Love the new maps! It presents forrest/mountainous boundaries better in my view.

Strange NOTAM depiction today using 2.4.3 beta:

There doesn't seem to be any trees/woodland depicted on the new charts is this deliberate?

Hopefully you can include more VFR corridors. On the Benelux maps these are missing.

Keep up the good work!

Forests are simply not depicted any longer, on the new maps. Focus is instead given to standard terrain elevation boundaries.

Steinar, we couldn't think of a good way of saving user waypoints one by one, that would probably be quite tedious. So at the moment it's an all-or-nothing system. We're very much open to feedback on how you think this could be made even better, though.

Simon, that isn't the beta, it's just a NOTAM that has been published with an inappropriate classification. I've asked for it to be changed.

MrReallySerious, which specific VFR corridors are you referring to (can you give me a location in the AIP?)

Thanks for the feedback Tim. I like the new chart style which seems clearer.

Beta version (new chart style) looks good, I'll give it try in the air on Monday. Well done!

Hello Tim, this is the information in the Dutch AIS:

http://www.ais-netherlands.nl/aim/120809-120920/eAIP/html/index-en-GB.html

See: ENR 5.6 BIRD MIGRATION AND AREAS WITH SENSITIVE FAUNA

--

For motorised civil air traffic above the natural area Waddenzee the following applies:

• Flights below 1500 ft AGL are not allowed;
• Only when the cloud base < 1500 ft AGL or the flight visibility < 8 km, flights are allowed above 1000 ft AGL within the corridors depicted on chart ENR 6-5.3.

--

ENR 6-5.3 refers to a map depicting the VFR corridors above the Waddenzee (North of the map, to the Islands Ameland and Texel).

http://www.ais-netherlands.nl/aim/120809-120920/eAIP/html/graphics/eAIP/EH-ENR-6-5-3-A3m.pdf

Has any one tried zooming right in yet ?

My laptop with win xp and PC with win 7 locked up with the 'skydemon not responding' screen

I've rebooted each of them twice and it continues to lock up, however if I don't zoom right in everythinh is ok

Have just tried zooming in and out on the winCe 5inch unit to test it, and no problems at all with it.

HI Tim

I don't think the original charts are cluttered and prefer them to the new version; reason = original charts with terrain as shades of brown rather than green. Also prefer trees showing. Can't see why they cannot be included in the experimental version - is it because the terrain is now green?

I do like the way the airfields are now shown in 2.4.3. - excellent

Robby

Hello Steve, I am sure that that would be very good news for a lot of pilots. Thanks for that.

Very Newbytheway

DurhamTeaseAirport

Zooming issue maybe related to strange NOTAM display in earlier post? You probably made the connection already :-)

It's the big erroneous NOTAM currently being displayed over the UK. I've asked for it to be republished under a different classification, but that's all it is. Nothing to do with the beta.

Thanks MrReallySerious for the link to the PDF. It's a shame there aren't any coordinates posted for the routes.

Actually, I've realised that I'm not sure what are the actual corridors on that PDF. I thought it was that purple dotted line at first, but that's wrong. There doesn't seem to be any depiction of them in the key, either. Maybe the PDF isn't rendering right on my system.

Tim I have a simplistic query. Why are forests and trees no longer depicted in a VFR package? Having asked that I can still see green areas/patches in the sample map posted in this forum. Any idea what these areas are? Many thanks.

Very Newbytheway

DurhamTeaseAirport

I've been doing a bit of experimenting on my laptop and PC.

After rebooting and then opening SD there is no problem with zooming fully in and then scrolling, but if I put a route in which of course activates the notams then when I fully zoom in it slows the computer and then stops responding if I try to scroll.

When re-opening SD, the 'notam' for operation Greenfinch comes up on screen (even though I haven't put in a route) and when zooming fully in, SD again stops responding.

So, I agree that it looks like it's the 'notam' that's causing a problem.

A quick fix is to just switch off the 'show notams' under the 'mapping tab' and the problem goes away

I'm not a big fan of the centre points of airfields being depicted with the orientation of their runways at all zoom levels. Some of them now look like starfish. I preferred the plain simple circle

[quote]I think they are a great addition - I honestly can't see why anyone would have a problem with this!{/quote]

I think the new chart format is more pleasing to look at and gives a better feel for where the high ground is. The green colour is a a little disconcerting. I think the best answer would be to get rid of the green and recolour the lower level hills a sandy or light brown colour and bring back the forests and wooded area. They are very useful things on a chart for VFR flight.

