Any Way to Have FS2004 Follow GPS?

[westes]

Pete, it would be very useful to be able to bring FS2004 into the cockpit of a real airplane and have it act as a moving map. Of course this isn't to be used for real navigation, but because of the sophistication of some of the terrain add-on products for FS2004, it's still very nice to have the information on other instruments confirmed.

Does anyone make such a product? I assume this wouldn't be hard for you to do using FSUIPC?

[Pete Dowson]

Pete, it would be very useful to be able to bring FS2004 into the cockpit of a real airplane and have it act as a moving map.

A moving map? Surely you want a moving map program as a moving map!?

Does anyone make such a product?

There are good moving maps around which take output from GPS's. But FS isn't one, nor do I make any. I use FliteMap, but there are cheaper ones. Even Microsoft's AutoRoute programs will work.

I assume this wouldn't be hard for you to do using FSUIPC?

Erto do what, exactly? I'm evidently not understanding.

Regards,

Pete

[westes]

Peter, FS2004 is three dimensional. Most moving maps infer topography in a two dimensional view.

One nice application for using FS2004 as a moving map is to give you sensitivity for the size, shape, and number of obstacles around you when you execute an IFR flight plan. IFR charts do not show you the topography around you, but simply guarantee that if you follow the IFR rules you live. It doesn't hurt to have something visual to back up the need to follow those rules and add some additional situational awareness.

[/i]

[Pete Dowson]

Peter, FS2004 is three dimensional. Most moving maps infer topography in a two dimensional view.

Ah, so you want FS to show you the world around you? And you will BELIEVE it whilst flying? That sounds extraordinarily dangerous -- I bet that could get your license removed! :wink:

One nice application for using FS2004 as a moving map is to give you sensitivity for the size, shape, and number of obstacles around you when you execute an IFR flight plan. IFR charts do not show you the topography around you, but simply guarantee that if you follow the IFR rules you live.

Actually FliteMap displays whatever you ask it to, not in 3D of course, but it does provide topographical information if you want. So of course do many other map programs.

It doesn't hurt to have something visual to back up the need to follow those rules and add some additional situational awareness.

I still think that this could be highly dangerous. But still, if you want to go ahead, yes, with FS2004 and FSUIPC you can control the position of the aircraft in all 6 degrees of freedom (LLAPBH -- Latitude, Longitude, Altitude, Pith, Bank, Heading). You need the FSUIPC SDK (from http://www.schratti.com/dowson), and of course some information to allow you to interpret the output from your GPS or whatever.

There may already be some implementations of this sort of thing -- not for real time cockpit use as far as I know, but more for recreating real flights on the PC afterwards. Try a search in this Forum and elsewhere.

Regards,

Pete

[westes]

No, I would never use FS2004 to *navigate*. That was stated clearly from the start. I would use FS2004 for situational awareness. There is a huge difference.

[Pete Dowson]

No, I would never use FS2004 to *navigate*. That was stated clearly from the start. I would use FS2004 for situational awareness. There is a huge difference.

I didn't mention navigation. But surely relying on something like FS's dubious scenery and terrain for such awareness could easily mislead you into thinking you were safe when not (or vice versa, of course). It still sounds pretty fraught to me! :wink:

Regards,

Pete

[westes]

I didn't mention navigation. But surely relying on something like FS's dubious scenery and terrain for such awareness could easily mislead you into thinking you were safe when not (or vice versa, of course). It still sounds pretty fraught to me! :wink:

Let me give an example of an improper use of FS2004 during an IFR flight, and then separately what I think would be a proper use.

An improper use would be not pulling out an IFR chart at all, and seeing that you can "clear that ridge" in the FS2004 display that is following your flight. Such a use *relies* on the FS2004 simulated display to make navigation decisions. FS2004 of course has a margin of error, even with Justin's magnificent terrain added, important details like that 1000 ft tower straight ahead, don't show on FS2004 at all.

A proper use would be doing a proper IFR flight plan using FAA approved methods and maps. On a particular IFR segment you look at the FS2004 display for situational awareness. Oh, you think, what's that huge mountain coming up straight ahead? You double-check your IFR chart, and then you realize that you didn't read it correctly. Or alternately, the IFR chart doesn't resolve the discrepancy. But, just for additional margin of safety, you ask ATC to let you go up 2000 ft.

So a proper use is to act as a kind of double check against other instruments or maps. Properly used, it can only motivate decisions that will make you more safe, not less.

On a very pragmatic level, a lot of pilots do run into terrain in IMC conditions, and many of those are IFR rated pilots. Many of these read their maps incorrectly, or get misoriented relative to some instrument. For example, they forget that they are doing a backcourse and instead hit approach. On a very fundamental level, having a clear 3D graphic display that shows you terrain ahead is at minimum going to make you check and cross-check your instruments, and common sense tells you that this is going to save lives.

[Pete Dowson]

Let me give an example of an improper use of FS2004 during an IFR flight, and then separately what I think would be a proper use. ...

Right. Thanks.

Pete

[majorursa]

So a proper use is to act as a kind of double check against other instruments or maps. Properly used, it can only motivate decisions that will make you more safe, not less.

I was thinking along the same lines recently, but especcially with regard to weather. FS in combo with ActiveSky (and FSUIPC of course) would be an excellent way to visualize the conditions at a destination and make the rather dry METAR data more tangible.

Again not reliable but an aid to reduce the number of surprises.

Ursa..

PS. Thanks for 3.30

[BrunoBL]

I think that this kind of 3-D visual presentation of the flight could have some fun uses. Passengers might benefit from a "clear" view of the outside environment when they are actually IMC.

