Synthetic Vision, in Two Pictures

[Sac Arrow]

I've been playing around with SV on the Ipad. Over flat land, it doesn't do much for you other than maybe to help spot hard to spot airports. In the mountains, it could be a game changer. It won't help you find a safe landing spot, but it could help you avoid flying in to a box canyon, or dangerously close to terrain.

 

[narchee]

Someone here was questioning the utility of SV in a VFR airplane.

This was the view out the front window today. Conditions were "skies clear, 10 miles visibility":

This was the view in my GRT Avionics EFIS, with synthetic vision:

Any questions?

Edit: Check the 46 knot quartering headwind! lol

Well I have a question. How come the coast that you can see in the real view on the right is not visible in the synthetic view? Those two views don't seem to be in sync? I mean it is real pretty for sure but is it accurate?

 

[Henning]

Well I have a question. How come the coast that you can see in the real view on the right is not visible in the synthetic view? Those two views don't seem to be in sync? I mean it is real pretty for sure but is it accurate?

You're confusing the lakes for the coast. It's the coast in the upper picture you can't really make out.

 

[nauga]

Synthetic viz in VMC...In one picture you see what's outside. In the other you see what the display manufacturer thought was important enough to show you. I'll save comments on the particulars of this display for another thread

Nauga,
who would rather have a HUD and moving map

 

[narchee]

You're confusing the lakes for the coast. It's the coast in the upper picture you can't really make out.

Coast, lake, I don't know. All I do know is that the real image show a large body of water to the right and the synthetic vision image only shows a much smaller minor body of water.

I've never been particularly impressed by those displays. Those graphics are quite crappy and I'd hate to have to rely on that.

 

[Geico266]

I've flown an 8. Flies like any other plane.

You've rode in an -8 then.

 

[EdFred]

You've rode in an -8 then.

No. I've FLOWN an 8. Falls between the Extra 300 and a Grumman Tiger.

Try reading. It helps.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Does it show traffic? no

Actually, if there is ADS-B traffic detected, it will show the target in the synthetic vision window, with a box around it.

 

[Jay Honeck]

*sigh*

I've now been flying long enough to have seen this scenario repeated several times. It goes like this:

1. Avionics makers invent something cool.
2. Old pilots poo-poo it as being unnecessary
3. It soon becomes standard equipment.

Embrace the future, boys! SV is here, and it is wonderful.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Synthetic viz in VMC...In one picture you see what's outside. In the other you see what the display manufacturer thought was important enough to show you. I'll save comments on the particulars of this display for another thread

Nauga,
who would rather have a HUD and moving map

That's right, it isn't intended to be a photo realistic display, rather an informative display. The Foreflight SV is color coded for altitude and proximity to terrain, so on on or close to the ground everything looks red, like the martian landscape, transitioning to yellow and then to green.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Synthetic viz in VMC...In one picture you see what's outside. In the other you see what the display manufacturer thought was important enough to show you. I'll save comments on the particulars of this display for another thread

Nauga,
who would rather have a HUD and moving map

Could you find an airport looking out the window in the conditions depicted? I sure couldn't.

Had I been forced to rely on my eyes for that task, we would have been forced down into the hot, bumpy, more crowded air at 1500', rather than floating in cool, calm (despite the howling wind) conditions up high(er).

It was so hazy that there were times in the climb that we were in what I call "faux VFR", meaning that my sense of horizon was diminished. I have flown in such conditions before where, due to sun conditions, I was entirely on instruments, even though it was perfectly legal VFR.

With synthetic vision you have what amounts to a window to the world that has been scrubbed clean of clouds, haze, and darkness. What is displayed -- rivers, shorelines, airports, terrain -- is sufficient to find landmarks. Better yet, that giant horizon line bisecting the screen makes keeping the shiny side up easy.

SV is, IMHO, the greatest flight safety enhancement since on-board weather. After 13 months of flying with SV, I can say conclusively that it has been worth what I paid for it.

 

[Velocity173]

Of course I can't speak for everyone but I can say that in the Colorado Pilot's Association mountain flying training they teach folks not to go into the mountains at night with single engine aircraft.

Do people do it? yes, pros and amatures both
Could SVT help? maybe, personally I don't believe enough detail is displayed to make much of a difference but the level and quality of the detail likely varies with each different SVT manufacturer's system. The Aspen really isn't that great of an SVT.

I'd agree, flying single pilot VFR through the mountainous at night isn't something I'd do as a hobby. But if you must, as in my line of work, NVGs make it doable.

