jakej
Well-Known Member
+1
ADSB 472
- Thread starter jethound
- Start date
Guys, Dynon is working on this. I know because I've been asked to beta test the new 472 (verses the original 472) with software 15.3. I just got the 472 last Thursday and have had one flight and sent them the diagnostic log. I've been told that patience is a virtue.
A
alexe
Guest
Steve W. and Jakej,
While you are entitled to your opinions, I do not share them. Every time someone complains, you “experts” put on your Dynon defender hats. It’s really getting old. What I wanted was a current status FROM Dynon, not a kiss off from you. Thanks anyway.
Alex
While you are entitled to your opinions, I do not share them. Every time someone complains, you “experts” put on your Dynon defender hats. It’s really getting old. What I wanted was a current status FROM Dynon, not a kiss off from you. Thanks anyway.
Alex
airguy
Well-Known Member
I'm also testing Beta hardware from Dynon, and it's making progress. If you are at a point where you have to make a decision today, then you have to use todays data to make a decision and nobody can change that. But there is progress being made.
I am not at liberty to disclose how much progress in which direction, but progress is being made.
A
alexe
Guest
Airguy,
I would love to use ‘todays data’ to make that decision. Unfortunately, that data is not at hand because of a complete lack of communication from Dynon. I too was a beta tester a month or two back on the revised -472 and the corresponding firmware. There was no improvement in performance. I provided feedback via the web site and email. Since then, I have heard nothing, despite email inquiries. I simply cannot understand the complete lack of communication on Dynon’s part. What is so hard about providing a weekly status as to what is going on? That is, unless you really don’t give a darn about your customers Dynon. Which is it?
Alex
I would love to use ‘todays data’ to make that decision. Unfortunately, that data is not at hand because of a complete lack of communication from Dynon. I too was a beta tester a month or two back on the revised -472 and the corresponding firmware. There was no improvement in performance. I provided feedback via the web site and email. Since then, I have heard nothing, despite email inquiries. I simply cannot understand the complete lack of communication on Dynon’s part. What is so hard about providing a weekly status as to what is going on? That is, unless you really don’t give a darn about your customers Dynon. Which is it?
Alex
jakej
Well-Known Member
Relax Alexe, IMO it ain't that important - now if there was an issue with a 'box' that prevented me from flying then I'd surely complain too.
Defender ? - really ? As a long time avionics installer (36 Rv's so far + many other types) this is my philosophyabout how it works in my world-
#1 Customer
#2 Me
#3 Manufacturer
If the customer is happy then we're all happy, so in this case that is why Dynon (due to the excellent products/support/warranty they give) is one of my preferred manufacturers.
No one of them is perfect & I know they try their best to resolve any issues when they arise.
Most businesses understand the impact of negative publicity & will try their best to rectify the situation as I believe Dynon is doing now - to do anything otherwise would come at a cost.
AFAIK Dynon has always given updates when they are available or in a position to do so.
Relax, & if you're visual, then just look out the window thats what I do as I don't trust any gadget completely
Defender ? - really ? As a long time avionics installer (36 Rv's so far + many other types) this is my philosophyabout how it works in my world-
#1 Customer
#2 Me
#3 Manufacturer
If the customer is happy then we're all happy, so in this case that is why Dynon (due to the excellent products/support/warranty they give) is one of my preferred manufacturers.
No one of them is perfect & I know they try their best to resolve any issues when they arise.
Most businesses understand the impact of negative publicity & will try their best to rectify the situation as I believe Dynon is doing now - to do anything otherwise would come at a cost.
AFAIK Dynon has always given updates when they are available or in a position to do so.
Relax, & if you're visual, then just look out the window thats what I do as I don't trust any gadget completely
turbopilot
Member
Yes, that is your opinion. I have another.
In any event, this saga has been very strange and not typical of my previous experience with Dynon. Dynon has stated that the problem with the 472 is both software and hardware. I have no reason to doubt that conclusion.
But it seems we have a situation here where perfect is the enemy of good. It has been nearly a year since the 472 was introduced. It was clearly released before it was ready.
I solved most of my problems with $14 filter that Dynon acknowledged might be the solution for some installations. If there are some software improvements why not release them? If there needs to be a hardware change fine, then release new software to support that box when it is available.
My advice to Dynon is to just do something. A year of promising solutions any day now is no way to run a business. Just makes otherwise reasonable people upset.
Just a word to anyone reading this thread considering Dynon products. My Dynon Skyview HDX system is working great. I really like it. All of the other functionality associated with this system completely meets my needs. We have a problem with one new component which is not being addressed in a timely manner, IMO. This situation is not characteristic of my previous experience with Dynon.
W
William_Ince
Guest
Rest assured. I am perfectly confident Dynon will resolve this issue to everybody's satisfaction.
