A/FD pixel density

[Darren Mattos]

Any chance increasing the pixel density of the A/FD to make it a little more sharp. 

I attched fltplan and Avare screenshots for comparison. 

Loving Avare.... Awesome app. 

[Jeff Johnson]

How did you get that version of the afd? Mine looks completely different. Mine is just a text representation of the data.

[Zubair Khan]

You download it from A/FD for your area then press the drop down button on top of text A/FD.

On Aug 21, 2016 12:38 AM, "Jeff Johnson" <para...@gmail.com> wrote:

How did you get that version of the afd? Mine looks completely different. Mine is just a text representation of the data.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Apps4Av Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apps4av-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to apps4a...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/apps4av-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/apps4av-forum/0f2343dd-ce37-4447-b7f7-45864475511f%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jeff Johnson]

I'm going to try that now. I just flew 2,400 miles and I thought I had done that before I left. But there is SO MUCH information available to download (thanks a heap) that I could have missed it.

[Peter A. Gustafson]

Hi Darren,

fltplan uses the original pdf files, which are vector based, and thus can be viewed at any zoom without degradation.  We convert to png with some loss of quality.  We do it to manage disk usage.  Note our app footprint is very small... the pdf library they use to view that image approaches 20 Mb... driving their app itself is something like a 45 Mb download. (Whereas Avare is less than 1MB total last time I checked).  Of course those numbers without the databases and tiles.  But we compare favourably there too.

Our driving question is whether it is both clear and easily usable (first priority). After that, we work hard to balance resource demands vs visual quality.  So, can you use them and read them?  Let us know.

Pete

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Apps4Av Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apps4av-foru...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/apps4av-forum.

[pballer2oo7]

i think we should revisit. sectionals and plates are usable, sure, but are not beautiful. and honestly in a high workload environment like a VOR approach, i would question whether plates are usable. a quick glance to refresh my memory about final approach course or min alt requires a clear plate.

is it user storage that we are trying to be mindful of or is it server transfer limits?

[Zubair Khan]

PDF library for Android is too big. Its 10 times the size of the app itself.
If it was done on a PC, I would use PDF library but not on device.

On Aug 28, 2016 11:02 AM, "pballer2oo7" <pball...@gmail.com> wrote:

i think we should revisit. sectionals and plates are usable, sure, but are not beautiful. and honestly in a high workload environment like a VOR approach, i would question whether plates are usable. a quick glance to refresh my memory about final approach course or min alt requires a clear plate.

is it user storage that we are trying to be mindful of or is it server transfer limits?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Apps4Av Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apps4av-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to apps4a...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/apps4av-forum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/apps4av-forum/0beb5a14-153b-4fb2-a13b-b9334ce69d6c%40googlegroups.com.

[pballer2oo7]

Could stick with the current png approach but with a less lossy conversion? 

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 5:10:40 PM UTC+2, Zubair Khan wrote:

PDF library for Android is too big. Its 10 times the size of the app itself.
If it was done on a PC, I would use PDF library but not on device.

On Aug 28, 2016 11:02 AM, "pballer2oo7" <pball...@gmail.com> wrote:

i think we should revisit. sectionals and plates are usable, sure, but are not beautiful. and honestly in a high workload environment like a VOR approach, i would question whether plates are usable. a quick glance to refresh my memory about final approach course or min alt requires a clear plate.

is it user storage that we are trying to be mindful of or is it server transfer limits?



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Apps4Av Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apps4av-foru...@googlegroups.com.

[Dean Gibson ATP/CFI]

Well, I think the current Avare IFR chart resolution is right at the usable limit.  A doubling of chart resolution would mean a 4x increase in file size.  However, the ability to pinch-zoom a vector-based approach chart (as the FAA charts are) to a higher resolution can be invaluable:  Try reading charts in a bouncy cockpit at night in real weather (yes, that's not an uncommon scenario).

What I do for a backup for Avare (aside from having a spare loaded device in the cockpit):

1. Now that all the IFR charts are a free download from the FAA, every 28 days (20 days ahead of the effective date) I download all the TERPS charts (5GB), and every 56 days the Enroute (200MB) and AFD (360MB) graphics.
2. The TERPS and AFD graphics are supplemented with an .XML file that I parse and feed into a database.  I then generate simple HTML pages linking the whole mess together.  You can see it here:  http://airman.mailpen.com/ifr/ Note that for each civilian approach plate change, the FAA helpfully provides a PDF side-by-side "diff" chart with the changes highlighted, and I have included that.
3. I also include the next TERPS cycle when available (typically 20 days ahead of the effective date).  In order to not have a huge amount of duplicated plates that have not changed, if a plate has not changed (other than the date in the border), I delete the older plate, and link to the new one.  This way, there is never any confusion about having an out-of date chart.  This allows the whole mess for two cycles to occupy less than 8GB.
   
4. I then download the whole mess to the microSD cards in my four Android devices.  You can either pull the microSD card out each month and copy to it in a PC, or use ADB (as I do) to do the transfer.   All you need to easily navigate and view the charts is a non-crippled Android browser (see next item) and any one of several Android PDF viewers.  I normally use Adobe's, because I want guaranteed compatibility (ie, no surprises in the cockpit), but I have not experienced any problems with Google's default Android PDF viewer (which you already have if you use Google Drive), nor FoxIt.
   

By "non-crippled Android browser", I mean:

1. One that can render local (ie, in the Android device's file system) HTML web files (disqualifies Chrome and others).
2. One that in such web page, can follow and render HTML links to other local files, including .PDF files.
3. One that, when confronted with an HTML link to a local .PDF file, will invoke a PDF viewer (the first time you try to do this, you may have to hold your finger on the link and specify which PDF viewer you wish to use).
   