Not only it would be fun to watch, but also they would be assured that they are not about to hit mountains, etc. Lots of passengers don't mind flying in good weather, but are afraid of what they *don't* see in the clouds. This could well be an evolution of the moving map already displayed in the passengers' cabin.

Also, the recent trend in real-time internet flight-following could benefit from the actual point of view of a particular flight being followed. I think this would produce a quite interesting sense of "being there".

In both cases the use would be for amusement only and of course out of the control loop, so any inaccuracies would not endanger the flight.

Pretty interesting stuff to think about. Thanks for the opportunity! :wink:

Best regards,

Bruno.

[jwenting]

There's a reason this will never work (and quite apart from the obvious legal reason that you'd never get it certified by the FAA or anyone else for use in an aircraft as an aid to navigation) and that's the simple question of where the heck do you think to get your altitude data from?

GPS data doesn't (and cannot) include altitude data, you'd need to get that from another source which would mean illegal tampering with the aircraft systems to get an electrical signal out of the altimeter which would without doubt void the airworthiness of the aircraft.

You'd have to get the whole system certified by the aviation authorities in your country afterwards which they'd never agree to given all the reasons Pete has given already.

[BrunoBL]

Jwenting,

First, please note that my previous reply was in a passenger-entertaining context, *not* a navigation (or even situation awareness) tool.

GPS data doesn't (and cannot) include altitude data

In fact, GPS does give out altitude information (provided at least 4 satelites are in view). Nonetheless, altitude accuracy is poor (150% of the horizontal position error IIRC), compared to the expected GPS accuracy. A real-world position accuracy of, say 50 ft would yield a vertical accuracy of around 75 ft.

The real trouble would not be altitude, but *attitude*. GPS receivers have no way of determining the aircraft's attitude. Any system designed to feed a virtual "external" view into a display would necessarily get data from the a/c's IRS, ASI, or whatever. But this is not necessarily illegal (in the context of the previous passenger-entertaining scenario), given that the passenger-cabin moving maps, for one, already get data from the a/c's navigating system and are installed in almost every modern airliner. The question is not whether or not this would be legal, but how much it would cost to certify. And, of course, if the manufacturers would find this idea as appealling as the passenger-cabin moving map was.

Having said all that, I have read in the past (10 to 15 years ago!) that a navigation equipment manufacturer (Honeywell, I think) was researching just that. A virtual out-the-window view which would map (or project, if you will) a navigation chart into a database of terrain elevations, producing a 3-D view of an area chart, for instance. This never made the market. I wonder why.

Regards,

Bruno.

[westes]

There's a reason this will never work (and quite apart from the obvious legal reason that you'd never get it certified by the FAA or anyone else for use in an aircraft as an aid to navigation) and that's the simple question of where the heck do you think to get your altitude data from? GPS data doesn't (and cannot) include altitude data, you'd need to get that from another source which would mean illegal tampering with the aircraft systems.

Excuse me, but how many times do we need to say that we are not using this device for navigation before it sinks in to this thread? You don't need FAA approval to bring in street maps to the cockpit, and surely pilots do use these to improve situational awareness. Just don't *rely* on that map to make navigation decisions. If I bring in a picture of a mountain range, I guess I could use that picture to improve situational awareness too. Looking at that helps to confirm decisions made based on approved devices or maps. To say that the FAA never wants us to confirm any decision we make on an FAA approved device or map is silly.

The bottom line: You don't need FAA approval for the device I am describing. It isn't used for navigation.

Regarding altitude: for the application I am describing vertical accuracy to 100 ft is fine, and GPS gives you better than that today. See this research article on GPS http://www.bluecoat.org/reports/Graham_2001_RawGPS.pdf

It makes the claim that we are empirically already seeing on average better than 25 ft vertical accuracy with the current (non-WAAS) GPS systems. That is *on average*. You cannot *rely* on that level of accuracy today.

You are not understanding my examples. I am not using this device to shave a 50 ft margin of accuracy when clearing a mountain ridge. I am using this device to realize that I am 500 ft below the mountain ridge and that I misread my FAA approved map. That causes me to then check and double check the FAA approved instruments, in the hope that I will find the source of my error. As a worst case, if I cannot resolve a discrepancy, is it going to hurt for me to ask the sector controller for another 2000 ft? Nothing on the FAA approved map or device contradicts doing that, and what is the harm for simultaneously navigating according to the FAA approved method and also confirming the decision in a non FAA approved method that improves situational awareness?

The purpose of the device isn't to *make* navigation decisions. The purpose of the device is to help me confirm those decisions by showing me potential gross errors or miscalculations.

GPS is about to take a huge step forward with WAAS, and the horizontal accuracy of that is around 10 ft. That's good enough to land the airplane which is why your beloved FAA is currently planning to allow WAAS GPS approaches to feed altitude to the autopilot to make auto-descent part of the approach. At the FAA's usual pace, that will take years to make happen, but the technology for it is here today.

There is a good article on WAAS here: http://www.avweb.com/news/avionics/185185-1.html

Lifted from a source online:

"IFR GPS units like the Garmin GNS 430/530...are certified under TSO C-129 (Class A1 for en-route, terminal and approaches, or Class A2 for enroute and terminal), and are approved for supplemental navigation. New WAAS-capable receivers like the UPS CNX-80, certified under TSO C-146a, qualify as primary receivers and will fall under different rules."

That's neither here nor there, because you don't need that level of accuracy for what I am describing.

Regarding attitude, there are currently portable gyro and EFIS systems for under $1000. http://pcflightsystems.com is a good example. As long as you have an API, any portable gyro can be used to feed the attitude to FS2004.