My Attempt at a $115 ADS-B Receiver Build for Foreflight

denverpilot said:
Can only play that game so much... Flight path may change, all someone has to do is yank and/or bank.

John Collins here might know if they play any "predictive" algorithm games with the data, but I suspect you have the above problem and also the problem that any algorithm doing any guessing, takes some finite amount of time to do that also, making the output worse, rather than better.

But it's an interesting engineering problem if you work there, I guess. If the whole thing weren't mostly a huge money-based and fake security boondoggle anyway...
Click to expand...

The odds that the target would be performing such a radical high-G maneuver (like a missing or broken tail) that would throw off a basic first or second order prediction by a noticeable amount are extremely remote. And I doubt the software prediction would take any appreciable delay, but if so, that could be corrected for too. But would certainly be interesting to hear John's input.
 
ircphoenix said:
Oh yeah? Well YOU'RE dumb. :p

Also...

640
Click to expand...


Haha!
5OkWVRR.gif
 
RotorDude said:
The odds that the target would be performing such a radical high-G maneuver (like a missing or broken tail) that would throw off a basic first or second order prediction by a noticeable amount are extremely remote. And I doubt the software prediction would take any appreciable delay, but if so, that could be corrected for too. But would certainly be interesting to hear John's input.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about radical high-G? A standard rate turn places the prediction at the wrong place by 3 degrees per second for every second of delay from that entire chain of events that has to occur for a 978 to 978 target. Target speeds vary so the distance could be quite significant.

Which is why I seriously doubt they're doing any path prediction.

Of course now we have hard evidence in a different thread that someone with ADS-B Out has confirmed they're not seeing real targets, so there's the baseline that already needs repair anyway.

There's no reasonable reason in a safety system that needs or enforces the Out mandate to share all targets in the coverage area of the 978 transmitter. Zero. That's called: Designed to fail.
 
denverpilot said:
Who said anything about radical high-G? A standard rate turn places the prediction at the wrong place by 3 degrees per second for every second of delay from that entire chain of events that has to occur for a 978 to 978 target. Target speeds vary so the distance could be quite significant.

Which is why I seriously doubt they're doing any path prediction.

Of course now we have hard evidence in a different thread that someone with ADS-B Out has confirmed they're not seeing real targets, so there's the baseline that already needs repair anyway.

There's no reasonable reason in a safety system that needs or enforces the Out mandate to share all targets in the coverage area of the 978 transmitter. Zero. That's called: Designed to fail.
Click to expand...

I thought the alleged reason for that was the "unreported" aircraft didn't have (or at least assumed to not have) a mode C ? Granted, I skimmed through the series of posts.
 
vkhosid said:
I thought the alleged reason for that was the "unreported" aircraft didn't have (or at least assumed to not have) a mode C ? Granted, I skimmed through the series of posts.
Click to expand...

Don't know what altitude filtering they do, but the GPS altitude is available in the NEMA stream. It can be corrected for pressure plenty close enough for a traffic warning -- assuming Out is sending it down in the first place, which I don't know. But it'd be stupid if it wasn't. (Stupid as it relates to this overall system, isn't much of a surprise at this point, so ... )
 
0.9.1b dropped.
 
vkhosid said:
What are the changes? (I'm too lazy to look) :)
Click to expand...


https://github.com/cyoung/stratux/releases

  • Logging changes.
  • hostapd manager script (change SSID at command line, etc).
  • Fix Geometric Ownship Altitude overflow.
  • WebUI improvements: distance/bearing to traffic (when GPS enabled), reboot button fixes.
  • Stability fixes.
  • Updated Raspberry Pi firmware (with bugfixes) in image.
 
By the by, for anyone not following along on Slack, it seems like there's preliminary code written for AHRS functionality. Looks like they're looking for people to give it a test run. So if you've got the RY836 chip (or even the RY835), and need an excuse to go flying, I'm sure they'd be interested in your findings.
 
My Stratux setup, which used to work great, no longer talks to Foreflight. The network shows it's connected and the Stratux app shows it's working as well- the info just doesn't show on Foreflight.

Wondering if Foreflight updates might be blocking?
 
AcroBoy said:
My Stratux setup, which used to work great, no longer talks to Foreflight. The network shows it's connected and the Stratux app shows it's working as well- the info just doesn't show on Foreflight.

Wondering if Foreflight updates might be blocking?
Click to expand...
They've done it once already to break functionality. Wouldn't surprise me if they make constant changes to be certain only their Stratus works with Foreflight.
 
Then just switch to Android. AvNav is great for $7.99/month, stratux ready!!

By far.....the best Android solution.
 
If you have AHRS installed, switch it off via th webUI
 
kgruber said:
I still haven't figured out how to do a flight plan with Avare. Maybe you can. How about all the waypoints on this route...

KBFI SEA V23 LAX KSMO
Click to expand...
I haven't used it yet, student pilot here, but I just entered that into avare and it didn't like the v23, I took that out and it created the plan. It seems clunky but the price is right.

edit: actually it does take the v23, I thought it was an error, but it plugs it in as tons of gps coordinates in 5 to 20 miles increments. again, clunky

If you want to try it, i just typed it in on the plan tab, in the 'create new plan' text box just like this:
KBFI SEA V23 LAX KSMO

If you're not in GPS range, you can put it in 'simulate' mode vs. 'navigate' and it won't care that it can't get a signal.
 
Last edited:
That is what I also came up with. Avare is free, but it doesn't do flight plans.

AvNav is $7.99/mo, but is worth every penny.

Screenshot_2016-06-23-12-34-42_zpsspq1ftft.png
 
Avare does them, for your example though I don't know how usable it is:
Screenshot_2016-06-23-16-34-38.png
 
avare also will create or retrieve filed plans from wxbrief and activate them, close them, if you have internet. I have done that.
 