As far as detail, I'm not sure it's of much value except for indicating water and terrain. As you can see it shows terrain but there are roads, buildings, open fields, etc. that are left out. Not that any of this matters VFR because like I said, I can already see this stuff by looking outside. The moving map to the left gets more of my scan than the SVT. I actually prefer the traffic depiction on that over SVT as well.

While "cool" it has very little utility in my world. I fly analog helos on work overs and I can perform the mission just as well without the bells and whistles. The aircraft has more than enough instrumentation to do the task safely. I also found it still flys the same speed and hauls the same load.:wink2:

 

[Anthony]

It was so hazy that there were times in the climb that we were in what I call "faux VFR", meaning that my sense of horizon was diminished. I have flown in such conditions before where, due to sun conditions, I was entirely on instruments, even though it was perfectly legal VFR.

I have encountered these types of conditions in legal VFR a lot in the summer. Flying out of London, KY a few years ago in July, the minute I was airborn, I couldn't see a thing. Total white out with what looked to me like thick fog whizzing past the windscreen diagonally. Of course my brain was telling me to turn, but I stayed totally on the instruments up past 8,000 ft, where it was less hazy.

With synthetic vision you have what amounts to a window to the world that has been scrubbed clean of clouds, haze, and darkness. What is displayed -- rivers, shorelines, airports, terrain -- is sufficient to find landmarks. Better yet, that giant horizon line bisecting the screen makes keeping the shiny side up easy.

SV is, IMHO, the greatest flight safety enhancement since on-board weather. After 13 months of flying with SV, I can say conclusively that it has been worth what I paid for it.

I could see this as being a good tool in those types of conditions that while legal, are just damn uncomfortable.

 

[Stewartb]

Legal VFR in my world is 1 mile vis and clear of clouds. Go stick your nose into a pass and having an extra set of "eyes" is pretty nice if only to validate what you already know. If you don't want it? Don't buy it. If you want it? Enjoy it. I do.

 

[James331]

Any pilot who doesn't see the benefit to SV must not fly very often.

I'm a very old school type person when it comes to pilotage, I learnt I fly in a plane without a electrical system, that said if I has a RV or glasair or the like, you bet I would have a glass SV panel in it.

The only time I would recommend NOT using it, is for instrument and PPL students, for them I'd recommend a VERY basic 6 pack with no moving map for IFR, and a zero electrical system plane for a PPL.

 

[BigBadLou]

Actually, if there is ADS-B traffic detected, it will show the target in the synthetic vision window, with a box around it.

Didn't know that. Thanks for the info!

 

[steingar]

Any pilot who doesn't see the benefit to SV must not fly very often.

I never said there was no benefit! But if I'm in a gorgeous airplane like Jay's with that kind of view, the last thing I want to blow money on is some gee whiz gizmo on the dash to do something my eyes in combination with a cheap aviation GPS can do easily. Can't spot the airport? Big surprise, the thing is 7 miles off and you've only 5 of visibility! So what? That's where the GPS comes in, and its enough to maintain what situational awareness I need. The rest comes from my Mark II's.

I'd rather a gee-gaw to make the airplane faster, or a smoke system, or just avgas to fly that much more.

That said, is it a bad thing? Of course not! No amount of information is bad, so long as you can manage it all and the job of being a pilot. But I honestly don't think Jay even thinks its that important. He did without for many, many years. Jay is a gadget guy, he got all drooly for a nice box he could put in his spanky airplane. That's his thing, and I shouldn't denigrate it even one iota just because I move a different way. We're just a bit different in this respect, and there's nothing wrong with that either.

 

[narchee]

Any pilot who doesn't see the benefit to SV must not fly very often.

So I pointed out a clear discrepancy in Jay's images that he posted between the real image and the SV image, and that doesn't bother you? If you're one of those pilots relying on that I hope to not be one of your passengers any time soon...

 

[Bob Noel]

So I pointed out a clear discrepancy in Jay's images that he posted between the real image and the SV image, and that doesn't bother you? If you're one of those pilots relying on that I hope to not be one of your passengers any time soon...

just a thought: how close together in time were the two pictures taken?

 

[nauga]

That's right, it isn't intended to be a photo realistic display, rather an informative display...

Intent and implementation can sometimes be very different things

edit: One of the first things I invariably have to ask when I'm faced with yet another SV display is, "Where's the declutter switch?"

Nauga,
with TMI on the HMI.

 

[exncsurfer]

So I pointed out a clear discrepancy in Jay's images that he posted between the real image and the SV image, and that doesn't bother you? If you're one of those pilots relying on that I hope to not be one of your passengers any time soon...

