Synthetic Vision, in Two Pictures

olasek said:
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.
Click to expand...
lol One thing I've learned about aviation is that someone will ***** about every modern advance.

Someday we will have autonomous flying machines that will take us wherever we want, flawlessly. Someone here will be complaining about the seat height, or how abruptly the thing accelerates.
;)
 
Who the hell would want that? Might as well ride on the airlines at that point.
 
Jay Honeck said:
lol One thing I've learned about aviation is that someone will ***** about every modern advance.
Click to expand...

You call that modern? We as pilots need to demand more. Especially in the experimental world, it is quite perplexing that SV is as poor as it is. Look at the quality of the terrain in the picture you posted. That is 1980s quality terrain rendering. What is the smallest feature you can resolve on that terrain? It must be 10 square miles! Three colors? Green, light blue and dark blue? Like I said reminds me of computer games in the 1980s. With modern hardware, high speed (and low cost) CPUs and GPUs, and graphics engines we can do a whole lot better. Any other 3D software developers out there? Maybe we should get together and make a better product although the pilot apathy and willingness to settle for this low quality stuff makes me wonder if it would be worth the effort.
 
narchee said:
You call that modern? We as pilots need to demand more. Especially in the experimental world, it is quite perplexing that SV is as poor as it is. Look at the quality of the terrain in the picture you posted. That is 1980s quality terrain rendering. What is the smallest feature you can resolve on that terrain? It must be 10 square miles! Three colors? Green, light blue and dark blue? Like I said reminds me of computer games in the 1980s. With modern hardware, high speed (and low cost) CPUs and GPUs, and graphics engines we can do a whole lot better. Any other 3D software developers out there? Maybe we should get together and make a better product although the pilot apathy and willingness to settle for this low quality stuff makes me wonder if it would be worth the effort.
Click to expand...

I wonder what the data file size would have to be to provide better resolution. The processing shouldn't be an issue, but the file size might.
 
I have 250 hours behind a G1000 with SVT in my Mooney. The current state of SVT is quite primitive, in my opinion, but it's a start. It reminds me of early versions of Flight Simulator that don't hold a candle to what's out there now. Someday I'm sure SVT will be photorealistic based on high quality satellite imagery, and then it will be much more useful.

Up in the flight levels, where I typically cruise, it's basically useless. Down low I find it most useful for obstacle and traffic alerts and being able to "see" the runway on instrument approaches in IMC.
 
narchee said:
You call that modern? We as pilots need to demand more. Especially in the experimental world, it is quite perplexing that SV is as poor as it is. Look at the quality of the terrain in the picture you posted. That is 1980s quality terrain rendering. What is the smallest feature you can resolve on that terrain? It must be 10 square miles! Three colors? Green, light blue and dark blue? Like I said reminds me of computer games in the 1980s. With modern hardware, high speed (and low cost) CPUs and GPUs, and graphics engines we can do a whole lot better. Any other 3D software developers out there? Maybe we should get together and make a better product although the pilot apathy and willingness to settle for this low quality stuff makes me wonder if it would be worth the effort.
Click to expand...
As was eloquently pointed out, above, having the real world decluttered is advantageous in many circumstances. All I need to see is the outline of ground features, the airport (with a nice, big, magenta balloon floating over it), and traffic.

And, of course, you're judging terrain depiction in Synthetic Vision by looking at a picture showing a flat, nearly featureless Texas shoreline. Where there is actual "terrain", as opposed to bodies of water, it's prettier.

And I'm sure it will get better and better.
 
Jay Honeck said:
As was eloquently pointed out, above, having the real world decluttered is advantageous in many circumstances. All I need to see is the outline of ground features, the airport (with a nice, big, magenta balloon floating over it), and traffic.

And, of course, you're judging terrain depiction in Synthetic Vision by looking at a picture showing a flat, nearly featureless Texas shoreline. Where there is actual "terrain", as opposed to bodies of water, it's prettier.

And I'm sure it will get better and better.
Click to expand...

