Comparisons AFS, Dynon, or Garmin?

[rleffler]

I wouldn't put to much value in the owner of the EFIS being able to change the fonts. It would then be too easy to screw up the display so that you couldn't read important information.
Kent

So if I use that logic, nobody should build an experimental aircraft because it would be too easy to screw up the assembly?

I agree that changing fonts has the potential to create some wierd variations. I certainly would hope that anyone making changes would also know how to restore the settings back to manufacturer's default.

Bumping up the point size a couple increments is probably all that is required. They should be straight forward for most folks.

 

[kentb]

Not so Bob....

So if I use that logic, nobody should build an experimental aircraft because it would be too easy to screw up the assembly?

I agree that changing fonts has the potential to create some wierd variations. I certainly would hope that anyone making changes would also know how to restore the settings back to manufacturer's default.

Bumping up the point size a couple increments is probably all that is required. They should be straight forward for most folks.

With the screen only having so many pixels and trying to get lots of information on the screen, it is common and required to fix the space the information is display in. You can't allow information to potentially over lap and get scrambled display data.

If you increase the font size the airspeed might end up looking like 20 kts when it should be 200 kts.

I am sure all the manufacturers take great care not to allow their fonts and screen space compromise the information.

Kent

 

[rleffler]

With the screen only having so many pixels and trying to get lots of information on the screen, it is common and required to fix the space the information is display in. You can't allow information to potentially over lap and get scrambled display data.

If you increase the font size the airspeed might end up looking like 20 kts when it should be 200 kts.

I am sure all the manufacturers take great care not to allow their fonts and screen space compromise the information.

Kent

I think we agree in principle in the concept. Font sizes can be changed in most of the popular EFIS. How much variability and what controls there are, I can't speak to at the moment.

As somebody who has spent over 20 years in IT, I would certainly hope that the EFIS developers have placed such controls in their applications. i.e. point size can only be x through y so that truncation of a number wouldn't occur.

I can tell you that there is one popular EFIS vendor that default font size is
almost impossible to read for me and others that require reading glasses. However, that issue is resolved by increasing the point size a couple increments. Fortunately, the vendor I referenced does have that capabilty.

I'm not sure what point you are attempting to convey. However, at this point in time, I don't care. I'm not going to continue posting in this thread.

 

[penguin]

Those articles are a bit dated as several of the items he list as cons are now new features/improvements of the originals....

A couple of his performance points he decided to benchmark are very subjective in nature.

Well, guys I respect your view, but mine is developed over 20+ years in the military avionics business in both the UK and the US. Much of it integrating weapon aiming and navigation systems into front line aircraft.

When writing comparison articles for magazines there is never enough space to address the subject in sufficient detail - and life's too short to write a book. As several people have mentioned the EFIS market is moving so quickly the book would be out of date before it was printed. Issues like not combining the autopilot in to the EFIS and requiring a low latency system are borne out of bitter experience on the government's $$. 100ms is the maximum latency to make a system work well - we proved it many times. Any greater and you will comment that the airplane is difficult to fly - its not any more difficult than when flying visually, its just the attitude data you're seeing is late, so you're always behind the airplane! 100ms used to be difficult to achieve. With the hardware that is now available it should be easy with a well designed system. We're not talking refresh rate, were talking about how late the data is when it gets displayed on the screen.

When choosing an EFIS, looking at the pretty pictures and the price will always be how most people shop. I wrote the articles to try to help those who wanted more information to make informed decisions. First you have to figure out what you want - Paul Dye wrote an excellent article in RVator a while ago on how to do that. Next you have to objectively figure out which boxes meet your requirements and are inside budget. Many builders don't want to do that kind of mental lifting. That's fine by me, its your airplane. I know what I would put in my panel. As Rob Hickman mentioned I have an AFS system on the way that will be in my airplane for next season.

Pete (Pengilly)

PS I tried on several occasions to get data from TruTrak for the comparison, they declined to provide any. I still think they make the best autopilots available, I have little insight into their EFISs.

PPS I'm not so sure that I would believe a fundamental design problem can be solved by a quick software tweak.

PPPS As with everything you get what you pay for.