I think the problem you are pointing out is just a matter of knowing the scale and field of view depicted on the display as compared to the real view. The small water you see on the display is the big water you see out the window. If you took the field of view of the photo and drew a square on the SV display, it would be a smallish square in the center.(I'm guessing here, Jay could confirm).

 

[James331]

I never said there was no benefit! But if I'm in a gorgeous airplane like Jay's with that kind of view, the last thing I want to blow money on is some gee whiz gizmo on the dash to do something my eyes in combination with a cheap aviation GPS can do easily. Can't spot the airport? Big surprise, the thing is 7 miles off and you've only 5 of visibility! So what? That's where the GPS comes in, and its enough to maintain what situational awareness I need. The rest comes from my Mark II's.

I'd rather a gee-gaw to make the airplane faster, or a smoke system, or just avgas to fly that much more.

That said, is it a bad thing? Of course not! No amount of information is bad, so long as you can manage it all and the job of being a pilot. But I honestly don't think Jay even thinks its that important. He did without for many, many years. Jay is a gadget guy, he got all drooly for a nice box he could put in his spanky airplane. That's his thing, and I shouldn't denigrate it even one iota just because I move a different way. We're just a bit different in this respect, and there's nothing wrong with that either.

I hear ya, but with a experimental the cost diffence when building, it's dumb to not just go full SV glass.

I do mostly VFR and MVFR flying in my plane, I have a very nice avionics suite, just because I'm rigged to be able to fly from just my panel doesn't mean that's how I fly when I'm visual.

Often I'll just dial my 430 to the nearest airport with go juice, set my EHSI secondary RMI to nav 2, 530 to my destination, EHSI primary RMI to nav 1, 95% eyeballs outside enjoying the view from 500-1k AGL

 

[narchee]

I think the problem you are pointing out is just a matter of knowing the scale and field of view depicted on the display as compared to the real view. The small water you see on the display is the big water you see out the window. If you took the field of view of the photo and drew a square on the SV display, it would be a smallish square in the center.(I'm guessing here, Jay could confirm).

Not picking on Jay here. In general the synthetic vision images I've seen are pretty unimpressive. To me it is far more useful having a moving map with color coding for terrain and obstacles. I've yet to see a synthetic vision image that is even remotely realistic and yes I've flown with them in the mountains. It's like the graphics technology is stuck in some period several decades ago. WTF. There is no excuse for not having REAL synthetic vision images that are more realistic in the meantime I'm totally unimpressed with what is out there and worry about pilots who rely on the current very poor SV images.

 

[MAKG1]

Why would you want realistic? In IMC, realistic is a white screen.

Nature often uses a poor choice of color. The point is not to make a movie, but to get information across in an efficient manner.

If you must depend on a synthetic display for what you can see out the window, at least add some information to it. A common choice is color coding by absolute altitude.

 

[narchee]

Why would you want realistic? In IMC, realistic is a white screen.

Synthetic vision should be defined to be what the landscape would look like WITHOUT weather. In other words, it is supposed to depict the landscape in perfect VFR conditions.

 

[MAKG1]

Synthetic vision should be defined to be what the landscape would look like WITHOUT weather. In other words, it is supposed to depict the landscape in perfect VFR conditions.

That's still suboptimal.

Realism also means anything smaller than a pixel -- like that airplane coming at you or that 1500 foot TV tower -- is not represented.

Some airports are hard to spot even in perfect conditions. Why would you want to limit yourself to "realistic" contrast?

 

[Henning]

Not picking on Jay here. In general the synthetic vision images I've seen are pretty unimpressive. To me it is far more useful having a moving map with color coding for terrain and obstacles. I've yet to see a synthetic vision image that is even remotely realistic and yes I've flown with them in the mountains. It's like the graphics technology is stuck in some period several decades ago. WTF. There is no excuse for not having REAL synthetic vision images that are more realistic in the meantime I'm totally unimpressed with what is out there and worry about pilots who rely on the current very poor SV images.

The mapping is from the data garnered by the Space Shuttle a couple of decades ago.

 

[narchee]

That's still suboptimal.

Realism also means anything smaller than a pixel -- like that airplane coming at you or that 1500 foot TV tower -- is not represented.

Some airports are hard to spot even in perfect conditions. Why would you want to limit yourself to "realistic" contrast?

Well like I said earlier you get all that extra information you mention from a moving map with the airports, obstacles and also terrain overlaid. "Synthetic vision" just gives you a very poor 1980's quality rendering of the landscape.

 

[Shepherd]

Looked like LI today. SV is a great tool to have.