2high2fastagain, Absolutely.
Whenever the discussion gets heated about adding various instrument options, Tim & Team resort to emphasising that SD is actually a VFR package, as their exit clause.
I wonder if we need to worry now, as the next to go would be the roads & rails, followed by whole villages and cities. We may even end up with a GPS atlas of Geology to navigate with.



Very Newbytheway

DurhamTeaseAirport

Runways, I don't think you need worry. Tim and his team are capable of writing quite exceptional software and do listen carefully to feedback. Some of their reticence over new things (which I know irritated one chap at the stand at the LAA rally) I interpret as a strategy under-promising and over-delivering (a rare treat in the IT industry). Skydemon is very good and I believe it will continue to develop without becoming a dog's breakfast. The beta discussion I think is just that.

I happen to have the same view 2high2fastagain. Indeed proudly say also that my subscription expires end 2014 (not 2013). Such is the confidence in Tim & Team and SD, that I do not rely on the CAA charts any more, since I began to use SD seriously 2 years ago. I just hope that improvements could be made without jeopardising the real fundamental requirements. Come to think of it the new map, as seen in the sample on page one of this thread, in my humble opinion is almost a hybrid between VFR & IFR maps. Perhaps this sort of map can also be added as an option keeping the original de-cluttered SD map in.

Very Newbytheway

DurhamTeaseAirport

I know what you mean. I tend to complete my planning in Skydemon and then have a look at my paper charts and draw the lines. I think I'll always carry half mil paper with me, but I only really use them to check on things in flight. For example, I'm never sure which London Information frequency to use - it tells you on the CAA half mil. I suspect this may not be necessary. Early Skydemon sometimes used to put the frequencies out of order as I recall, but I think it lines them up now.

Let me reiterate that the other SkyDemon chart style is not going anywhere. We like the white to gray to green to brown colouring for terrain as it more helpfully distinguishes between different types of terrain without taking as much visual contrast as the deep browns used in the original chart, which was based on the CAA chart and is very unsuitable for more mountainous terrain.

We're not showing tree areas in the new chart style because:

• They're not available for many countries anyway
• They slow down the drawing of the map
• When we tried showing them, we couldn't find a shade of green which stood out enough against the new green terrain colouring, which we believe is much more valuable

Yes we promote SkyDemon as a VFR product but that doesn't mean we need to show everything that's on the ground. This is a GPS, remember, and we have no intention of showing white horses, quarries, minor roads and other things like that. VFR are flight rules, not an automatic suggestion that you should be navigating from one oddly-shaped piece of woodland to the next.

As always we'll bow to the overwhelming feedback coming back, but we do intend to launch 2.4.3 configured in this way.

That is very reasonable and perfectly understandable Tim.

Having said that, may I request your opinion about the following points:

1. Could this additional layering, colouring and foliage rendering be optional for users to choose in the knowledge that their map rendering may consequently become slower?

2. Alternatively could the older as well as the newer SD maps be available for users to choose from say as SD Map1 and SD Map2...?

3. IFR maps are uncluttered with arrows and way points do not need much colouring except for black,white and (dare I say...) a Few SHADES OF GREY... ! It may be that their inclusion could prove desirable and even topical at this moment in time. Could they be considered to be incorporated into this VFR package?

4. I personally have not noticed appreciably slow map refreshing or rendering. (added 2nd Oct. 2012)

Very Newbytheway

DurhamTeaseAirport

Tim, regarding the waypoints, I dont know how prograaming works, but the way routes work is good. If I should ask for even more refinement, a sync function like Dropbox would be on the top of the list. Meaning, if you update on one device it will automatically update on the others, leaving the clouding transparent. Dont know what practical issues this might introduce though.

Nevertheless, not worrying about white horses, good work :-)

I went flying today using the beta version and can report that it performed without fault.

I would like to know though if the depiction of the chosen runway when approaching the destination airfield has changed? It is probably me, but it didn't seem to stand out very well, it seemed quite faint. Apart from that, all is well. Keep up the good work

I don't think we've changed the way the chosen runway is depicted at all.

That is alright so long as terrain colours are intuitive. That is unless I am on a totally different track!

Very Newbytheway

DurhamTeaseAirport