4. As far as I can tell, that leaves Android Firefox as the only workable candidate (if you know of another one, I'm all ears). The fact that the other browsers that I have tried, can't do that, is stupid and infantile beyond belief.  What, you say, "that's a bit strong"?  Consider that the stock browser in Android 3.0 and before, did this just fine.  The fact that it was removed, is the infantile part.  Why remove something that's working?  There's apparently no security issue, because Android Firefox (without special permissions) can do it just fine.  Rather, I think it's part of the "why would you want to do that?" (the seven last words of incompetent software designers) attitude that is so prevalent today in software development.
   

OK, end of soapbox (at least in this message).  If there is enough user interest, I'll set up a web page to provide (every 28 days) the (zipped) HTML files.  I'll include the Linux scripts to create the necessary directories & links, and delete the "duplicate" plates.  Of course, users will have to do the FAA downloads themselves.

Of course, this is not a replacement for Avare, which provides a lot more functionality, but it is a backup.  For one thing, there is no integration with a GPS.  Of course, situational and positional awareness is not dependent on a GPS, correct?  However, this system is an excellent backup, and the beauty of it is that it requires nothing but a non-crippled browser and a PDF viewer, which means that it can work on almost anything with at least 8GB of free storage.  It might even work on an iPad ...

-- Dean  ( http://airmen.mailpen.com/airman/dean/ ) 

On 2016-08-28 08:02, pballer2oo7 wrote:

I think we should revisit. Sectionals and plates are usable, sure, but are not beautiful, and honestly in a high workload environment like a VOR approach, i would question whether plates are usable.  A quick glance to refresh my memory about final approach course or min alt requires a clear plate.

Is it user storage that we are trying to be mindful of or is it server transfer limits?

[bman]

Man, I must be doing something. I will admit I am using version 7.3.6, so unless the newer version messed up something, I find on my Samsung Tab 7 and Samsung S4, WAC's and Low Enroutes are crystal clear pinched and zoomed all the way in. AFD's are very readable even on my phone.

In my opinion the quality is more than sufficient and in no way would benefit enough to offset increasing file size for storage or loading reasons. Please don't change a thing.

[Peter A. Gustafson]

http://www.chartbundle.com/
provides an excellent backup methodology for me.

[Dean Gibson ATP/CFI]

Thanks!  It was inevitable that once the charts were free (and the 20-day advance downloads were publicly available) that there would be a number of decent solutions.

On 2016-08-29 06:56, Peter A. Gustafson wrote:

-- Dean  ( http://airmen.mailpen.com/airman/dean/ ) 

http://www.chartbundle.com/ provides an excellent backup methodology for me.

On 08/28/2016 03:02 PM, Dean Gibson ATP/CFI wrote:

What I do for a backup for Avare (aside from having a spare loaded device in the cockpit): ...

[Peter A. Gustafson]

chartbundle has been around for at least several years.  I printed off a nice bundle for my instrument checkride and the examiner was impressed.

(No affiliation... I just think it a nice paper based solution.)

[pballer2oo7]

BMan, I'd be interested in seeing screenshots from you. Charts are (mostly) usable on a Tab A, but not crystal clear like you're reporting.

Dean, on certain approach plates, occasionally a 5 will look like a 6 due to the compression. This is while sitting on a stationary couch in my living room. I wonder how things would look in IMC on an unstable day. Enroute charts also look rough.

Zubair, why are we opposed to a 20MB apk?

[bman]

here you go

[pballer2oo7]

Ya that's how they look to me too. Usable, but not beautiful. Most en route charts and approach plates are less usable, right on the line (some dip just below the line).

I'm in favor of using more storage (app footprint, downloads, or both) for clearer plates and charts.

[Zubair Khan]

Its not only the storage, its bandwidth, its run time memory on your phone, and its battery power on your phone. It is in roadmap to be improved when hardware improves and we have money to buy amazon storagre.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Apps4Av Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apps4av-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to apps4a...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/apps4av-forum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/apps4av-forum/7d2688e0-2b05-4c5b-9b65-ec31f79e4e79%40googlegroups.com.

[bman]

Boy, I sure don't see your concern. Even when I look at the screenshot I posted above, it is perfectly usable. Charts and plates are even better quality.
The only thing I can guess is that your device is just displaying a terrible quality. I have three devices (Tab 2 7.0, S2 and S4) running Avare and all are good. Maybe look into trying it on a different device.

Z, I see no reason to sacrifice update download time, device storage, or display load speed for any improvement. It just seems unnecessary to me.

[pballer2oo7]

bman, well, it's not just my concern alone. it's a topic that comes up regularly in the issue tracker and on the email list.

i attached an example to describe another viewpoint. imagine briefing that plate in a high workload and bumpy environment.

* is AWOS-3 on 118.325 or is this the first AWOS ever to center on .326MHz? :P
* is morse code for 'L' "dit dah dit dit" or "dit dah dah?"

finally, consider that some users will do a couch comparison between our charts and plates and end up going with fltplan simply for the clearer looking ux, even tho we offer much richer features. beautiful chart quality matters.

Zubair, i was wondering how much transfer limits were influencing the decision.

