Navigator feature request thread

[Rick Sheppe]

Is it time to collect a new list of feature requests?

Here are mine:

1.  Support of Flarmnet/Radar/Buddy List.  Been waiting a long time for this Oudie 2 feature.

2.  Alert when final glide status changes (above or below).  This would help in setting Mc.  It currently issues the alert only once.

3.  Airspace depiction at all zoom levels.

4.  A Navbox to display the calculated heading.  Useful in wave.

5.  Improve the vario.  TE?, time constants?

6.  Bluetooth connection to other instruments.  Tough to decide which ones.  Just throwing this one in.  My personal interest is low.

See also:  https://is.gd/3ZjlmA

[Kevin Anderson]

Also:  Ability to Declare task through the S-100 that it already talks to.

I would also love the Distance from last thermal box back.

Ability to fill in an airspace that you want to avoid completely with color.

Kevin

[Mark Burton]

Being able to customise airspace warning parameters

[Eric Greenwell]

I will add...

Wind:

• Naviter make an airspeed module with BT to achieve compensated vario and wind updates while cruising
• Persuade LXNav to add TAS and TE data to the ADI (altimeter/airspeed/vario) RJ12, so ODN vario can be compensated, and wind can update while cruising

Flarm:

• Configure Flarm from ODN like LXNav Flarmlink does
• latest Flarmnet data should download automatically

Glide depiction

• "Amoeba" like LXNAV/ClearNav OR sideview of glide path and terrain
• At the very least: a red "X" where the glide path intersects the terrain

Task

• Adjust TP by tap and drag
• rubberbanding would really help, maybe with a "handle" on each leg
• allow TP selection from Map : Append to Route selection (in addition to Go To) - 

[moshe....@gmail.com]

Eric suggested:

• Naviter make an airspeed module with BT to achieve compensated vario and wind updates while cruising
• Persuade LXNav to add TAS and TE data to the ADI (altimeter/airspeed/vario) RJ12, so ODN vario can be compensated, and wind can update while cruising

- interesting concept.  A device that connects to the pneumatic lines (static and pitot, and perhaps also TE) and sends out the data (via serial and wireless connections) would allow something like the Oudie (or XCsoar) to serve as a full-fledged vario.  In effect such a device would be a vario without a display, although it would require some minimal data processing to convert what its pneumatic sensors are reporting to a format usable by the Oudie.  Has such a device ever been offered?  Whether it would make economic sense I don't know.  How much would you pay for such a device?  For under $500 you can get a brand new XCvario which does all that (including Eric's second point) and also has its own display (and more).

[moshe....@gmail.com]

Has anybody connected SoftRF to the Oudie N via Bluetooth?

Since SoftRF can send all its NMEA output to its USB port, and the Oudie has an OTG USB port, it is theoretically possible to connect them with a USB cable instead of finicky BLE.  But I would guess that Naviter has not arranged for their software to poll the USB port for NMEA.  Add that to the list of feature requests?  Ideally the USB port on the Oudie could also power the SoftRF device off the Oudie's big battery.  Can it supply about 0.2A?

[*Eric Greenwell1*]

My Oudie's connection to my Flarm core is reliable, though it does not connect automatically. I have to tap on the "add device" each time I put it in the glider.

On 6/6/2025 7:33 AM, moshe....@gmail.com wrote:

Has anybody connected SoftRF to the Oudie N via Bluetooth?

Since SoftRF can send all its NMEA output to its USB port, and the Oudie has an OTG USB port, it is theoretically possible to connect them with a USB cable instead of finicky BLE.  But I would guess that Naviter has not arranged for their software to poll the USB port for NMEA.  Add that to the list of feature requests?  Ideally the USB port on the Oudie could also power the SoftRF device off the Oudie's big battery.  Can it supply about 0.2A?

--

[*Eric Greenwell1*]

I think a small box with the pressure sensor and BLE could be sold relatively cheaply, like less than $200. It could also be a "CAN hub", so things like LXNav flap sensors and like remote stick could connect to Oudie.

Eric

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Naviter Gliding Discussion Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/naviter-gliding-discussion-group/UciLbqXl8B8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to naviter-gliding-discus...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/naviter-gliding-discussion-group/70136858-3ba7-4db3-857a-1e83d2b024a0n%40googlegroups.com.

[Davis Chappins]

> Glide depiction

> "Amoeba" like LXNAV/ClearNav OR sideview of glide path and terrain

> At the very least: a red "X" where the glide path intersects the terrain

Does the oudie N really not have a glide amoeba? Im actually amazed at the number of people who are happy to pay $1,000 for a dedicated android device running navigator and then $130 a year for the privilege of not having the most basic of sailplane navigation features.

