Can we get the bottom engine band on the 1000T? That would certainly make the oval good for me.
Can we get the bottom engine band on the 1000T? That would certainly make the oval good for me.
I'd like to see new "features" not turned on as defaults. New features should be highlighted as being available in the announcement, but you should be able to upgrade your software and see NO changes to the user experience without turning the new features on intentionally and after understanding them. Just basic user interface design principles that have been around for a long, long time.
I think it's a compliment that the product is so good, we're picking on relatively small anomalies!
Some are happy with it and that's fine. However the rotational asymmetry of an ellipse is not what I expect to see while doing a course intercept or picturing relative bearings in my head particularly when the bit you're looking at is not directly in front. It just deviates slightly from accepted human factors cockpit design principles. Yeah sure, it's not like the end of the world is nigh, but it's still slightly visually odd.
If a 360 deg circular HSI is too small as a consequence of screen layout, then perhaps something has to give (or another option be made available) while trying to avoid distortion of the instrument. Same for the g meter. Dynon have a bunch of talented people there. The way it's turned out is not flight safety critical, but I'm sure they'll work something out.
I think it's a compliment that the product is so good, we're picking on relatively small anomalies!
I found what I suppose is a glitch that allows some HDX functionality on the D1000. Unfortunately it does not allow the EMS screen to resize along the bottom but there's an interesting couple of pages of icon controls. I'm guessing our software is not so different from the HDX which might offer an explanation as to why Dynon are reluctant to change the HSI back to round. Maybe we have the same software but don't have complete access. If this is the case, that Dynon are suppressing the better situational awareness provided by the improved screen layout, then I would be very disappointed. The great thing about Dynon is the continuing upgrade of Skyview via software. If great features are being denied to make the new HDX more attractive then that would be a change in their ethos as far as I perceive it.
I found what I suppose is a glitch that allows some HDX functionality on the D1000. Unfortunately it does not allow the EMS screen to resize along the bottom but there's an interesting couple of pages of icon controls. I'm guessing our software is not so different from the HDX which might offer an explanation as to why Dynon are reluctant to change the HSI back to round. Maybe we have the same software but don't have complete access. If this is the case, that Dynon are suppressing the better situational awareness provided by the improved screen layout, then I would be very disappointed. The great thing about Dynon is the continuing upgrade of Skyview via software. If great features are being denied to make the new HDX more attractive then that would be a change in their ethos as far as I perceive it.
Yeah, that's a glitch. How did you get the display to behave that way? Can you email a copy of your exported settings and a link to this thread to support at dynonavionics dot com?
HDX and SkyView Classic&Touch have a rather different screen management / UX paradigms. Though they're from the same family, they're not identical products.
HDX and SkyView Classic&Touch have a rather different screen management / UX paradigms. Though they're from the same family, they're not identical products.
It is more than just the EMS layout, and it's not trivial to change. HDX's interface, from the way you use the menus/knobs, all the way down to the core interface, are quite different than Touch / Classic. It would be a big change to switch it over to HDX wholesale, which is what you need to do to make everything work correctly.
We're generally reluctant to change the core of how products work/look/feel once they're well-established in the field. What we DO try to do is to add features and add value long after customer purchase, but within the product's existing UI/UX framework. We've learned that even small changes in how certain things work or feel can have huge effects among the installed customer-base. In fact, this thread is exact evidence of what can happen when we change a core UI/UX detail and get it wrong once we've done things a certain way over time. This is the by far the largest opinion thread on a feature, and compared to the entirety of the HDX's interface, the oval/circle change is tiny.
One could answer that there could be two product "modes", and while possible, that high downstream support cost.
So to answer your question directly: We try to make every product the best version of itself. SkyView Touch has an essential interface that isn't easily compatible with some of HDX's paradigms. HDX has some features that are unique to it, such as the bottom band and a different interface paradigm. So it's not that we want to have this feature exclusively for the benefit of HDX, but that it's inherently a feature of HDX.