[Zubair Khan]

We prefer speed and efficiency over looks. Just press the tabs quickly - Map Plate AFD a few dozen times and data will be there before your finger can reach the next tab. Do other apps do it? For IFR flying speed matters. Quality matters but if it is acceptable, or barely acceptable we move resources to speed. To make plates better quality, we will have to make them bigger size and memory use goes up square of size. There are practical limitations that people who have not coded a map app for flying will not understand (some have coded and still dont underatand and hence low quality flying apps). Then there is data limits. We are hosting 5 TB per month. Our ISP is remarkable for what we pay but everyone has their limits.
In short, its not going to happen unless if we start charging, and drop older devices, both of which are going to be less than exciting. Or maybe technology will allow in a few more years.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Apps4Av Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apps4av-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to apps4a...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/apps4av-forum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/apps4av-forum/4bf28416-648d-4a4c-a584-f19baaf89795%40googlegroups.com.

[Zubair Khan]

BTW your plate is incorrectly tagged! The green dot should appear on airport.
Thanks

On Sep 2, 2016 10:59 AM, "pballer2oo7" <pball...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Apps4Av Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apps4av-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to apps4a...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/apps4av-forum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/apps4av-forum/4bf28416-648d-4a4c-a584-f19baaf89795%40googlegroups.com.

[pballer2oo7]

Agreed, Zubair. Efficiency and stability are paramount. 

But this isn't a looks vs efficiency discussion. We're not discussing memory pressures from GUI elements, which multi touch library we use, or fringe features. It's a usability discussion, regarding the primary feature of the application.

"Quality matters but if it is acceptable, or barely acceptable we move resources to speed." <-- I think the key to this discussion is what is acceptable. There are a handful of plates that are not. I think it's time to revisit the challenge of making charts and plates higher quality.

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 5:32:37 PM UTC+2, Zubair Khan wrote:

BTW your plate is incorrectly tagged! The green dot should appear on airport.
Thanks

On Sep 2, 2016 10:59 AM, "pballer2oo7" <pball...@gmail.com> wrote:

bman, well, it's not just my concern alone. it's a topic that comes up regularly in the issue tracker and on the email list.

i attached an example to describe another viewpoint. imagine briefing that plate in a high workload and bumpy environment.

    * is AWOS-3 on 118.325 or is this the first AWOS ever to center on .326MHz? :P
    * is morse code for 'L' "dit dah dit dit" or "dit dah dah?"

finally, consider that some users will do a couch comparison between our charts and plates and end up going with fltplan simply for the clearer looking ux, even tho we offer much richer features. beautiful chart quality matters.

Zubair, i was wondering how much transfer limits were influencing the decision.

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 4:19:19 PM UTC+2, bman wrote:
> Boy, I sure don't see your concern. Even when I look at the screenshot I posted above, it is perfectly usable. Charts and plates are even better quality.
> The only thing I can guess is that your device is just displaying a terrible quality. I have three devices (Tab 2 7.0, S2 and S4) running Avare and all are good. Maybe look into trying it on a different device.
>
> Z, I see no reason to sacrifice update download time, device storage, or display load speed for any improvement. It just seems unnecessary to me.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Apps4Av Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apps4av-foru...@googlegroups.com.

[Zubair Khan]

We think about it everyday and Peter experiments with new image formats, compression settings all the time.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apps4av-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to apps4a...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/apps4av-forum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/apps4av-forum/0648af1f-b13c-44f3-8d88-037adecf30f6%40googlegroups.com.

[Darren Mattos]

Z,

I'm sorry for posting.  I should have sent you a PM.  The maps and charts are absolutely beautiful all the way up to max zoom.   The maps are also fast to render.  I only asked for a very slight increase in clarity of the A/FD so they don't look I need glasses.  They are absolutely usable and I read them before taking flight.   Please leave as is so other with less powerful devices can still enjoy such an amazing app.

This is truelly an amazing app that I use for all my flights and appreciate you keeping it as lean as possible.  I hate other programs that have a ton of lag due to bloat. 

It works fantastically on S3, S4, S5, Note5 and Galaxy Tab S 8.7 and Tab S2 9.7.

I'm looking forward to using it for CAP work as well. 

Thank you.

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Apps4Av Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/apps4av-forum/2HmsNbsiqrQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to apps4av-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to apps4a...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/apps4av-forum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/apps4av-forum/CAEB8w0C_HkKYEis8FCs_CMTHAj5ZpEme5sm%2BKHqyJaf6VuwGag%40mail.gmail.com.

[Zubair Khan]

Hi Pete

See if we can do something about quality with lower compression, especially the AFD.

Thanks

Z

--

Zubair Khan
apps4av.com
zk4u.blogspot.com
Sudbury, MA 01776

[Dean Gibson ATP/CFI]

How about this as a solution:  Allow (as an option) Avare to access PDF files pre-loaded by the user?  The user who desired to use this option would have to:

1. Download from the FAA site or elsewhere, the TERPS and/or AFD charts in PDF format.
2. Install the desired Android PDF viewer(s) of his/her choice.

Avare (when this option is set) would just invoke the user's PDF viewer.  Just like many Android apps do to display various file formats.  The first time an apps does this, the user is presented with a list of apps that can view the file, and he/she does that (on either a one-time basis, or semi-permanently).

Obviously, this would require that Avare use the FAA file names, but I'd guess you already do that.

I'll even write the documentation.

-- Dean ( http://airmen.mailpen.com/airman/dean/ )

[Peter A. Gustafson]

This is probably reasonable for AFD, maybe even a good idea.  Although in my mind totally unnecessary since I think the AFD is perfectly reasonable.  In my mind it is a bad for plates (since the pdf and its reader would not be tagged).

I'm also going to respond to a different email in the thread... please bear with me as I correct what I believe are some misconceptions.

Pete

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Apps4Av Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apps4av-foru...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to apps4a...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/apps4av-forum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/apps4av-forum/a7b2d3e5-2120-020d-363f-d82d9fd4695c%40mailpen.com.