[Paul Remde]

Hi Davis,

SeeYou Navigator and the Oudie N don't offer a glide amoeba.  

But your numbers are not correct.  There is no $130/year fee.  The SeeYou Navigator in the Oudie N is free for the life of the Oudie N.  You also get one free year of the SeeYou-Subscription.  After the first year, you can opt to subscribe for $59/year ($49 with the discount on my website).  

I don't find glide amoeba's that useful. SeeYou Navigator highlights reachable airports - which is all I need or want.  My LX9000 supports the Glide Amoeba, but I don't enable it because it causes a lot of clutter.

Best Regards,

Paul Remde

Cumulus Soaring, Inc.

[Andy Blackburn]

Hi Paul,

The one thing I like about the amoeba is that it indicates how marginal the glide is to all the surrounding landable spots - well within the amoeba, easy to make - at the edge is getting marginal. Adjusting the Mc also allows you to fiddle with your margins. 

Something the original Oudie did was give you a list of landout spots that you could sort by distance, direction or arrival height (distance is only useful in the flatlands - arrival height is better in the mountains). It also color coded the list so that arrival height above your arrival margin at the current Mc setting was green and arrival height between current Mc and Mc=0 was yellow. IIRC the airport icons on the map shared this color coding  as a glowing ring around the icon so you could tell what was good versus marginal at a glance. The Oudie N lacks both the sorting and the color coding. As a result at the 15M Nationals in Arizona (where there are very few places to land and most of those are unpleasant) I found myself spending an inordinate about of time scrolling through long lists of landout places and reading the arrival heights and distances and then picking one that seemed more or less on the current heading. I’d describe that as a sub-optimal workflow vs the original Oudie.

I use my Oudie N as my primary display for alternate landing spots and I miss the ability to have real sense of whether the landouts out in front of me are a sure thing or marginal. Flying out west you are often dealing with a single alternate at a time and having it suddenly go to out of gliding range isn't a surprise I want to be constantly worrying about.

Andy Blackburn

9B

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Naviter Gliding Discussion Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to naviter-gliding-discus...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/naviter-gliding-discussion-group/84d9205b-a9c5-4ec1-8b7a-aa6f41832f30n%40googlegroups.com.

[Rick Sheppe]

Excellent comment, Andy.  Navigator desperately needs a quick-glance way of presenting the glide situation to places in front of you.  The amoeba is one way of doing this, but there are others, as you state.

[Paul Remde]

Hi Andy,

You make many very good points.  I agree with them all.

However, the arrival altitude numbers displayed next to waypoints also give an idea of how much margin you have in making it to points on the map in front of, and all around you.

Best Regards,

Paul Remde

[*Eric Greenwell1*]

I've used several flight computers, and the ClearNav was the only one with an amoeba, so I don't consider it a "basic" feature. The others used "terrain interference" markers, glide path side views, or colored rings on airports to provide the pilot with similar information, but I think the amoeba is the most useful for me. Last year, Naviter assured me the "amoeba" is on the list of planned future features, but no indication of when.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Naviter Gliding Discussion Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/naviter-gliding-discussion-group/UciLbqXl8B8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to naviter-gliding-discus...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/naviter-gliding-discussion-group/958fbeb6-1da6-4782-a515-4aab3ececc16n%40googlegroups.com.

[*Eric Greenwell1*]

Spoken like a pilot that doesn't have mountain within 500 miles of his soaring site! 😛

Just teasing, of course, but the amoeba is not an advantage in essentially flat areas, like those around Albert Lea, for example. It is a blessing from the God of Glider Pilots in mountainous areas, like the northern mountains in Washington state, where is is common to have a 3000' AGL arrival height to an airport, but also a 4000' AGL mountain in the way.

An amoeba, glide path side view, or "terrain interference" marker is the most desired feature for me.

Eric

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Naviter Gliding Discussion Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/naviter-gliding-discussion-group/UciLbqXl8B8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to naviter-gliding-discus...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/naviter-gliding-discussion-group/84d9205b-a9c5-4ec1-8b7a-aa6f41832f30n%40googlegroups.com.

[*Eric Greenwell1*]

To obsess a bit more, the arrival altitude numbers displayed next to waypoints do not give you an idea of how much margin you have IF there is a mountain in the way  🙁

Eric

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Naviter Gliding Discussion Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/naviter-gliding-discussion-group/UciLbqXl8B8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to naviter-gliding-discus...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/naviter-gliding-discussion-group/075cde0e-9e98-4739-8504-59e9496dbbb8n%40googlegroups.com.