And the point of it is not to replicate the real world, but to make the real world more comprehensible for stuff you care about. Colors are based on terrain "danger" for lack of a better term. Green = safe, yellow = warning, red = look out!. Make airports and navigation stuff stand out. Things like that. Maybe we shouldn't call it synthetic vision because that makes people think it's an "out the window" view. That's not really what it's intended to be. Yes, we could get google maps like satellite imagery in (storage might be an issue. I 'm not sure how much space they have), but how useful would that be when flying?

John
 
narchee said:
What is the smallest feature you can resolve on that terrain? It must be 10 square miles! Three colors? Green, light blue and dark blue?
Click to expand...
10 square miles, I wonder where you have been using it - over Kansas plains? I can easily distinguish about 1/64 square mile detail while say over KPSP. And your color count is also significantly off because with shading and all the yellows/browns hues it makes a very rich picture - provided terrain warrants it. I begin to think you never actually did some flying behind G1000 or you were only flying over terrain where there were no features worth rendering to begin with.
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
Yup...
Click to expand...
Only if you have the time, money, and inclination to stay instrument proficient.

Since I do not, I have made a small investment in an outstanding autopilot, slaved to an SV-equipped EFIS, both of which could save my life someday. YMMV.
 
Until they fail. And they don't usually give you a good warning when they are about to. If someone as a VFR only puts themselves in situations where they need the AP or SV to save their life, maybe they need to reananlyze their decision making.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Only if you have the time, money, and inclination to stay instrument proficient.
Click to expand...

I suspect you could have done the rating for the cost of the boxes. I know you fly enough to maintain proficiency, especially since you have a built-in safety pilot. It thus becomes your inclination.

My inclination is quite different. I will get the IR so I don't need a fancy autopilot if I hit the clag. I'll have something better, training.
 
EdFred said:
Until they fail. And they don't usually give you a good warning when they are about to. If someone as a VFR only puts themselves in situations where they need the AP or SV to save their life, maybe they need to reananlyze their decision making.
Click to expand...
Yea this. I'm all for technology but if you knowingly launch into marginal conditions because you have SV I'd be careful.
 
Why wouldn't you want terrain awareness? You'll still be flying on instruments. SV simply provides an additional tool to help you establish where you are in relation to what's around you when your visibility is impaired. It provides a representation of the surface when your visual isn't available. Arguing that terrain awareness is a bad thing is nucking futs.
 
Stewartb said:
Why wouldn't you want terrain awareness? You'll still be flying on instruments. SV simply provides an additional tool to help you establish where you are in relation to what's around you when your visibility is impaired. It provides a representation of the surface when your visual isn't available. Arguing that terrain awareness is a bad thing is nucking futs.
Click to expand...

Who said it was a bad thing? I think pretty much everyone agrees that it can help with situational awareness but it doesn't make up for good decision making and preflight planning. I use it but like I said, I prefer a good moving map when it hits the fan. What SVT tells me is what's in front of my face. Basically, I already know I've got mountains in front of me, I need to see where the low ground is 360 degrees around to get me out of the mess I've gotten myself into...not that's ever happened to me. :D

They way the forecasted terrain alert is so close, you're almost on top of it to show red terrain. Last night the terrain alert was going off left and right. In order for it to alert me to be of value, I would have to have 1/2 mile viz. If I was flying with 1/2 mile viz at 135 kts and using SVT to avoid mountains, that's an accident waiting to happen. You either "tap out" and go back to where you came from or commit to IMC and climb above the obstacles. Speaking of obstacles, in a high density area, the detail of the display doesn't distinguish between skyscrapers or antennas so it just shows up as obstacles everywhere.

I will say it's neat to have on instrument rides because I can cheat and see the runway. Like a few have said though, don't let it replace an IFR ticket. Flying a set of cross hairs on an ILS is far more accurate than trying to fly to a runway end 5 miles in the distance. That is if you don't have HITS; that stuff rocks! Also, I actually find it easier to maintain PTS standards by the AI PFD than the SVT. Seems like on the SVT, when hills are involved, it's a distraction to the basic instrument scan. That's just me though.

Way I see SVT is just one piece of a puzzle. i can understand Jay's enthusiasm for it but I don't see it as a primary display for orientation. If it's the only thing you have in your aircraft, great, that can be a real help. But don't be overconfident in the use of a single display.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Until they fail. And they don't usually give you a good warning when they are about to. If someone as a VFR only puts themselves in situations where they need the AP or SV to save their life, maybe they need to reananlyze their decision making.
Click to expand...
I chose to add what I have determined to be the greatest safety enhancement my money could buy: a 21st century SV-equipped EFIS slaved to a missile-grade autopilot.