[Peter A. Gustafson]

Yep... and things could be "better" (either higher resolution or lower disk usage) if we dropped old devices.

So far we've placed significant value those users and their thrifty nature.  Why make them buy new tablets?  But maybe some day we'll require a newer android... at some point the improvements will be compelling, and the number of older devices will be small.  :)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/apps4av-forum/CAEB8w0BLHfkmRC0hTWiU79EPSJAP9JZ_nUpyfWvicJic_Lo%2BYA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Zubair Khan]

Dean
We had it before but was removed and no one complained. The PDF was then converted to png. We could revisit this and let users use a PDF viewer. I like this idea. Same can be done with plates but no geotagging will work.
Z

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Apps4Av Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apps4av-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to apps4a...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/apps4av-forum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/apps4av-forum/a7b2d3e5-2120-020d-363f-d82d9fd4695c%40mailpen.com.

[Dean Gibson ATP/CFI]

My opinion:  While geotagging is useful in most situations, I don't think it should be used (or even referred to) during an approach, so it doesn't bother me that one would lose it in PDF viewer.

 That having been said, the default for users could be for Avare to render its own plate, and a long press on the plate (or some other gesture) could invoke the PDF viewer and plate.  As you know, both Avare and the PDF viewer would continue to run and be immediately accessible on all but the most ancient of Android OS versions.

-- Dean  ( http://airmen.mailpen.com/airman/dean/ ) 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apps4av-foru...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to apps4a...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/apps4av-forum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/apps4av-forum/CAEB8w0AjPFqPu-8JX1gnqbXiNJngnzPi77-h-TEdDi1Sfzr%3DSQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Peter A. Gustafson]

pballer2oo7 and all.

Herein contains my wearisome dissertation on "plate quality", which
really should be referred to as image rendering.


pballer, the screenshot image isn't clear. I agree the 5 could be
mistaken for a 6.

HOWEVER: Screenshots mislead.

This isn't simply a "better for me is better for all" type of request.
Attached is the real plate image (rather than the screenshot). It is
legible to me on any appropriate screen. (Not saying it couldn't be
better... but it is legible.)

pballer, you are zoomed out on a low resolution screen (which I gather
is 1024x768). The display area of the chart is probably something more
like 900x700. The native image is 1275x844. Which means each of your
screen pixels is about 1.25 real pixels. The view on screen is actually
an interpolation among the pixels that surround it in the image file.
(To imagine this, pretend I'm your tablet. I'll take 0.27778 of each
pixel above and below on the left, and 0.22222 of the pixels above and
below on the right side. Add these together, and render. Note I'll do
unique ratio left/right and up/down for each pixel. This description is
oversimplified but not inaccurate.)


How can this be fixed???

There are two things we can do with Avare to make it look better:

1) Native vector formats such as pdf will look as good as possible...
they draw pixels based on the vector and will be "sharp" for the screen
quality. For the moment lets assume that is out. Avare will not be
implementing pdf files (for now, for performance and other reasons
previously discussed.

2) Increase image resolution. I would be OK with this generally (I have
purchased recent and very capable hardware, older harder would be
harmed). BUT, this will barely help you pballer! To make it look good
on your screen (as you've got it configured for zoom out), we would have
to almost double the linear resolution. Say, increase it so there was a
direct 2:1 ratio of image:render pixel ratio. This would look better...
essentially averaging 4 image pixels to render one screen pixel... but
with as few screen pixels as you have, it will still not look "great".
And many users would not like this as it consumes 4x the resources.
Probably pballer's hardware would suffer more than most, (I'm
extrapolating from knowledge of your screen resolution to the components
of modern or older tablets with this resolution).

Beyond that, we at Apps4Av can't do much. The algorithms for pixel
rendering are well developed and implemented at the OS level.


pballer, There are several things things you can do:

1) Zoom more advantageously... for example zoom OUT to a 1:1
image:render ratio (or another whole integer ratio). The image will be
more sharp, but would of course be smaller and perhaps less legible. OR
zoom IN to a 1:2 ratio. You would loose much of your image off the edge,
which you will not like. Either way you will not be satisfied.

2) Buy a better tablet. Good hardware is good hardware. Cheap hardware
is cheap. 1024x768 was good 5-8 years ago... and is in many very cheep
devices now. Go buy a high resolution tablet and things will look
significantly better. As your hardware appears to be cheap, you live
with the associated compromises.

3) Use vector based approach plates in a vector based app... for the
moment that means something other than Avare. And by the way... it
still won't be "perfect" on your screen because of aspect ratio! More
on that in a minute.


Note this logic applies for en-route charts too... we ship them at the
_highest_ resolution supplied by the FAA. pballer, to get a wide enough
view for your intended purpose on the chart, you have to zoom out. Your
zoom most likely results in a disadvantageous image:render pixel ratio.
(Or, in the extreme case, actually loads a reduced resolution image
meant for overviews.) You say these enroute charts are barely usable...
I say it is your screen, not my chart. :)



My recommendation for hardware? I'll tell you what I did.

I "single purpose" shopped for an avare tablet. No other app matters to
me. (OK... that last bit is overstating. Good for avare is probably
good enough for everything else.)

I bought one with 2560x1600 screen (A galaxy tab S 8.4). Why? I
downloaded avare on each modest performance (or better) android tablet
at the store. The tab 8.4 was specifically formatted well for
displaying approach plates (high resolution screen, good aspect ratio
for plates). 2560/1600=1.6. Plates from the FAA come at 1.5360. The
1.6 aspect ratio shows essentially the whole plate, even after leaving a
little room for the avare tabs etc at the top and bottom of the screen.
Very little wasted real estate, sharp enough image.

