265

General Discussion / Re: Standalone system and software availability

« on: September 07, 2015, 07:17:06 pm »

Hi Stuart

My intention for the time being is to keep the software closed source as you indicate.
Having said that I am welcome enhancement requests and there is a thread here

http://forum.pilotaware.com/index.php/topic,4.0.html

In fact I would say that at the moment Android is clearly the next requirement, and closely
following that is an audio output.

I have also had requests for something like an LED warning, even for those with a moving map
display, so that it draws the pilots attention to take a look at the display to see why the warning
is being generated

so please post on the enhancement list, its in everyones interest.

Thx
Lee

3266

General Discussion / Re: Raspberry Pi Model B (not +)

« on: September 07, 2015, 03:48:42 pm »

It's a pity because I see using the Pi 2 now as a way of 'future-proofing' against the increase in functionality that will almost invariably be requested of the PilotAware software.

I am not overly concerned about this at the moment, the current CPU load average is about 30%
That still leaves plenty of room for manoeuvre

3267

General Discussion / Re: RunwayHD question

« on: September 07, 2015, 02:11:32 pm »

I'm confused. This is not an unusual occurence.
In preparation for getting my Shadow back into the air ( a long and boring saga ) I built the PilotAware and bought an iPad mini2.
I decided to test it using the trial for RunwayHd but when I opened settings-system there was no option to enable Flarm so I contacted their tech support. They replied that Flarm integration is in the next release due to be submitted to Apple very soon.
So, how do you actually get it to work with the current release?
TIA
Pete

Hi Pete,

Sorry for any confusion, AirboxAero gave me access to a pre-release version of their software, with this capability.
I understand from Tim Marlow that this feature will be available in their v3.3 release.

Thx
Lee

3268

General Discussion / Re: Enhancement Requests

« on: September 06, 2015, 06:47:07 am »

Unfortunately I was unable to convince SkyDemon to output the GPS sharing
Not a problem, simply means an additional app must share the GPS from the host
Or alternately that PilotAware integrates a GPS into the hardware, which was the
suggested route from SkyDemon, again also a viable possibility
Thx
Lee

3269

General Discussion / Re: Altitude Accuracy

« on: September 03, 2015, 05:24:07 pm »

Found this description
http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/adsb/faq/

In fact, ADS-B reports two kinds of altitudes: barometric and geometric. Barometric or pressure altitude is the one pilots know best – this is the altitude that is displayed on the altimeter in the aircraft. Geometric altitude is calculated by GPS (Global Positioning Satellites) as the height of the aircraft above the earth ellipsoid. These two altitudes are not the same, but having both allows for applications that require one or the other as an altitude source and provides a means of verifying correct pressure altitude reporting from aircraft.

SBS1 allegedly reports the Geometric, so this would seem to be the same value used at both ends
Although I think this requires further investigation
Thx
Lee

3270

General Discussion / Re: ICAO Code

« on: September 03, 2015, 04:34:54 pm »

Hi Rob

If you have a code, and you know what it is, then yes, go ahead and use it.
And yes it is the 6 digit hex code.

I think I was trying to be inclusive of aviators such as paragliders/paramotors/balloonists etc, I don't believe they have any such code allocated

Thx
Lee