[Andy Blackburn]

Thanks Paul,

Maybe I’m misunderstanding - is there a way to display arrival altitudes on the map view, or were you talking about the list view? Putting it on the map would be of some help as I find it generally the case that I am looking for alternates out in front of me on course unless I’m desperate and sorting for arrival altitude AND direction is a bit challenging in a list - that’s why the color coding helps. Irrespective of that (and maybe it’s just me), I find it easier to scan for green/yellow than read all the numbers (including the negative ones) and create a sorted list in my head. Sure, comparing integers is the simplest of math operations, but it’s a lot to sort and you have to keep updating as your position and altitude change.

I may be mistaken but I thought Andrej told me at the convention that they were planning a glide amoeba feature. Honestly I’d like to see the color coding regardless. They demonstrated on the Oudie that they know how to do it.

Navigator has been getting better and better so I expect these things are just a matter of time. 

Andy

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Naviter Gliding Discussion Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to naviter-gliding-discus...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/naviter-gliding-discussion-group/075cde0e-9e98-4739-8504-59e9496dbbb8n%40googlegroups.com.

[Andy Blackburn]

My LX 9070 has an amoeba. 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Naviter Gliding Discussion Group" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to naviter-gliding-discus...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/naviter-gliding-discussion-group/3ecc2361-58d0-4a08-ad49-26ab40a76234%40gmail.com.

[Paul Remde]

Hi Andy,

SeeYou Navigator has supported arrival altitudes displayed on the map next to landable waypoints for a long time.  You can't see is when you're on the ground.  I don't recall whether or not the numbers are colorized.

I agree that the Glide Amoeba would be nice, but think that the arrival altitudes on the map is 90% of that functionality - at least for me.

Best Regards,

Paul Remde

[Paul Remde]

Hi Eric,

Good point.  Most of my soaring in flatland soaring.

Best Regards,

Paul Remde

[Ronald Gleason]

I flew on Monday 6/9/25 and was able to take a couple of screenshots.

Here is a list airports graphically showing arrival altitudes

And here is a list of airports that are reachable in an orderable format, MAP-->Slect Target-->Nearest Landings-->

This paticlular screen is unusable as the CUP file I have loaded has very verbose descriptions of each airport.  I will be creating a terse version using www.soaringinfo.data

[Andy Blackburn]

Thanks Ron.

I’m wondering why some airport on the map have arrival altitudes and others don’t. Is that a decluttering based on zoom level? 

Also it would be helpful would be to indicate on the airport icon the different airport types (paved, dirt, outlanding place are the main ones I think). I’m working with Davis Chappins on a comprehensive database of waypoints for the US where you will be able to assign different outlanding types based on your preferences and based on available metadata about the specific landing spot. For instance, runways that are narrower than the wingspan of your specific glider could be categorized differently for your specific situation. It would be great if different categories showed up differently on the map.

It would be nice to know more about potential alternate airports at a glance, plus have rich text descriptions available with important details. We will also have provision for pilot reports that will be time stamped.

Andy

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 10, 2025, at 7:39 AM, Ronald Gleason <xcfl...@gmail.com> wrote:

I flew on Monday 6/9/25 and was able to take a couple of screenshots.

Here is a list airports graphically showing arrival altitudes

<39626A52-0A1A-4A59-8453-17306F31FC3B_1_201_a.jpeg>

And here is a list of airports that are reachable in an orderable format, MAP-->Slect Target-->Nearest Landings-->

This paticlular screen is unusable as the CUP file I have loaded has very verbose descriptions of each airport.  I will be creating a terse version using www.soaringinfo.data

<B71F329A-A76E-488F-8FB3-B465396CFE4C.png>

On Sunday, June 8, 2025 at 7:23:53 AM UTC-6 Paul Remde wrote:

Hi Andy,

You make many very good points.  I agree with them all.

However, the arrival altitude numbers displayed next to waypoints also give an idea of how much margin you have in making it to points on the map in front of, and all around you.

Best Regards,

Paul Remde

On Sunday, June 8, 2025 at 1:48:43 AM UTC-5 r...@sover.net wrote:

Excellent comment, Andy.  Navigator desperately needs a quick-glance way of presenting the glide situation to places in front of you.  The amoeba is one way of doing this, but there are others, as you state.

 I miss the ability to have real sense of whether the landouts out in front of me are a sure thing or marginal.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Naviter Gliding Discussion Group" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to naviter-gliding-discus...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/naviter-gliding-discussion-group/785397f2-330f-4003-9346-adb5e3c7dc09n%40googlegroups.com.