Note: we ship avare plate images with a vertical resolution of 1238.
So, 1238*2=2476 pixels. less than my screen resolution... So I get an
integer 1:2 image:render (linear) ratio... (that means 4 screen pixels
per image pixel).

I passed on some other very "nice" tablets, which others would have
drooled over for some "superior" spec. Those tablets I dismissed had a
different screen format... lower resolution maybe, but more critically a
different aspect ratio. For example pballer's is 1275x844=1.3333.
Zooming to something "comfortable" looses key info at the top and bottom
of the plate (or zooms out to be waste lots of screen space).
[pballer's problem is two fold... bad aspect ratio and low resolution].
So, bottom line, there were some great high res tablets I rejected
because they zoom disadvantageously when looking at avare plates.
Definitely don't buy a 1.333 aspect ratio at low res if you want to use
approach plates.

If the tablet shows avare's plates well... it will have good looking
charts too.

So I recommend single-purpose shopping based on plate rendering.

Pete

[David James]

Peter:

Extremely well written. Thank you. Parts (or all) of this should go on the wiki (or scm readme) for reference in the future discussions that will (without doubt) occur regarding this topic.

The immediate answer is to set (slightly, not ridiculously) higher resolution in the image container. My screenshot earlier was taken adhoc, specifically to give another perspective (ie, to show the thread that what is best for one is not best for all).

Similar usability concerns arise on other dev tablets (and phones for that matter) with higher (and lower) resolutions and varying A:Rs. We should revisit the current approach (starting with slightly higher PNG resolution).

David

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Apps4Av Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/apps4av-forum/2HmsNbsiqrQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to apps4av-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to apps4a...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/apps4av-forum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/apps4av-forum/c10c1cdb-ad9f-6fc1-daa4-52f247fab238%40gmail.com.

[Zubair Khan]

Please send me 200dpi images for an airport. I will try and confirm if the app can handle it without much rt memory issues.
Thanks
Z

On Sep 2, 2016 4:29 PM, "Peter A. Gustafson" <peter.g...@wmich.edu> wrote:

I tried three levels... linear conversion resolutions of 150dpi, 200dpi and 240.1dpi referenced to FAA pdf page size.  (240.1dpi buts up against a practical limit for the OS, for some technical reasons).

$ du -sh afd-*
127M    afd-150
193M    afd-200
249M    afd-240.1

So, storage space scales about linearly due to png compression, rather than the worst case theoretical raw number (square of pixel density).  In app memory consumption will scale using the squared law, if I understand it correctly. Decompression will burn more power with larger files.

As a personal opinion, I honestly don't care if we resize it... Higher resolution would be prettier.  I would advocate to users that a hardware upgrade is well worth it!  My hardware can handle it, speed wise, and I've purchased enough disk to spare (since I needed it anyway for development purposes).  But older hardware will suffer... some of the 8GB storage devices (and anything less than that) will run into trouble.  I had such a device... it was not uncommon after installing my "bare min" software apps that I was about 7.5GB... so an extra 125M would consume 25% of the remaining margin... and living close to that edge will eventually cause an app crash as the device fills and can't write to tmp dirs.  Of course I would redefined "bare min" to get avare installed and fully functioning.  :)

Let me know what you want long term Z... I can send you sample files if you want to get a feel for how they look.

Pete

On 09/02/2016 01:28 PM, Peter A. Gustafson wrote:

AFD is currently made using lossless png compression at 844x1275. I do use antialias and convert to a 15 color png... all of which I've found to be fine (it won't improve readability if they are 256 color or rgb.  for AFD that is.)

To make them visually better, I think the only effective improvement would be higher resolution.  I'll try a few higher resolutions and see how much disk space its costs us.

Pete

-- 
Peter A. Gustafson, PhD
Associate Professor
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Western Michigan University
G-215 Floyd Hall
Kalamazoo MI 49008-5343
Phone: 269-276-3423
Fax: 269-276-3421

-- 
Peter A. Gustafson, PhD
Associate Professor
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Western Michigan University
G-215 Floyd Hall
Kalamazoo MI 49008-5343
Phone: 269-276-3423
Fax: 269-276-3421

[Zubair Khan]

Cannot not share this experience from Pete. I like geo tagged plates.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Peter A. Gustafson <pgust...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: apps4av-forum Re: A/FD pixel density
To: a...@mailpen.com, Zubair Khan <gove...@gmail.com>


Hi Dean, I agree... within limits.  But I'll never turn away a piece of
useful information in a moment of confusion.


I was on approach (above the clouds by a few hundred feet) with ceilings
at minimums a few weeks ago.  I had been thinking well ahead of the
airplane, and had dialed in the VOR final approach radial... double
checked my altitudes etc, slowed to approach speed, and began a turn to
establish the final approach coarse. Everything seemed smooth and I was
relaxed but attentive, almost "proud" of myself... (My departure
personal minimums are higher than the FAA requires... so I don't often
fly when real minimums exist. That day's ceilings turned out out to be
well below the forecast. So I was having fun, working the "approach to
mins" that I had trained so many times to accomplish, but had never
really done (not without an instructor).)

I was expecting (and planning) to go missed.  I had the ILS at the
adjacent airport in my "most likely" plan, and another field reporting
VFR just 25 miles away... at least that is where ATC is directing "those
VFR" guys. (mental note... is it smug to be glad I get to try this
approach, while they are heading the wrong way?) So I was mentally
preparing for the miss... rehearsing in my head the MDA and the climb
out vector.  Unexpectedly, a dialogue with approach control began... it
went something like this:


"83U, this is approach, verify you are established on course, you appear
to be several degrees off course."