But what Avare won't do is name the waypoints. So that it impossible to load up the ubiquitous Garmin 430W with a simple flight plan.

One would think creating a flight plan would be the number 1 reason to even have an EFB!
 
kgruber said:
But what Avare won't do is name the waypoints. So that it impossible to load up the ubiquitous Garmin 430W with a simple flight plan.

One would think creating a flight plan would be the number 1 reason to even have an EFB!
Click to expand...
Yea, I think if you had a simpler plan it would work, where you could input the waypoints individually. Its like the 430 it wants the waypoints named

side note, you inspired me to figure out how to take a screenshot on my android phone, thanks! volume down/power for 2 seconds, who knew.
 
Last edited:
I have been using the second generation DMurray high gain antennas and am now linking them on the build guide at www.Stratux.co

The DMurray high gain antennas perform much better than the Digi-Key ANT-916-CW-HWR-SMA-ND antenna I used previously. Although I found the DigiKey to work fine, the DMurray high gain picks up more towers and a stronger signal in 978, and more traffic with the 1090.
 
Well, is there a fix or have others seen Stratux not work with Foreflight?
 
Scrabo said:
How is it any different from the ones we all build ?
Click to expand...

The difference is that the ADSBIN is made with officially supported Stratux hardware and software. All of our parts are made for and by the developers and hardware engineers for the Stratux project. Additionally, they are completely built and tested, ready to fly. Other than that, they are pretty similar. :)
(Plus, with the DIY version, by the time you add everything up, including your time, I assure you that you can have a completely built ADSBIN for the same cost or less and your supporting the creators!)

http://www.thesquawkshoppe.com/products/adsbin-efb-receiver

IMG_2552_1.JPG
 
Last edited:
I'm looking for a case for mine. I bought all the components quite a while ago including the GPS thingy (I say "thingy" because I don't know jack about electronic stuff) A buddy of mine just put his together using the clear version of the case above. I don't think my stuff will fit because I have different "dongles" and the aforementioned GPS thingy.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I'm looking for a case for mine. I bought all the components quite a while ago including the GPS thingy (I say "thingy" because I don't know jack about electronic stuff) A buddy of mine just put his together using the clear version of the case above. I don't think my stuff will fit because I have different "dongles" and the aforementioned GPS thingy.
Click to expand...

Using such technical speak, what thingy do you have? Is it the thingy that connects to the do-dads via USB, or soldering? if its the USB thingy, did it come with a long cable that lets you mount it remotely? Or the thingy that came in a white-ish plastic case?

To use layman's terms, the USB thingy with the long cord is the VK162, without the long cord, its the VK172...the completely different "soldered to the RasPi" thingy is the RYxxx GPS/AHRS chipset.
 
AcroBoy said:
My Stratux setup, which used to work great, no longer talks to Foreflight. The network shows it's connected and the Stratux app shows it's working as well- the info just doesn't show on Foreflight.

Wondering if Foreflight updates might be blocking?
Click to expand...

AcroBoy said:
Well, is there a fix or have others seen Stratux not work with Foreflight?
Click to expand...

I think you missed the reply that someone gave that said go into the web UI and turn off AHRS.

If you send AHRS data from Stratux to Foreflight, Foreflight becomes instantly allergic to all of the data now.

Long discussions about why and various excuses and stories between stratux people and Foreflight people are available via Google search.

Still works fine with weather and traffic data. Just don't send any AHRS data to Foreflight. GPS data should be okay too.
 
The official FF response was...

"The simultaneous feeding of data to both our operational use and flight simulator use ports was undesirable (unexpected, untested, and not a priority for us to debug, harden, and ultimately support at this time), as was the injection of Stratux AHRS data for operational use. We know what we get at this point with the Stratus 2 and FlightStream AHRS - both Appareo and Garmin have years of experience building certified inertial systems. Lots of time and testing is invested in getting that performance really dialed in, and other priorities are at the top of the stack currently.

Ultimately, we do want the final say in what data gets injected into ForeFlight, as we are liable for it."


I assume if they are liable for it, the ambulance chasing aviation attorneys will go after them should someone have an accident/incident and there was a Stratus onboard.
 
Scrabo said:
The official FF response was...

"The simultaneous feeding of data to both our operational use and flight simulator use ports was undesirable (unexpected, untested, and not a priority for us to debug, harden, and ultimately support at this time), as was the injection of Stratux AHRS data for operational use. We know what we get at this point with the Stratus 2 and FlightStream AHRS - both Appareo and Garmin have years of experience building certified inertial systems. Lots of time and testing is invested in getting that performance really dialed in, and other priorities are at the top of the stack currently.

Ultimately, we do want the final say in what data gets injected into ForeFlight, as we are liable for it."

I assume if they are liable for it, the ambulance chasing aviation attorneys will go after them should someone have an accident/incident and there was a Stratus onboard.
Click to expand...

I knew what they said, but figured it's all available via Google search these days for anyone who missed it.

It's garbage in from an external source that's well documented as experimental. They're not liable for it in any way. Displaying garbage is just displaying garbage. No more liable for that than liable for a failed chip in any other devices. No configuration of iPad + Foreflight is certified for any of it.

Aren't going to be any extra ambulance chasing attorneys showing up because of an experimental box. They'll all be there with their hands out, from day one, and the iPad wouldn't even need to be on board. LOL.

You also meant to say Stratux. Stratus is a completely different thing.
 
No I meant Stratus, the $800+ closed environment offering. They would be liable for both sides of the solution.

I posted the actual wording from Tyson as Google search can return threads about people talking about it and not the full BS explanation.
 
I got a guy to 3D print a thingy that my other thingies will fit into. So hopefully, I'm good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top