By installing these two instruments I have also been able to remove the most failure-prone instrument in any GA plane: The vacuum pump.

This, as opposed to getting a seldom-used instrument rating in an antique, steam gauge and vacuum pump equipped Cherokee Pathfinder that would literally have required me to file IFR on every, single flight in order to remain proficient. No, thanks.

I know lots (dozens) of instrument rated pilots who are not instrument proficient. (In fact, I currently know just one (1) GA pilot with whom I would fly in the clouds.) At least 70% of those pilots aren't even current, let alone proficient. In the end, they have fallen prey to the elusive lure of all-weather GA flying, and fallen short.

As Clint famously said, a man's got to know his limitations. I have neither the time, money, or inclination to fly instruments enough to remain proficient. And anything short of proficient isn't just wasted time and money -- it's proven to be dangerous.

So, Mary and I remain fair weather flyers, and have flown the entire continent in that fashion. After 13 months of flying with our amazing glass panel, I am satisfied that there is literally nothing my sort of money could buy to make the kind of flying Mary and I do safer. YMMV.
 
Then how is an AP and SV going to save your life if you are a fair weather flyer? (not that there's anything wrong with that) but it would be like me having malpractice insurance when I'm not even a doctor.

My HSI doesn't use a vac pump either, BTW. In fact during my scan I rarely look at the AI because it doesn't give as accurate information as the other instruments.
 
marcoseddi said:
It doesn't show airplanes that would be cool!!
Click to expand...

You mean targets or like the actual depiction of what aircraft is in front of you? It does show a target, if so equipped with a traffic system such as TIS or ACAS.
 
marcoseddi said:
It doesn't show airplanes that would be cool!!
Click to expand...
Um, yes it does. If there is ADS-B traffic detected, the target is depicted with a box around it, just like Top Gun.

The only thing missing is the missile lock tone. ;)
 
EdFred said:
Then how is an AP and SV going to save your life if you are a fair weather flyer? (not that there's anything wrong with that) but it would be like me having malpractice insurance when I'm not even a doctor.
Click to expand...

If there's one thing I've learned about flying, it's that the weather is variable. I've gone from "great VFR" to "marginal", to "oh, crap, let's land" in just a few miles.

I'm a belt and suspenders guy. Aim for the best, expect the worst.
 
nauga said:
:rofl:

Nauga,
who does more than read the brochures
Click to expand...
The guy who owns TruTrack apparently cut his teeth designing missile guidance systems. I imagine making autopilots for experimental aircraft is pretty much child's play for him.
 
Jay Honeck said:
The guy who owns TruTrack apparently cut his teeth designing missile guidance systems.
Click to expand...
He does not, however, sell 'missile grade' autopilots for GA airplanes.

Nauga,
who understands his tools
 
narchee said:
You call that modern? We as pilots need to demand more. Especially in the experimental world, it is quite perplexing that SV is as poor as it is. Look at the quality of the terrain in the picture you posted. That is 1980s quality terrain rendering. What is the smallest feature you can resolve on that terrain? It must be 10 square miles! Three colors? Green, light blue and dark blue? Like I said reminds me of computer games in the 1980s. With modern hardware, high speed (and low cost) CPUs and GPUs, and graphics engines we can do a whole lot better. Any other 3D software developers out there? Maybe we should get together and make a better product although the pilot apathy and willingness to settle for this low quality stuff makes me wonder if it would be worth the effort.
Click to expand...
If it truly replicated the real world you would never need to get in an airplane, at least not for the entertainment factor. You could sit in a sim on the ground. :D

I thought SV was to help people with navigation and terrain avoidance, although I am perfectly happy with a plan view, three color (green/yellow/red) display for that.
 
Everskyward said:
I thought SV was to help people with navigation and terrain avoidance, although I am perfectly happy with a plan view, three color (green/yellow/red) display for that.
Click to expand...

I was about to post the same thing.