"Approach, 83U. I believe I'm on course.  Stand by."

Get a bit nervous, start rechecking all this stuff... ahh... low
ceilings and something is wrong?!? Fly the airplane first. Do I request
a delay vector? I'm not as ahead of the airplane as I thought... and I
had been having fun just a moment ago.

A slight pause, gather thoughts.  First, I assume its me... but could it
be them?  VOR needle is dead center, it couldn't be more so!  Not even
if I had autopilot (which I don't).

A quick a glance at the geotagged plate confirmed their observation, I'm
left of course by a healthy margin.  It isn't that I've lost track of
the needle... spot on. I doubt ATC is just being "cautious".  What could
it be?  Two options... the VOR is wrong or I entered the wrong course.
Lets see...? OK... Cross checking against the plate?? Whoops, a few
degree off! Fixed!  Should I request vectors and restart this thing?
Well look at that... I'm still within tolerances. No need to panic.
Plenty of room before the final approach fix. A slight course correction
will address this. Relax... fly the airplane. (In hindsight, I think I
had dialed in the GPS approach course to the same runway, probably out
of habit.)

"Approach, 83U has identified and corrected the approach course setting.
I can continue the approach from my present position."

"83U roger, contact tower"

"over to tower, and THANKS for your help! 83U"

Relief and back to generally low anxiety. Soon back ahead of the
airplane... whats next? "pride" certainly won't be an issue for me
today.  An uneventful let down (broke out just a bit above minimums).

[After landing, a question from my wife... how can you do that? I was so
lost, and more than a bit nervous.  Training my dear... lots of
practice. That means less panic when something unexpected happens. I did
get nervous for a few seconds. But I also had a confidence in the team
whose sole job today it is to watch out for us.  Thank heavens for them.]

Had I NOT had the GPS tagged approach plate... There would have been a
few more seconds of second guessing ATC, and no immediate hint that I
had entered the wrong course.  The situational awareness bump was
invaluable in keeping me in a good mental state. (Note, I hadn't been
watching my progress on the plate... like Dean I "don't do that".) But
in this case, ATC was telling me something, and avare was providing
supporting evidence... so it narrowed my search of "things that could be
wrong" to just a few.)


Pete

On 09/02/2016 02:27 PM, Dean Gibson ATP/CFI wrote:
> My opinion:  While geotagging is useful in most situations, I don't
> think it should be used (or even referred to) during an approach, so
> it doesn't bother me that one would lose it in PDF viewer.

[bman]

I agree that geotagging is a great resource.
Having been in sales my career, I would suggest that the resource/upgrade device question should be made with consideration to the "customer" base. I suspect those capable/willing/eager to upgrade may be using other software with fees attached and maybe Apple. Those attracted to a super free software are probably more likely to want to stick with an older device as long as possible.

[Zubair Khan]

+1

On Sep 3, 2016 12:42 PM, "bman" <beech...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree that geotagging is a great resource.
Having been in sales my career, I would suggest that the resource/upgrade device question should be made with consideration to the "customer" base. I suspect those capable/willing/eager to upgrade may be using other software with fees attached and maybe Apple. Those attracted to a super free software are probably more likely to want to stick with an older device as long as possible.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Apps4Av Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apps4av-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to apps4a...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/apps4av-forum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/apps4av-forum/e6aa0321-a1cb-4a28-a1be-7e918e5fb9ca%40googlegroups.com.

[Dean Gibson ATP/CFI]

I first loaded all the the FAA TERPS charts (two whole cycles, for a total of about 8GB loaded) and used them regularly in flight on a Barnes & Noble "Nook Color" (Android 2.x, as I recall) w/ 512MB RAM and 8GB storage (5GB available + microSD slot).  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nook_Color ...  I used Adobe's PDF viewer (20MB installed) for viewing the charts.

This was in April, 2011.  It still worked fine when I sold it four years later.  They currently sell all over Amazon, Craigslist, and eBay for less than $50 (but there are now much better choices for $50).  I'm sorry;  I don't buy the "older device" argument.  I am sympathetic to the bandwidth argument, although it is not a factor for me.  Note that I am retired, and my only source of income is Social Security.  I rent airplanes (not the cheapest way to fly) and still fly regularly.  If there comes a time when I can't afford to fly safely, I'll stop;  I won't cut corners.  Most of the aviation fatalities we see in this area, are pilots who have cut corners on either currency or equipment/maintenance.

I'm sorry, but I am a hard-ass on this subject.

As the owner of the flight school I used to instruct at, says to customers, "The only thing cheap in aviation are the pilots."

This reminds me of an argument in another forum, for keeping compatibility with 80 column eMail formatting.  The chief proponent of this position, cited "Pine" (a free Linux eMail client) as an example of the only eMail client that "poor people" could afford.

What he apparently didn't know, was that Pine had been adapted to seamlessly work with wider displays (and format for whatever width display someone had), more than a decade earlier.

Perhaps we are chasing ghosts?

-- Dean  ( http://airmen.mailpen.com/airman/dean/ ) 

On 2016-09-03 09:42, bman wrote:

...Those attracted to a super free software are probably more likely to want to stick with an older device as long as possible.

[bman]

Gee, Dean, slow down. Don't we all benefit from more and more pilots having situational awareness? I believe the folks at Avare are trying to get the best product they can to the most pilots they can. By definition that increases safety. The broader their appeal the better.

If someone wants beautiful or perfect, go with FlyQ or Garmin Pilot with hardware restricted to late versions of Apple and fairly high fees. For most folks, the product is no better for SA. The point is to reach as many as possible. Free open software is one way to do that. It has worked well for Avare.