It really was crap out on LI today, wasn't it? I flew out to make a couple of "gun passes" at the Tall Ships in Greenport Harbor, then on to Block Island for something to eat. Flew around an ugly cell just a little south of DXR on the way home.
I haven't processed the "gun camera" video yet. Hopefully something is worth keeping.

 

[Shepherd]

Well like I said earlier you get all that extra information you mention from a moving map with the airports, obstacles and also terrain overlaid. "Synthetic vision" just gives you a very poor 1980's quality rendering of the landscape.

As opposed to an even worse quality rendering, which is what eyeballs were good for today.
I'm for any tool that makes the job easier and safer.
I predict that eventually, synthetic vision will make some current IFR practices obsolete. You will be able to "see" all the way to the ground in any conditions.

 

[Jay Honeck]

So I pointed out a clear discrepancy in Jay's images that he posted between the real image and the SV image, and that doesn't bother you? If you're one of those pilots relying on that I hope to not be one of your passengers any time soon...

Relax. Breathe deep. Odds are pretty good that I took the pix several minutes apart. Or the lake on the right has swelled due to all the rain and flooding. Or your eyes are deceiving you. It was pretty hazy, you know... lol

I can vouch for the fact that the synthetic and real worlds match when it comes to thing that don't change -- like oceans, airports, towers, rivers, hills and mountains.

 

[txflyer]

You can put SVT in an experimental for less than I can buy a set of Bushwheel's so why wouldn't you?

I've flown with SVT and like it.

If you want to be a purist, then you shouldn't even have a tailwheel. Just a skid and no brakes.

 

[jordane93]

It really was crap out on LI today, wasn't it? I flew out to make a couple of "gun passes" at the Tall Ships in Greenport Harbor, then on to Block Island for something to eat. Flew around an ugly cell just a little south of DXR on the way home.
I haven't processed the "gun camera" video yet. Hopefully something is worth keeping.

Yea it cleared up a little in the afternoon but it was still pretty bad.

 

[narchee]

Relax. Breathe deep. Odds are pretty good that I took the pix several minutes apart.

Oh, that makes me feel much better thank you. Odds are pretty good that it works. That's good enough for me!

Right, now lets go fly down low in the mountains IMC with SV.

 

[Stewartb]

Oh, that makes me feel much better thank you. Odds are pretty good that it works. That's good enough for me!

Right, now lets go fly down low in the mountains IMC with SV.

How much personal experience do you have with SV? Why is it so important to you to attempt to discredit the opinions of guys who do have experience with it?

 

[narchee]

How much personal experience do you have with SV? Why is it so important to you to attempt to discredit the opinions of guys who do have experience with it?

Probably 900+ hours behind a G1000 with SVT

It sucks.

If you tried, as a software company, to sell a flight simulator with such awful graphics as are tolerated by almost all the SV systems out there you would have trouble selling anything. What is it good for? It's nice seeing the obstacles, and the runway on the PFD. The terrain is useless, low resolution, difficult to judge distances, etc. Yes I've used it in the mountains. Not worth the upgrade cost IMO.

 

[AggieMike88]

RE: photos in post #1.

That is a lot of useful info packed into a single display. I like it!

 

[timwinters]

I hear ya, but with a experimental the cost diffence when building, it's dumb to not just go full SV glass.

Or, maybe just have steam gauges in the plane and Foreflight with SV on the yoke (or some other aviation app with SV). That would give you the best of both worlds and more redundancy (IMO).

To each his/her own but I just don't get what the allure is for a VFR pilot. But everyone is free to spend their money on what toys make them happy. I know I certainly do!

 

[Jay Honeck]

Or, maybe just have steam gauges in the plane and Foreflight with SV on the yoke (or some other aviation app with SV). That would give you the best of both worlds and more redundancy (IMO).

To each his/her own but I just don't get what the allure is for a VFR pilot. But everyone is free to spend their money on what toys make them happy. I know I certainly do!

I do not have personal experience with SV on a tablet. I have been told that it's a bit skittish, compared to the in-panel, AHRS-driven SV that I'm running.

If true, it seems to me that skittish synthetic vision could be pretty awful. Anyone done an in flight comparison between the tablet vs. panel mounted SV?

 

[olasek]

Probably 900+ hours behind a G1000 with SVT

It sucks.

If you tried, as a software company, to sell a flight simulator with such awful graphics

OK, it sucks for you, it definitely doesn't suck for me. I don't have 900 hours behind G1000 but have just enough to speak highly of it, no, it ain't low resolution, no, it ain't useless, terrain rendition is in fact beautifully done with very satisfying resolution.