Now with the HDX out, what are the comparisons between the 5600 and the HDX? I'm changing my panel and am drawn to the "new," but I don't what that to be the deciding factor.
Feel free to call me and I can talk you through the differences, but I will highlight some differences now.
One main difference is the screen aspect ratio and the number of buttons and knobs. The HDX has 8 buttons and 2 knobs. The menu structure on the HDX is quite shallow now, and the HDX has some functions that require touching the screen. With the bezel as it is, and the size and format of the required touching, I see this is not a drawback. The menus are much nicer in their shallowness. There still is a huge benefit with adding the Dynon Knob panel with the HDX. The AFS is a more square screen versus the widescreen of the Dynon, so it probably has a little more screen real estate. The number of buttons (18) and knobs (3, one of them a joystick) make the AFS able to access all functions without ever needing to actually touch the screen, and the knob panel is much less beneficial. The AFS has shallow menus as well, which is very nice, especially once you learn where to do what. The Dynon is probably slightly more intuitive, but the AFS probably slightly more powerful in the menus.
As far as screen brightness, processing power and resolution, not regarding the actual specs, but my experience, puts them fairly close, with the HDX possibly a little higher resolution.
The touch screen features are much closer between the HDX and the AFS as the Skyview Classic was. Other than menus, the philosophy is somewhat different, neither of which is better or worse.
The screen layout work well with the AFS, but has very little flexibility. You can't customize the engine layout and the pfd is always left and map is always right, with a 60/40 split, or either item full screen. The AFS also has flight plan and waypoint info at the top of the screen with little customization. The Dynon layout is somewhat less flexible than the Skyview Classic, but is still quite customizable. You can completely customize the engine layout with tons of different data points that you can put anywhere on the engine display. You can put PFD and Map on either side, but now there is only a 50/50 the flight plan and waypoint data points are in an optional sidebar with a lot more options for information (VSR, ETA/ETE to Waypoint or Destination, etc).
Probably the biggest difference is in the serial port and compatibility philosophy. Each AFS screen has 5 serial ports, each of which can talk to one item. This gives you a total of 10 serial ports. The HDX has 5 serial ports per screen, but both screens have to be tied to every serial item the same. This gives you a total of 5 serial ports. I can only think of a few scenarios where 5 serial ports may not be enough for a Skyview because it is only compatible with certain third party hardware, and most of the Dynon hardware connects to the SV Network, which is unlimited (the AFS now uses this network for most of its hardware as well. The benefit of the Skyview in this way is that you can lose either screen and everything still works because the serial ports are tied to both screens. The AFS loses whatever serial items are tied to a screen that dies. The overall benefit of AFS in this area is compatibility. It can work with a TruTrak auto pilot, a remote audio panel, a number of different ADS-B receivers, several different engine monitors, XM weather and the list goes on.
Overall, both systems are very powerful and you will be happy with whichever one you go with. I have spent a lot of time with both systems and wouldn't put either of them as a clear winner. I will say that AFS is slightly more buggy on the software side, but are also much faster at fixing bugs. The bugginess comes because of the wide compatibility and frequent additions to the list of compatible items.
Overall cost is fairly close between the two, with likely less than $1,000 difference in a full panel.