As a CFII since the 70's, I have yet to see a pilot use a geotagged display for "navigation" but I remain amazed (and thrilled) at the level of situational awareness provided. Compared to the old days, we are WAY ahead in SA using today's displays of everything from traffic and weather to where the heck we are. You don't see Garmin restricting their graphic display in panel mounts or autopilot coupling. As CFI,s we just have to train proper use.

Cudos to Avare for a great product with the widest appeal of anybody out there. THANKS!!!

[Dean Gibson ATP/CFI]

VOR course scalloping.  We often see it in the VOR/DME RWY 16 approach to KPAE.  Yes, we get the same warnings from the tower (which has a remoted radar display from approach).

The KPAE VOR RWY/DME RWY 16 final approach course is 90% over water, so one would initially not expect VOR course scalloping over "flat" terrain.  However, there is a small island on approach, just to one side of the approach path.

You will note that some VOR or ADF approaches have GPS overlays, which means that they can be flown with either traditional navaid course guidance, or with GPS course guidance.  Then there are others, like our VOR approach (and presumably yours), for which GPS guidance is not authorized, and should not be used.  There are several reasons for this, but they all boil down to the fact that the approach has not been flight-checked (including obstruction clearance) for use with GPS.  Flying a non-GPS-approved approach using a GPS for course guidance is a violation of the FARs.  Note that a GPS CAN be used on such an approach for DME step-down fixes!

Now, I believe you don't do that, but the temptation is there for a lot of pilots.

-- Dean  ( http://airmen.mailpen.com/airman/dean/ ) 

On 2016-09-02 14:58, Peter A. Gustafson wrote:

Hi Dean, I agree... within limits.  But I'll never turn away a piece of useful information in a moment of confusion.


I was on approach (above the clouds by a few hundred feet) with ceilings at minimums a few weeks ago.  I had been thinking well ahead of the airplane, and had dialed in the VOR final approach radial... double checked my altitudes etc, slowed to approach speed, and began a turn to establish the final approach coarse. Everything seemed smooth and I was relaxed but attentive, almost "proud" of myself... (My departure personal minimums are higher than the FAA requires... so I don't often fly when real minimums exist. That day's ceilings turned out out to be well below the forecast. So I was having fun, working the "approach to mins" that I had trained so many times to accomplish, but had never really done (not without an instructor).)

I was expecting (and planning) to go missed.  I had the ILS at the adjacent airport in my "most likely" plan, and another field reporting VFR just 25 miles away... at least that is where ATC is directing "those VFR" guys. (mental note... is it smug to be glad I get to try this approach, while they are heading the wrong way?) So I was mentally preparing for the miss... rehearsing in my head the MDA and the climb out vector.  Unexpectedly, a dialogue with approach control began... it went something like this:


"83U, this is approach, verify you are established on course, you appear to be several degrees off course."

"Approach, 83U. I believe I'm on course.  Stand by."

Get a bit nervous, start rechecking all this stuff... ahh... low ceilings and something is wrong?!? Fly the airplane first. Do I request a delay vector? I'm not as ahead of the airplane as I thought... and I had been having fun just a moment ago.

A slight pause, gather thoughts.  First, I assume its me... but could it be them?  VOR needle is dead center, it couldn't be more so!  Not even if I had autopilot (which I don't). 

A quick a glance at the geotagged plate confirmed their observation, I'mleft of course by a healthy margin.  It isn't that I've lost track of the needle... spot on. I doubt ATC is just being "cautious".  What could it be?  Two options... the VOR is wrong or I entered the wrong course.  Lets see...? OK... Cross checking against the plate??  Whoops, a few degree off! Fixed!  Should I request vectors and restart this thing?  Well look at that... I'm still within tolerances. No need to panic.  Plenty of room before the final approach fix. A slight course correction will address this. Relax... fly the airplane. (In hindsight, I think I had dialed in the GPS approach course to the same runway, probably out of habit.)

"Approach, 83U has identified and corrected the approach course setting. I can continue the approach from my present position."

"83U roger, contact tower"

"over to tower, and THANKS for your help! 83U"

Relief and back to generally low anxiety. Soon back ahead of the airplane... whats next? "pride" certainly won't be an issue for me today.  An uneventful let down (broke out just a bit above minimums).

[After landing, a question from my wife... how can you do that? I was so lost, and more than a bit nervous.  Training my dear... lots of practice. That means less panic when something unexpected happens. I did get nervous for a few seconds. But I also had a confidence in the team whose sole job today it is to watch out for us.  Thank heavens for them.]

Had I NOT had the GPS tagged approach plate... There would have been a few more seconds of second guessing ATC, and no immediate hint that I had entered the wrong course.  The situational awareness bump was invaluable in keeping me in a good mental state. (Note, I hadn't been watching my progress on the plate... like Dean I "don't do that".) But in this case, ATC was telling me something, and avare was providing supporting evidence... so it narrowed my search of "things that could be wrong" to just a few.)


Pete



On 09/02/2016 02:27 PM, Dean Gibson ATP/CFI wrote:

[Dean Gibson ATP/CFI]

As a CFII since 1969, I have no problem with pilots using the GPS for situational awareness during the routine phases of flight.  I find especially helpful in navigating around Class B airspace.  I was referring to the specific case of it being displayed on an approach plate during an IFR approach.  I'm not saying it shouldn't be there;  I'm saying pilots should not be depending on it.  See my message on VOR scalloping.