<B71F329A-A76E-488F-8FB3-B465396CFE4C.png>

<39626A52-0A1A-4A59-8453-17306F31FC3B_1_201_a.jpeg>

[Ron Gleason]

Andy, sounds like an interesting project.  I sure hope you guys are communicating with Lynn Alley as he has more knowledge regarding airport information from the FAA and what other folks are trying around the world than most folks.  While the data is important have the flight computer software supporting the data will be interesting.

I will perform some more tests in future flights and after I turn off the ‘auto display’ of the thermal assist which causes screen changing.  Still experimenting with the best background maps, NAV boxes etc.

BTW running on a iPhone 

[Andy Blackburn]

I was taking about the airport types already defined in the CUP format. I was kind of hoping that the people who developed CUP might differentiate how the different airport types they defined appear on the maps in their flight instruments. I thought they did on my original Oudie and I haven’t really looked closely enough at Navigator (I can barely read some of the teeny fonts). If they depict them differently then all we are doing is mapping pilot choices on how they want to filter the airport metadata onto those various, already defined airport types.

There are other waypoint types as well - maybe 20-ish.

I spent time with John Leibacher in Tucson the past two weeks and I think there’s been some conversation with Lynn but not by me yet. This is primarily a compliment to what they do. I thought Lynn was mostly focused on airspace.

Andy

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 10, 2025, at 2:40 PM, Ron Gleason <xcfl...@gmail.com> wrote:

Andy, sounds like an interesting project.  I sure hope you guys are communicating with Lynn Alley as he has more knowledge regarding airport information from the FAA and what other folks are trying around the world than most folks.  While the data is important have the flight computer software supporting the data will be interesting.

[Lynn Alley]

Hi Andy,

You said: "I thought Lynn was mostly focused on airspace."

Actually, my website at https://soaringdata.info has always hosted current(ish) airport data from an official FAA source converted to a few of the most popular glider formats, including CUP, Cambridge Aero DAT, NDB for the ILEC SN10, and some others. Look at the Airports tab in the site. The source is the National Airspace Resource  (NASR) file set published by the National Flight Data Center.

Using soaringdata.info, you could make a US national airport database in CUP format, however most users prefer to make a smaller, local database centered on their home airport, with a bounding radius that includes their local cross-country area.  You can also update stale airport data in any old contest turnpoint file you might have lying around by uploading it to soaringdata.info, and then downloading an updated version.

John's focus on the Soaring Turnpoint Exchange is a little different -- it is mostly on glider contests or less formal competitions.  He accepts turnpoint and landing location lists from contest organizers, adds or updates airport information (using the same source that I do), converts them into a much larger number of formats than I support, and provides a place to publish them.  He doesn't routinely update these until another contest is held at the same location.  In contrast, soaringdata.info allows any individual pilot to create his/her own database and update it on demand.

One of the problems anyone will face who attempts to create a database of turnpoints and/or landing locations is the question of how to keep the data current.  The NASR files list about 20,000 US airports, and there are hundreds of changes every 28-day cycle.  For public airports, NASR really is the accuracy gold standard.  With some few exceptions, the data for public airports tend to be current and correct.

Private airports are a different matter.  The FAA has no clearly defined way of insuring that the data for these are kept up-to-date.  They simply rely on the owners to inform the FAA of changes.  I helped prepare the database for the World Gliding Championships last year.  As a part of that effort, I found that more than a third of the private airports listed in the NASR  data for the contest area had fallen into total disrepair and disuse.  Some had buildings where the runway was supposed to be.

For better or for worse, the commercial suppliers of glider products (like Naviter) generally use OpenAIP instead of FAA sources as their source of airport info.  OpenAIP relies totally on volunteer submissions for the airport information.  It may be true that in a few select local areas volunteer effort may keep the OpenAIP data in relatively good shape, but in most of the US OpenAIP has fallen hopelessly out of sync with the FAA sources.  Even the data for public airports is seriously flawed (just one example: the entry for Nephi gives the wrong radio frequency).  The data for private airports is even worse.  OpenAIP lists many, many private airports that have been non-existent for 20 years or more.

As you or others consider any proposed national database, think about how it should be kept current.  One simple idea is to simple eliminate any data that hasn't been refreshed for some period of time -- like a couple of years.

Best regards and good luck,

Lynn

PS.  soaringdata.info does of course support airspace data too.  As a matter of fact, it may interest you to know that soaringdata.info is the only unlicensed source of most US airspace info. Whether you get it from Naviter, OpenAIP, the Soaring Turnpoint Exchange, or anywhere else, virtually all of the US OpenAir, CUB, or SUA translations of Class and Special Use Airspace originate from the files published on soaringdata.info. 

