We've been investing heavily in our charting for the last three years or so, and virtually NONE of that effort has made it into the old chart styles that were designed (as I mentioned above) to kind of loosely mimic national printed charts. That would require us to duplicate the effort for each style, and in doing so we'd void the purpose of those styles as they would no longer fulfil their original function.

The UK CAA chart style has been removed in the forthcoming version of SkyDemon.

Well that would be a great shame.....as you say....no one style is perfect.

I actually think the answer is for us to get rid of that chart style (and in time, many of the others). At the time it was created it was designed to help people move away from the CAA chart by having similar colours and line styles. Clearly, it has also raised unintended expectations regarding symbology and presence of certain details. I wouldn't expect it to survive much longer, as the main chart style contains a large amount of functionality that people don't even know they're missing when they switch to one of the ones, like the CAA style, that were only designed to ease people away from printed charts.

Well actually I didn't think I wasn’t just pointing out differences and I’m certainly not trying to cause offense.

What I wrote was ONLY in the context of the CAA style that renders your vector graphics. I can only assume, from its name, that the intention was to get us somewhere close to the general appearance look of the paper chart. I think it does that very well but I highlighted some areas where I feel the visual clarity could be improved.....but perhaps it can't.

I am not, unlike many microlight pilots I've seen posting in various threads, asking for more ground features to be depicted.  Though I can’t see the objection if users can choose to display it or not through a filter.  I do think if you’re going to show ground features of a particular category then you should and not pick what 'appears' to be a random sub-set. If you not going to show all villages and hamlets below 1km2 then personally I’d rather have the ability to turn them all off and just leave urban areas visible. More ability to filter what features you show surely wouldn’t harm anyone or make you product less desirable?

Of course I’m not suggesting you carefully place the locations of the labels cartographically and I can see that you'll potentially have bigger issue if text was placed at the centroid of an area. Even you must agree that this colour text on the same colour hatch without any kind of masking is not legible, and zooming in doesn't always help as the text flies off and appears against a different line.


Some of the symbology within the CAA chart style could be to adjusted. Clearly you've no intention of doing that which is what I expected and why I thought the idea giving users the ability to create and edit chart styles didn't seem so ridiculous.

Sorry, this is never going to happen.

No chart is perfect and different chart styles suit different people. Pointing out there are differences between two charts is interesting but not really productive, as we do not seek to emulate any particular printed chart. The fact that SkyDemon charts tend to lack lots of "scenery" detail compared to many printed charts is very much deliberate. It's the aeronautical features we emphasize in SkyDemon and on many occasions our charts have been proved to show correct information whereas printed charts (which are out of date by the time you can even purchase them) are sadly lacking in this respect. It is the nature of vector charts that labels are not cartographically and individually placed.

I've just noticed on this point that the behavior is different on phone, tablet and PC.  I would have expected (from users perspective) that the information on the chart at the same relative level of zoom would be the same.  font size and screen size are obvious difference but then the Oldbury on Severn and Bowldown text appears to be the same relative size on the chart on tablet and PC and the Bowldown on phone appears int he same place and size so it look like the same information COULD fit and be displayed in the same positions.

Just picking this one up again as I'd just seen a post about it on facebook and read these comments “Our charts are much more accurate than the CAA chart” and “a zoomed-in CAA chart would not be helpful as it doesn't have that kind of resolution.”

I’m not sure the Skydemon chart zooms that well as thevector lines have pretty poor resolution and, to keep performance up, fewer ground features are depicted. The reasons are understandable and I like the Skydemon chart but I think there is a tendency to be a little dismissive of the use of the CAA charts. Runway HD seems to do alright offering the CAA 1:500kchart as a separate map subscription. If only it was available on Android!

The Skydemon chart may be “more accurate” but not necessarily as clear in every aspect. While it’s true that its generally less cluttered and has better contrast (well perhaps the SD styles) there are areas where things could be improved for the Skydemon chart in CAA style....

Airspace step-downs are not as clear.  The CAA chart visually highlights which sideof the intermediate line is within controlled airspace.

Airspace is not shown as clearly in some parts of the country.  It may be accurate but the chart appears cluttered. Particularly for class A between Birmingham and Brize.  OK you can hide features above but if you’re trying to get Skydemon CAA style chart to depict something like the CAA chart you end up with a mess or red lines. Only the external extents of the class A is relevant on a VFR chart.  The line separating M605 from Daventry CTA is not necessary.

Reducing the airspace removal level to say 6500 yields some surprising differences between CAA and Skydemon as to what is in or out of class A. One may be more accurate than the other but they're different and surely there shouldn't be.

Airfield name text size / placement could be improved at 1:500k. Its interesting zooming in and seeing which labels seem to stop other labels showing.  At 750k Fairford (military and not open to us civil VFR types) seems to block Kemble but at 500k Down Ampney (disused) blocks Fairford.  Whats the logic for which has priority?

Not all danger / restricted areas are named and the larger areas like D123 are not named as clearly in that the name follows an edge instead of being clearly within the area. This is made worse when smaller text is obliterated by the boundary hatching. This is less apparent in the Skydemon style because of color contrast.  Perhaps a bold font in the CAA style would help.

Masts / Lit Masts symbols not as clear.

VRP naming not as clear

Motorways not named and service stations junctions are not clearly shown.  This could be an optional layer under terrain features.

Fewer villages and hamlets shown. Have an option turn show /hide villages  and hamlets less that 1km2if necessary but currently which yellow circles are shown seems to be a bit random.

Fewer roads and water courses shown.   Again,could be an option to show minor roads or when zoomed in to equivalent of say the 1/4mil chart (personally not that fussed about this).

Some towns and large villages not named. Which ones are not named does not appear to be connected to size or level of zoom.

The visual contrast of wooded areas is not as clear.  The shade of green needs adjusting or perhaps edge in a slightly darker shade.


How about a user customizable chart style??

People who think VFR flight is not a 'follow the needle' activity, would like to have a detailed digital map or paper printout or JPG made by few clicks after route set up. That could be done in PC version only and keep tablet/mobile versions as we like them - responsive, reliable. The maps in PC version could be an option to be paid for.

Okay, but as customer feedback my preference is for a complete NATS chart option...in SkyDemon.

If you want an exact replica of the NATS 1:500k chart, I would suggest you use an app that is designed to display the NATS 1:500k chart.