I have used both Garmin Pilot and Avare for the past year.  I dropped Garmin before my subscription expired, because a recent software update unexpectedly deleted all charts on my devices, and to recover, I had to uninstall and reinstall the app, and then re-download all the charts I use.  Considering that the software update might have been automatically done on the ground when I was unaware of it, and I then would have first started the app while in flight (with the attendant loss of data), disqualified Garmin Pilot in my mind for any future use.  Garmin fixed the problem immediately, but the fact that this could even occur, is disqualifying.  This is one reason that I keep a chart backup on my Android devices that is not dependent upon a single point of failure (eg, any single app).

I'm also a hard-ass on software reliability, having been in that field since 1963.  Don't let anyone tell you that bugs like the above are a inevitable part of the software development and release process;  they are not.

Finally, I wasn't criticizing Avare.  The topic was providing an alternative, higher-resolution approach chart within Avare, and the fact that such a "jump" to a PDF viewer would lose the overlay of aircraft position on an approach chart, and whether that was acceptable.  I claim that it is, and that the trade-off is not (and should not be) a serious issue.

-- Dean  ( http://airmen.mailpen.com/airman/dean/ ) 

[Zubair Khan]

We tried higher resolution A/FD at 200 dpi and 240 dpi. This is increase from current 150 dpi.

There was no significant difference at 200 dpi, and some improvement at 240 dpi. But 240 dpi increases memory use quite a bit.

The current A/FD resolution of 150 dpi is a good balance between memory and quality.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Apps4Av Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apps4av-forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to apps4a...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/apps4av-forum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/apps4av-forum/3cd8dee8-9950-2547-8b39-3f7cf1a7634d%40mailpen.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Domenic]

Maybe we should conduct a survey of hardware devices in use.

Even better, perhaps upon installation, Avare could request permission to report the users phone/tablet specs. Vague statements that we'll do something when technology improves sounds a bit like placating the user when we don't have a concrete definition of what needs to improve and to what degree. Maybe 80% of your users already have the better technology in hand.

I love Avare. There have been times in the helicopter though that I have been unable to read the plates and forget about reading the AFD in flight. I wouldn't want anything to change for a single user or even a small few, but this thread is long enough that it justifies at least a survey to collect additional information.

[John W SBA]

> Maybe 80% of your users already have the better technology in hand.

First off, thanks for sharing your enthusiasm about raising the bar on
Avare. My own past requests have centered around splitting into two
versions, one for say the last two Android releases and the other what
we already have that works on pretty much everything.

Four things:
1. Even though I contribute little in recent years, it still seems
fitting that all Apps4Av users consider ourselves part of a "We." So
I'd encourage you to consider changing that in your sentence quoted
above, because imo you are very much a member of the Apps4Av community
and as such have some ownership in *our* ongoing dialog and development. :)

2. My "split" idea has been soundly, wisely and repeatedly rejected by
the Dev Team because of the massive amount of work and potential for
bugs involved. I greatly appreciate that not only has the Dev Team
chosen what I believe has consistently been the "best" course for
development, but they have also been very welcoming of ideas and
requests even when they decline to implement them.

3. Though this is an over-statement of your request, chasing the Android
release updates is a very time-consuming task, so the backward
compatibility strategy has many advantages for our small but highly
dedicated all-volunteer Dev Team.

4. I believe the gPlay app "owner" has access to detailed stats on:
Active Users, Installs, Device Make/Model, Android Version, and more.
If this is still the case, our Dev Team takes all that into
consideration when contemplating any rise in the minimum Android version.

> I love Avare.

Same here! :D

> this thread is long enough that it justifies at least a survey

Would you be willing to start a new thread with that topic? If so, you
might focus on what features (in what priority) our users would most
like to see. When combined with the gPlay stats, such info could be
helpful to our Dev Team in ongoing decisions.

Thanks again for your interest and participation in our Apps4Av movement. :)

[John Wiley]

Peter, I *really* appreciate this post you did about screen resolution because it's been so helpful for me! I've been thinking about upgrading from my way obsolete 1st gen Nexus 7 (2012 was it?) and as you described an essential factor is how well it will work with Avare. I'm about to write up a PIREP on what I've found, including a free way to get Avare's A/FD images clear and readable on "Cheep" ($169) new hardware that unlike the N7 has an SD slot.

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 12:50:20 PM UTC-7, Peter A. Gustafson wrote:

pballer2oo7 and all.

Herein contains my wearisome dissertation on "plate quality", which
really should be referred to as image rendering.

[snip]

2) Buy a better tablet.  ... 1024x768... and is in many very cheep

JW: Check out Accessibility options, which on the Galaxy Tab A 8.0 can make A/FD text clear and readable (see my PIREP, when I get it posted).

 

[Peter A. Gustafson]

Very glad to hear it helped.  :)

Pete

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Apps4Av Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to apps4av-foru...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to apps4a...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/apps4av-forum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/apps4av-forum/cb9cf415-4524-4d95-a951-0e72d62d3794%40googlegroups.com.

[John Wiley]

In answer to the original post on this topic, I've found a simple way to get clear A/FD on my $160 Samsung Galaxy Tab A 8" low-resolution tablet: Accessibilty/Vision/MagnificationGestures/On. There's more detail in this "PIREP" post: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/apps4av-forum/h3O71zZzwL0/p1sIzQGiAgAJ

Happy Flying :)

Any chance increasing the pixel density of the A/FD to make it a little more sharp. 

I attched fltplan and Avare screenshots for comparison. 

Loving Avare.... Awesome app. 

[Darren Mattos]

Thanks John but it still looks slightly fuzzy. Three taps magnifying short cut has the same effect as pinch zooming, just quicker.

Its totally readable though and I understand the reason for the chosen pixel density.

Awesome app. . Keep up the great work.