|
rv8ch
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 36,
Visits: 49
|
+x+x+xIn my corner of Europe, I can barely get a single MET update via 3G above 2500ft. 4G disappears lower than that. If you really want live trafic in the plane, get a SkyEcho. In flight, the skyecho is fine, even if it "only" shows ADS-B and FLARM. For looking at traffic at a far away place on the ground, it's not too useful.
My use case is from time to time I'd like to see the traffic flows around a destination airport during my flight planning phase, on the ground. True, I can do this another way, but I did get used to this when using FF, and having now switched to SD, I wondered if it was possible to add this feature. If not, not a huge problem. Just asking. open your FlightRadar24 app? Good suggestion!
|
|
|
|
|
Adam Erchegyi
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 89,
Visits: 2.2K
|
+x+xIn my corner of Europe, I can barely get a single MET update via 3G above 2500ft. 4G disappears lower than that. If you really want live trafic in the plane, get a SkyEcho. In flight, the skyecho is fine, even if it "only" shows ADS-B and FLARM. For looking at traffic at a far away place on the ground, it's not too useful.
My use case is from time to time I'd like to see the traffic flows around a destination airport during my flight planning phase, on the ground. True, I can do this another way, but I did get used to this when using FF, and having now switched to SD, I wondered if it was possible to add this feature. If not, not a huge problem. Just asking. open your FlightRadar24 app?
|
|
|
|
|
rv8ch
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 36,
Visits: 49
|
+xIn my corner of Europe, I can barely get a single MET update via 3G above 2500ft. 4G disappears lower than that. If you really want live trafic in the plane, get a SkyEcho. In flight, the skyecho is fine, even if it "only" shows ADS-B and FLARM. For looking at traffic at a far away place on the ground, it's not too useful.
My use case is from time to time I'd like to see the traffic flows around a destination airport during my flight planning phase, on the ground. True, I can do this another way, but I did get used to this when using FF, and having now switched to SD, I wondered if it was possible to add this feature. If not, not a huge problem. Just asking.
|
|
|
|
|
ArnaudC
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 69,
Visits: 108
|
In my corner of Europe, I can barely get a single MET update via 3G above 2500ft. 4G disappears lower than that.
If you really want live trafic in the plane, get a SkyEcho.
|
|
|
|
|
177
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 72,
Visits: 757
|
+xI am not a friend of exposing PIC to heavy traffic surveillance data instead of the anti collision needed for safe piloting. Most of the data from SafeSky is absolutely irrelevant for executing the flight and I don‘t see the GDPDR issue solved. My personal observations show that SafeSky doesn't display all the traffic from FlightRadar24 (around 20% at a particular timeframe and area) compared to https://live.safesky.app with two monitors working side-by-side. I also didn't find any changes in aircraft position, as they claim to use some faster data protocol with no delays. Just exactly the same picture, but with less traffic.
I also would love to see internet traffic without 3rd party software. 4G has very good coverage and is working well up to 2-3 km altitudes. Just place a warning that data may be inaccurate, and it's up to an end-user if they wish to take advantage of it.
|
|
|
|
|
rv8ch
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 36,
Visits: 49
|
+xWould you care to expand on its usefulness? Hi Tim, one use case is to look at how the traffic flows around an airport I don't know very well.
|
|
|
|
|
BJS
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 47,
Visits: 149
|
I am not a friend of exposing PIC to heavy traffic surveillance data instead of the anti collision needed for safe piloting. Most of the data from SafeSky is absolutely irrelevant for executing the flight and I don‘t see the GDPDR issue solved.
|
|
|
|
|
TouchTheSky
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 151,
Visits: 4.1K
|
Let's be clear, SafeSky should ideally be considered to complement other sources of traffic avoidance, e.g. Stratux or SE2 - this has been implemented in the v2.0 release from earlier this week after many months of joint development between the Stratux developers (including myself) and the SafeSky team. You can test the result by enabling "show traffic source in call sign" on both Stratux and SafeSky - ADSB Stratux traffic will be labeled with "es..." and SafeSky traffic with "ss..." on SkyDemon. But even without a dedicated hardware like Stratux od SE2, SafeSky is a good alternative when transitioning after takeoff to FIS (as Daniel posted above) because at least for a few thousand feet AGL there is quite reliable mobile reception.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel_KDF
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 57,
Visits: 396
|
I would find this feature also quite useful in flight, if implemented in the right way (good selection of sources; use of timestamps to detect outdated data). SafeSky does this, but it is a bit quirky to set up and requires an extra subscription. Most of the unknown traffic I encounter is low (e.g. traffic circuit) so mobile reception is a non-issue. Once I am at an altitude where I do not have mobile data any more, I am on a radar or FIS frequency receiving traffic information anyways. And before I hear this argument again: I do not care about 1-2 seconds of delay due to internet, because I just want to know that there is some traffic to look out for. I do not need the exact position on my moving map.
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Dawson
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7.8K,
Visits: 8.5K
|
Would you care to expand on its usefulness?
|
|
|
|