If something is worth fixing . . . it's worth fixing right. Dynon will do that.
For all the support Dynon has given me, over the last 4 years, I can be more patient with them concerning this issue.
Bottom line here . . . the fix has gotta' be right.
If something is worth fixing . . . it's worth fixing right. Dynon will do that.
For all the support Dynon has given me, over the last 4 years, I can be more patient with them concerning this issue.
Bottom line here . . . the fix has gotta' be right.
swatson999
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 1,540
"Just do something! Anything!" is about the worst way to engineer anything that there is, short of randomly putting things together and hoping it will work. Not to mention the negative business aspects of "just doing something" and having that "something" make things worse.
They haven't been promising "any day now", they've said it's a high priority and they're working on it.
I consider myself pretty reasonable, and I'm not upset that a capability I didn't even HAVE a little more than a year ago is not yet 100% perfect, and I have to fly my airplane "the old-fashioned way" at times.
I'd rather wait for the *correct* solution than an incomplete or, worse, incorrect "solution". YMMV.
swatson999
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 1,540
Might have worked for you, but IIRC, others didn't have as much luck. Plus, from a corporate perspective, that's just a band-aid for the underlying problem...even if it kind of worked some of the time, it's not the right way to resolve the issue.
rvator51
Member
So I bought the 472 last march when it was announced. So have been storing an $800 box that I havent installed for a year now because Dynon said fix probably will probably involve both software and hardware changes. I see both sides, I want a fix that works, but its also almost been a year and that's a long time to me. Dynon, what is plans for those of us who bought these units? I sure hope we don't get charged a fee to trade in our unused 472s for a new version or can we send them back for a full refund?
We'll be swapping those out. There won't be a fee.
So the good news is that we're about to start shipping our updated design.
We've been iterating on this for some time now, working with our partners at uAvionix on multiple aspects of the design to get performance levels to where we need to it be for our customers. There are improvements across the board (literally), in software in the product, and in software in SkyView. As some of you found with the flightaware filters, there are some things on the input signal side that can help, too, and some of the implemented product changes that accomplish similar goals. We'll have updated SkyView software that will drop in the next few days that changes a bunch of things in SkyView's software, including the coasting feature that's been discussed.
If there's a caveat, it's that production numbers are going to ramp over the coming weeks, and there are literally hundreds of people out there that need a -472. Not everyone is experiencing performance issues with what they have, so in the coming days we'll figure out a mechanism for those of you that are especially frustrated to get some of the earlier production. Know that the coming SkyView software update also includes an update for all SV-ADSB-472s, so even before you get the latest hardware, you'll see some improvement from that too (it updates similar to how the transponder does, for what it's worth)
One more thing about the filters: They definitely help some aspects of the performance (as some of you found), and maybe that made the difference for some of you. But there was definitely more going on than that alone would solve. We considered officially supporting/endorsing some flavor of that change alone in the spirit of doing something/anything, but in the end, we realized that there were enough other issues going on that we'd end up with incremental improvement that might solve some people, but not others, and that's really kind of where we've been to date. And we judged that that wasn't good enough.
Anyway, thanks for your patience. More shortly!
We've been iterating on this for some time now, working with our partners at uAvionix on multiple aspects of the design to get performance levels to where we need to it be for our customers. There are improvements across the board (literally), in software in the product, and in software in SkyView. As some of you found with the flightaware filters, there are some things on the input signal side that can help, too, and some of the implemented product changes that accomplish similar goals. We'll have updated SkyView software that will drop in the next few days that changes a bunch of things in SkyView's software, including the coasting feature that's been discussed.
If there's a caveat, it's that production numbers are going to ramp over the coming weeks, and there are literally hundreds of people out there that need a -472. Not everyone is experiencing performance issues with what they have, so in the coming days we'll figure out a mechanism for those of you that are especially frustrated to get some of the earlier production. Know that the coming SkyView software update also includes an update for all SV-ADSB-472s, so even before you get the latest hardware, you'll see some improvement from that too (it updates similar to how the transponder does, for what it's worth)
One more thing about the filters: They definitely help some aspects of the performance (as some of you found), and maybe that made the difference for some of you. But there was definitely more going on than that alone would solve. We considered officially supporting/endorsing some flavor of that change alone in the spirit of doing something/anything, but in the end, we realized that there were enough other issues going on that we'd end up with incremental improvement that might solve some people, but not others, and that's really kind of where we've been to date. And we judged that that wasn't good enough.
Anyway, thanks for your patience. More shortly!
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2016
- Messages
- 77
Yes, all 472's use identical mechanical features and wiring.
A
alexe
Guest
By now, I’m sure several of you have installed the improved -472 along with 15.3.3. What improvements are you seeing?