Hi fellow wiki editors!

To help newly registered users get more familiar with the wiki (and maybe older users too) there is now a {{Welcome to the wiki}} template. Have a look at it and feel free to add it to new users discussion pages (and perhaps your own).

I have tried to keep the template short, but meaningful. /Johan G

Difference between revisions of "FG1000"

From FlightGear wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Existing work)
(Motivation)
Line 15: Line 15:
  
 
The airspace system is in the process of changing drastically [...]  this isn't just a matter of throwing up a canvas showing some GPS waypoints and a magenta line. Modern navigators are astoundingly-complex devices — probably an order of magnitude more lines of code than FlightGear itself — and even their basic flight planning algorithms and databases (e.g. fly-by waypoints vs fly-over waypoints, open vs closed approach procedures, transitions into RNAV approaches, etc.) are far beyond the scope of anything we've tried, and we'd also need an up-to-date database far more complex than the ones we have now. Once you get to the extra features, like FIS-B weather or TIS-B traffic info over ADS-B, or TAWS (terrain alerting), we're probably in way over our heads trying to emulate even the simplest general-aviation IFR GPS.
 
The airspace system is in the process of changing drastically [...]  this isn't just a matter of throwing up a canvas showing some GPS waypoints and a magenta line. Modern navigators are astoundingly-complex devices — probably an order of magnitude more lines of code than FlightGear itself — and even their basic flight planning algorithms and databases (e.g. fly-by waypoints vs fly-over waypoints, open vs closed approach procedures, transitions into RNAV approaches, etc.) are far beyond the scope of anything we've tried, and we'd also need an up-to-date database far more complex than the ones we have now. Once you get to the extra features, like FIS-B weather or TIS-B traffic info over ADS-B, or TAWS (terrain alerting), we're probably in way over our heads trying to emulate even the simplest general-aviation IFR GPS.
 +
 +
This may help folks understand what the G1000 is all about: http://static.garmincdn.com/pumac/190-00498-07_0A_Web.pdf
 +
Writing a G1000 isn't that hard. Writing a '''feature complete''' G1000 is a ton of work. <ref>{{cite web
 +
  |url    =  https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/35925783/
 +
  |title  =  <nowiki> Re: [Flightgear-devel] RFD: FlightGear and the changing state of
 +
air navigation </nowiki>
 +
  |author =  <nowiki> geneb </nowiki>
 +
  |date  =  Jul 3rd, 2017
 +
  |added  =  Jul 3rd, 2017
 +
  |script_version = 0.40
 +
  }}</ref>
 +
  
 
Depending on how we deal with this challenge, the question is whether that means that the usefulness of FlightGear will also gradually taper off. <ref>{{cite web
 
Depending on how we deal with this challenge, the question is whether that means that the usefulness of FlightGear will also gradually taper off. <ref>{{cite web
Line 26: Line 38:
 
   }}</ref>
 
   }}</ref>
  
This may help folks understand what the G1000 is all about: http://static.garmincdn.com/pumac/190-00498-07_0A_Web.pdf
+
Instead of just making one-off tweaks like the consumer sims did, we (as a team) emulated entire systems like the vacuum, pitot-static, and electrical systems, so that failures would be realistic. In the RNAV age, we need to do the same thing; it's just that it's a bigger job. FlightGear will still be great for people who want to practice the mechanical parts of flying (e.g. crosswind wheel landings in a Cub), but will slip further and further behind for people who want to use it for real IFR practice.<ref>{{cite web
Writing a G1000 isn't that hard. Writing a '''feature complete''' G1000 is a ton of work. <ref>{{cite web
+
   |url    =  https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/35927088/  
   |url    =  https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/35925783/  
+
 
   |title  =  <nowiki> Re: [Flightgear-devel] RFD: FlightGear and the changing state of
 
   |title  =  <nowiki> Re: [Flightgear-devel] RFD: FlightGear and the changing state of
 
  air navigation </nowiki>  
 
  air navigation </nowiki>  
   |author =  <nowiki> geneb </nowiki>  
+
   |author =  <nowiki> David Megginson </nowiki>  
   |date  =  Jul 3rd, 2017  
+
   |date  =  Jul 4th, 2017  
   |added  =  Jul 3rd, 2017  
+
   |added  =  Jul 4th, 2017  
 
   |script_version = 0.40  
 
   |script_version = 0.40  
 
   }}</ref>
 
   }}</ref>
 
  
 
== Performance ==
 
== Performance ==

Revision as of 04:49, 15 October 2017

This article is a stub. You can help the wiki by expanding it.