[Andy Blackburn]

Thanks Lynn. That’s super helpful. 

We should chat if you haven’t already spoken with Davis. The aging idea is definitely a good one - particularly as a prompt to do further inspection. The current construct is to keep a full time-stamped change history so you always know what’s changing rather than just overwriting with new data. That allows quality control. Google Earth photos are time stamped and can be a starting place of obviously good vs defunct landing locations - or ones that need further investigation from the air or on the ground. Many soaring sites add their own emergency landing spots like roads and dry lakes. Obviously these can be critically important - but only if you can have confidence that they can be trusted.

I think Davis has been tapping the FAA data for the US as a starting point. Many contest managers have been doing a diligent job of inspecting and making notes on airports used to create task areas (Tucson just did a bang-up job of this) but these end up frozen in time in a flat file rather than a dynamic database-based system with additional metadata and filtering that a file based system can’t easily accommodate. 

Obviously many use cases (like contests) ultimately require files “of record” including all their format translations for different computers and systems so the database can act as a front end for that in addition to being an easy way to create custom files of waypoints for XC flying where all the waypoint and landing location updates (including pilot reports, useful contact information and retreive instructions) are preserved in a single location for everyone’s benefit.

Let’s get a call together to compare notes - and thanks for your service to the sport.

Andy

On Jun 10, 2025, at 11:21 PM, Lynn Alley <lall...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/naviter-gliding-discussion-group/4768fe6c-ecf8-4f74-9a1a-785bcafc0e93n%40googlegroups.com.

[moshe....@gmail.com]

"As you or others consider any proposed national database, think about how it should be kept current.  One simple idea is to simple eliminate any data that hasn't been refreshed for some period of time -- like a couple of years."

- that's a double-edged sword, since a deleted airport may well actually still be the best option in an area, and if it is deleted then a pilot who doesn't know better may choose a more risky landing spot that is still in the database.  Maybe not delete, but clearly mark as old, not recently verified, information.

[Andy Blackburn]

Time stamping of information is the plan of record. You can identify and selectively filter from your download landing spots that haven’t been updated in N years.

Andy

[Davis Chappins]

Andy,

I don't think this is right venue to discuss this - people fill in gaps with their assumptions then make conclusions based on those assumptions. Then other people make conclusions on those conclusions, before long no one actually knows what you were talking about but they absolutely know their opinion on it.

This thread is more geared towards justifying features as not necessary in a glide computer that you pay $60/yr for.

[moshe....@gmail.com]

OK, but I wouldn't do that sort of download.  Instead, I'd want to download all the landing spots, but have the age of the data mentioned within each one, or at least with some sort of mark on those that are "stale".  Then I can edit the information in my copy as needed.  For example, the big busy airport is probably still there, but I may want to cross-check the frequency.

[moshe....@gmail.com]

Davis: you are right that this discussion (of a national waypoint database) is wider than the supposed scope of this Group (Naviter products).  It should probably be discussed on RAS.  But, you should be happy to get feedback from whomever does join this discussion.  They may well point out something you haven't thought of.  If you want to explain how the database is supposed to work, so we won't make wrong assumptions about it, please do so.  But to develop it with consultation of only a few people is bound to result in something that will need revision later when it confronts the real world.

[Andy Blackburn]

You can download as you like. That’s the advantage of a database rather than a collection of flat files. Flat files represent someone else’s choices about what they want to see and how it’s presented and are constrained by the file format.

But as Davis mentioned, this group is about Naviter’s gliding instruments so time to end the thread drift.

Andy

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Naviter Gliding Discussion Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to naviter-gliding-discus...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/naviter-gliding-discussion-group/9009219b-2146-4cf7-9264-723c54a2338an%40googlegroups.com.

[Daniele G.]

Hi, I'm a Navigator user in Italy, from this discussion it is evident that the availability of reliable airports data is a worldwide problem,
it follows that an essential functionality for pilots is the ability to use the best data available to them, whether it be a collection of personal files,
shared databases, or the data included in airspaces provided by Naviter, which are derived from OpenAIP.
Therefore, it would be very useful to have the ability to filter the sources used by Navigator to provide the list of nearest landings and not to always force the OpenAIP airports.

Or at least to separate airspaces and airports within the data provided by Naviter 
In my flying area, the Naviter airspace includes not only multiple dismissed airstrips but also commercial international airports in class D airspace, not a good choice for a trasponder-less glider !
This makes almost useless the newly developed navbox "Nearest landing"

Daniele

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/naviter-gliding-discussion-group/51DDDA18-E3C1-4691-B3AF-89974113093D%40gmail.com.