If my 496 is painting red and yellow terrain a few miles ahead and to the right, my mind pretty effectively converts that into a 3D representation - it is readily apparent what course or altitude change is necessary to avoid it.

Stock image below, but you get the idea.

sc-02-lg.jpg


Same thing with geographical features.

Not dissing SV. I only have a few hours behind it and it's pretty cool.

But not a significant game changer as far as safety goes, at least IMHO.

And I will join those who think that Jay's mindset is potentially dangerous. For reasons already articulated by others.
 
Last edited:
Jay Honeck said:
I chose to add what I have determined to be the greatest safety enhancement my money could buy: a 21st century SV-equipped EFIS slaved to a missile-grade autopilot.
Click to expand...

given that a missile-grade autopilot can have a very very very short uselife, you might want to rethink that.
 
FastEddieB said:
And I will join those who think that Jay's mindset is potentially dangerous. For reasons already articulated by others.
Click to expand...

So, is there an SV equivalent to the MLOD?
 
nauga said:
He does not, however, sell 'missile grade' autopilots for GA airplanes.

Nauga,
who understands his tools
Click to expand...
While no doubt true, my autopilot flies more precisely than any human, and it's performed flawlessly for 2+ years. Seems to be pretty well built, at a small percentage of what the unit in my Pathfinder cost, by a guy who designed missile guidance systems.

Given the recent performance of some of our rockets, maybe calling it "missile grade" is an insult? lol
 
Jay Honeck said:
While no doubt true, my autopilot flies more precisely than any human, and it's performed flawlessly for 2+ years.
Click to expand...

Take it into some mountain turbulence and try that again.

A good pilot can match a good autopilot in ideal conditions, at least in a spam can. I've seen this firsthand with a GFC700, position, speed and attitude verified photographically.

A good pilot can beat a good autopilot in crappy conditions. 'Cause the autopilot will give up or do something stupid. Like try to hold altitude in a downdraft until it hits its low speed limit and then hangs you out to dry.
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
And I will join those who think that Jay's mindset is potentially dangerous. For reasons already articulated by others.
Click to expand...

Flying is potentially dangerous. lol

Adding a revolutionary safety feature like synthetic vision to an aircraft is potentially dangerous in the same way that adding radar to my Lincoln was potentially dangerous. Yes, if you use it to determine whether a lane is clear before merging, you're setting yourself up for disaster.

If, however, you use it as an aid to backing out of a parking space, it's a wonderful feature.

Here's a pic from last night, as Mary landed in Port A just after sunset. You can see how murky the Gulf of Mexico looks, out beyond the end of the runway. Vis was reported as 7 miles.

1a6893c244ff3e30461270633911998e.jpg


I flew the return leg, touching down 20 minutes later in about 75% darkness. (No pix of that, sorry.)

It was the first time I used SV at "night" (not really, but close), and it was nothing short of amazing. With the EFIS dimmed to preserve night vision, the darkness and thick haze simply didn't matter. There was no searching for the airport, and no craning your neck looking for the too-dim runway lights. Look down at SV, look out the window and know EXACTLY where the airport is, out in that indistinguishable sea of lights.

The runway itself is clearly depicted in the synthetic world, right down to the number that slides under your butt as you flare to land.

To call this anything but revolutionary is bizarre. To those of us who learned to fly B.G. (Before GPS), it's nothing short of a miracle.
 
Jay, it's your attitude that technology can't possibly fail or mislead that's dangerous. When it does, you're in way over your head.

What's your plan if the GPS gives BS? Your SV is going away with it.
 
MAKG1 said:
Take it into some mountain turbulence and try that again.

A good pilot can match a good autopilot in ideal conditions, at least in a spam can. I've seen this firsthand with a GFC700, position, speed and attitude verified photographically.

A good pilot can beat a good autopilot in crappy conditions. 'Cause the autopilot will give up or do something stupid. Like try to hold altitude in a downdraft until it hits its low speed limit and then hangs you out to dry.
Click to expand...
True that! In our vomit comet ride to Vegas, last decade, my friend's autopilot was inducing motion that helped to make everyone sick in severe turbulence.

Can't really blame the autopilot, though -- it was merely trying to precisely hold altitude in impossible conditions. Sometimes, it's better to fly less precisely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top