Motivation

1rightarrow.png See Canvas_News#Moving_map.2FRNAV_discussion for the main article about this subject.

The enormous variety in current glass flight decks means we really need to think of a new way of defining glass cockpit layouts.[1]


The airspace system is in the process of changing drastically [...] this isn't just a matter of throwing up a canvas showing some GPS waypoints and a magenta line. Modern navigators are astoundingly-complex devices — probably an order of magnitude more lines of code than FlightGear itself — and even their basic flight planning algorithms and databases (e.g. fly-by waypoints vs fly-over waypoints, open vs closed approach procedures, transitions into RNAV approaches, etc.) are far beyond the scope of anything we've tried, and we'd also need an up-to-date database far more complex than the ones we have now. Once you get to the extra features, like FIS-B weather or TIS-B traffic info over ADS-B, or TAWS (terrain alerting), we're probably in way over our heads trying to emulate even the simplest general-aviation IFR GPS.

This may help folks understand what the G1000 is all about: http://static.garmincdn.com/pumac/190-00498-07_0A_Web.pdf Writing a G1000 isn't that hard. Writing a feature complete G1000 is a ton of work. [2]


Depending on how we deal with this challenge, the question is whether that means that the usefulness of FlightGear will also gradually taper off. [3]

Instead of just making one-off tweaks like the consumer sims did, we (as a team) emulated entire systems like the vacuum, pitot-static, and electrical systems, so that failures would be realistic. In the RNAV age, we need to do the same thing; it's just that it's a bigger job. FlightGear will still be great for people who want to practice the mechanical parts of flying (e.g. crosswind wheel landings in a Cub), but will slip further and further behind for people who want to use it for real IFR practice.[4]

Performance

it's a lot of work to code all these displays which someone has to do, but there's no reason to assume it'd be hopeless performance-wise.[5]

we need to be realistic here: The G1000 is a fairly significant piece of computer hardware that we're going to emulate. It's not going to be "free" particularly for those on older hardware that's already struggling. However, hopefully we can offload a chunk of the logic (route management, autopilot/flight director) to the core, and do things like offline generation of terrain maps to minimie the impact.[6]

Background

1rightarrow.png See Complex Canvas Avionics for the main article about this subject.

Plan

Stuart has been in contact with the author (Sébastien MARQUE) of the ZKV-1000. While he himself doesn't plan to implement a G1000, he's very happy for it to be developed in that direction. Stuart's broad plan is to make a copy of this in fgdata or fgaddon, and use it as the basis for a G1000, taking the opportunity to use Richard's MFD code and making as generic pages as possible for other glass cockpit applications.[7]

Status

1rightarrow.png See Canvas_News#G1000_.26_MapStructure_improvements for the main article about this subject.

October 2017

Stuart committed some changes to update the Select Airport dialog to use Canvas MapStructure Layers to display airport information, rather than the now deprecated map layers. The change should be largely transparent to end users - the only significant change is that your can display navigation symbols. This is all part of a long-term effort to provide the building blocks for a Garmin G1000 - these layers could be used for the airport display on the MFD, and could easily be combined with the APS layer to show a moving aircraft.[8]

Existing work

Structure

Resources

Related

References
  1. Robin van Steenbergen  (Oct 2nd, 2007).  Re: [Flightgear-devel] Glass cockpit and external gauges. .
  2. geneb  (Jul 3rd, 2017).  Re: [Flightgear-devel] RFD: FlightGear and the changing state of air navigation .
  3. David Megginson  (Jul 3rd, 2017).  [Flightgear-devel] RFD: FlightGear and the changing state of air navigation .
  4. David Megginson  (Jul 4th, 2017).  Re: [Flightgear-devel] RFD: FlightGear and the changing state of air navigation .
  5. Thorsten Renk  (Jul 4th, 2017).  Re: [Flightgear-devel] RFD: FlightGear and the changing state of air navigation .
  6. Stuart Buchanan  (Jul 4th, 2017).  Re: [Flightgear-devel] RFD: FlightGear and the changing state of air navigation .
  7. Stuart Buchanan  (Aug 1st, 2017).  [Flightgear-devel] G1000 (was Re: Nasal property lookup performance) .
  8. Stuart Buchanan  (Oct 13th, 2017).  [Flightgear-devel] Updated Select Airport dialog .