|
efrenken
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 265,
Visits: 3.5K
|
One improvement of the latest beta: - When flying with a traffic receiver the level of other traffic has been made bold, so it's easier to read
Thank you, Tim, I really appreciate this change. Flew yesterday and a lot of non-bearing traffic was in the air. Made life a lot easier.
Eric
|
|
|
|
|
Maverix
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 53,
Visits: 14
|
Tim,
please make the traffic text size adjustable and everbody is happy.
Kai
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Baier
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9,
Visits: 5
|
+xHi Peter B,Audio warnings are (quite rightly) the primary means of bringing conflicting traffic to our attention. These are backed up by the fact that in most instances the presence of traffic will already have been picked up during Visual Scan of the ‘instruments’ when it is further out - often well before it comes in visual range. We also already have the colour changes as the risk gets greater.We have to be careful with picking colours to ensure they are clearly visible against the background even by those who may have minor colour vision issues and care must also be taken with flashing symbols as these can induce issues such as epilepsy with anyone (pilots or passengers) who might be susceptible to this type of ailment (but might not even be aware of this).There certainly may be a case for ‘auto-enlarging’ the symbol for traffic when it turns Red, to draw attention to it, but other than that, IMO the current system works pretty well.RegardsPeter R Hi Peter, IMHO pilots with epilepsy or tendencies to this sort of ailment do not belong into the cockpit of any airplane, and having avoided an epileptic attack with my passenger but encountering a mid-air instead - what is more desirable? Look at a simple FLARM indicator in a glider: When things get rough, this little bastard screems and blinks like hell to wake you up... and that's the purpose of all of this. Maybe I am old fashioned, but when flying VFR I spend 80 to 90% of my time heads up, 5% on the map (paper) and the remaining time on instruments, displays and passenger. This was proven concept to survive 45 years in all sorts of close-to-the-ground and f**g fast speed missions - I love simple, but effective triggers which need no interpretation time, and the older I get, the more I prefer it just like that ;-) Regards Peter
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Robertson
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 48,
Visits: 140
|
Hi Peter B,
Audio warnings are (quite rightly) the primary means of bringing conflicting traffic to our attention. These are backed up by the fact that in most instances the presence of traffic will already have been picked up during Visual Scan of the ‘instruments’ when it is further out - often well before it comes in visual range. We also already have the colour changes as the risk gets greater.
We have to be careful with picking colours to ensure they are clearly visible against the background even by those who may have minor colour vision issues and care must also be taken with flashing symbols as these can induce issues such as epilepsy with anyone (pilots or passengers) who might be susceptible to this type of ailment (but might not even be aware of this).
There certainly may be a case for ‘auto-enlarging’ the symbol for traffic when it turns Red, to draw attention to it, but other than that, IMO the current system works pretty well.
Regards
Peter R
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Baier
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9,
Visits: 5
|
When flying VFR, name of the game is: Keep your damn eyeballs out of the cockpit - see and be seen! The more time we spend to find traffic on a screen, which is already cluttered with map and other data, the more this could in the end have deadly consequences. This is the reason, why professionals prefer an easy to read, one glimpse to catch traffic warning display. Therefore I still propose to have some simple mechanism to get the pilots attraction, provide a clear cut simple to interpret indication where to train the eyeballs on and how imminent the danger is. The earlier relevant warnings come, the better dangerous situations can be deconflicted. The way SD provides this service is already quite elaborated and of help, but as usual, the is room for improvement.
Therefore I propose a combination of audio alerts when conflicting traffic presents in yellow or red (should be really noisy when status changes to red), the flashing presentation of this relevant traffic on an easy to read pop-up screen (eventually HSI), which remains on top of the display until a) acknowledged by the pilot (i.e. tally-ho) in typical SD fashion or b) situation is deconflicted due to appropriate action. Your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
Maverix
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 53,
Visits: 14
|
+x@MaverixTrue, but if you need the traffic text larger (or smaller) surely the same applies to all the other text as well?As I get ever older and need stronger glasses for close work, I can see less and less need for a reduction from the default (which I have never used) and could certainly make a valid case for a greater text size increase than 150%, though we need to be careful not to get to the situation where it obstructs essential detail on the chart below. Perhaps a modest tweak to text size to allow a range of say 75% to 175% of default would be a sensible and reasonable solution. Thoughts everyone....Best RegardsPeter For me it is much more important to see the level of the foreign targets than the name of the city I am flying over....
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Robertson
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 48,
Visits: 140
|
@Maverix
True, but if you need the traffic text larger (or smaller) surely the same applies to all the other text as well?
As I get ever older and need stronger glasses for close work, I can see less and less need for a reduction from the default (which I have never used) and could certainly make a valid case for a greater text size increase than 150%, though we need to be careful not to get to the situation where it obstructs essential detail on the chart below. Perhaps a modest tweak to text size to allow a range of say 75% to 175% of default would be a sensible and reasonable solution. Thoughts everyone....
Best Regards
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
Maverix
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 53,
Visits: 14
|
+x@MaverixAs per my post above, you can already vary the text size of the traffic details between 50% and 150% of the default. Thanks for your reply. But only the text size for all details and not specific for the traffic details, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Robertson
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 48,
Visits: 140
|
@Maverix
As per my post above, you can already vary the text size of the traffic details between 50% and 150% of the default.
|
|
|
|
|
Maverix
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 53,
Visits: 14
|
I also would prefer a customizable size for the text next to targets and bearingless circles.
|
|
|
|