Canvas EFB framework: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Canvas EFB framework (view source)

Revision as of 00:17, 3 June 2014

6,819 bytes added ,  3 June 2014
m
→‎The 777 EFB: update ...
m (→‎The 777 EFB: update ...)
Line 143: Line 143:


== The 777 EFB ==
== The 777 EFB ==
{{cquote
  |<nowiki>As I wrote several times, I finally decided to put hands on the EFB (Reason: No one ever took care of developing an EFB for the 777; a 'working' EFB, though) with two (2) main goals in mind:</nowiki><br/><nowiki>
</nowiki><br/><nowiki>
1) to do something to compensate for the lacking of an EFB inside the Seattle.</nowiki><br/><nowiki>
2) to actually try (I repeat it: 'try') to learn some first essentials of nasal.</nowiki><br/><nowiki>
</nowiki>
  |{{cite web |url=http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=211550#p211550
    |title=<nowiki>Re: 777 EFB status & plans  ?</nowiki>
    |author=<nowiki>I-NEMO</nowiki>
    |date=<nowiki>Mon Jun 02</nowiki>
  }}
}}
{{cquote
  |<nowiki> this Seattle EFB is just a 'rude' one: with this term, I mean (as a word's pun) 'unpolite'. I'm perfectly aware that the coding is horrible, clumsy, repetitive, silly and very, very far from what it should be. </nowiki><br/><nowiki>
My first aim was simply to have a somehow 'working' EFB inside the Seattle's Cockpit.</nowiki><br/><nowiki>
</nowiki><br/><nowiki>
My second aim was to use EFB.nas as a starting playground for a newbie as I am on 'nasal'. </nowiki>
  |{{cite web |url=http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=211550#p211550
    |title=<nowiki>Re: 777 EFB status & plans  ?</nowiki>
    |author=<nowiki>I-NEMO</nowiki>
    |date=<nowiki>Mon Jun 02</nowiki>
  }}
}}
{{cquote
  |<nowiki>I do not pretend that current 777's EFB.nas is a piece of nice software; but - to my initial purpose - it works. Not completely, not nicely, not properly...but it's a starting point. At least, it works...</nowiki>
  |{{cite web |url=http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=211550#p211550
    |title=<nowiki>Re: 777 EFB status & plans  ?</nowiki>
    |author=<nowiki>I-NEMO</nowiki>
    |date=<nowiki>Mon Jun 02</nowiki>
  }}
}}
{{cquote
  |<nowiki>the EFB manual is made by Jeppesen for Boeing, and a particular ('vertical') approach must be considered by the casual developer (myself, in this case). Many functions devised by Jeppesen for Boeing are not easily simulated in FG; so - for the moment - I decided to skip them, and I concentrate on what I considered nice and/or useful (again, it's of course a matter of opinion).</nowiki><br/><nowiki>
[Note: anything 'vertical' is not portable, which works on the contrary on 'horizontal' perspective]</nowiki>
  |{{cite web |url=http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=211550#p211550
    |title=<nowiki>Re: 777 EFB status & plans  ?</nowiki>
    |author=<nowiki>I-NEMO</nowiki>
    |date=<nowiki>Mon Jun 02</nowiki>
  }}
}}{{cquote
  |<nowiki>the EFB manual is made by Jeppesen for Boeing, and a particular ('vertical') approach must be considered by the casual developer (myself, in this case). Many functions devised by Jeppesen for Boeing are not easily simulated in FG; so - for the moment - I decided to skip them, and I concentrate on what I considered nice and/or useful (again, it's of course a matter of opinion).</nowiki><br/><nowiki>
[Note: anything 'vertical' is not portable, which works on the contrary on 'horizontal' perspective]</nowiki>
  |{{cite web |url=http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=211550#p211550
    |title=<nowiki>Re: 777 EFB status & plans  ?</nowiki>
    |author=<nowiki>I-NEMO</nowiki>
    |date=<nowiki>Mon Jun 02</nowiki>
  }}
}}
{{cquote
  |<nowiki>As I said above, my aim was to give the Seattle's Pilot the feeling of a 777's EFB.</nowiki><br/><nowiki>
I doubt that an Airbus might have been developed using the same Boeing's EFB. The reason is easy: the two aircraft were 'thought' differently by the actual engineers, and both Boeing and Airbus would have - not only possibly used different graphics - but also different software behavior.</nowiki><br/><nowiki>
Certainly, if Jeppesen was the EFB contractor both for Boeing and Airbus, Jeppesen's engineers undoubtedly used the 'standard' core of one of their EFB; but then, almost immediately they 'adapted' the EFB functionality so that Boeing and Airbus expectations could be respectively satisfied. At the end, we have two differently behaving tools (they do obviously interface to their respective FMC and instrumentation, which - again - works differently). Not to mention further applications added for newer versions, stemmed again in time by Boeing and Airbus.</nowiki>
  |{{cite web |url=http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=211550#p211550
    |title=<nowiki>Re: 777 EFB status & plans  ?</nowiki>
    |author=<nowiki>I-NEMO</nowiki>
    |date=<nowiki>Mon Jun 02</nowiki>
  }}
}}
{{cquote
  |<nowiki> I found Omega95's EFB from the 787 Dreamliner; I've studied it, 'thinking' that it could be considered as a good starting point (I somehow considered that 'that' piece of nasal was already considered as Standard and/or portable by the FG's community. And - again in my opinion - I considered that some of the logic behind Omega95's nice piece of software should have been adapted to the current Seattle Status; and I've tried, with my bad knowledge of nasal, to make something...functional. (it was Hyde's brilliant suggestion to use hashes for the airport data; but, I want to take those lines out of efb.nas, so to have a sort of easily accessible sort of DB</nowiki>
  |{{cite web |url=http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=211550#p211550
    |title=<nowiki>Re: 777 EFB status & plans  ?</nowiki>
    |author=<nowiki>I-NEMO</nowiki>
    |date=<nowiki>Mon Jun 02</nowiki>
  }}
}}
{{cquote
  |<nowiki>Nevertheless, I do agree with you, Hooray; I will gladly follow any working suggestion, and appreciate any real help in fixing the EFB; but, please, do consider that:</nowiki><br/><nowiki>
</nowiki><br/><nowiki>
We want to have a Boeing 777 EFB (The device is already obsolete; real pilots now use other fancy devices on board).</nowiki><br/>
*<nowiki> It must be easy for a developer to actually use such an help.</nowiki><br/>
* <nowiki>It should be a quick and daily help, because - on my side, and being just two or three people - we want to achieve a FINAL release, passing of course through a WIP; </nowiki><br/>
* <nowiki>The expert should have a lot of patience with me, because on nasal I'm a dumb kid; I can learn easily, though, if you take care in fully Communicating (see above) the issues consistently and with the outmost care for details.
</nowiki><br/><nowiki>
My aim is to make a decent piece of software, which of course might be reused by someone else in the future; but my primary aim is the Boeing 777 Seattle, portable or not portable.</nowiki>
  |{{cite web |url=http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=211550#p211550
    |title=<nowiki>Re: 777 EFB status & plans  ?</nowiki>
    |author=<nowiki>I-NEMO</nowiki>
    |date=<nowiki>Mon Jun 02</nowiki>
  }}
}}


{{cquote
{{cquote
Retrieved from "https://wiki.flightgear.org/Special:MobileDiff/72296"

Navigation menu