ADSB - Use extended OSD glyphs for dot in numbers and second line for ADSB warning#10614
ADSB - Use extended OSD glyphs for dot in numbers and second line for ADSB warning#10614error414 wants to merge 1 commit intoiNavFlight:maintenance-8.x.xfrom
Conversation
| uint8_t symbol_mi = SYM_MI; | ||
| uint8_t symbol_nm = SYM_NM; | ||
|
|
||
| if(useRichSymbols) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need this? Can't we always use the same symbols?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Second number of ADSB warning OSD element is altitude diff, I was not sure if it's OK to use "dis/km" OSD element. For horizontal distance INAV use "dis/km", for altitude "alt/km", but there is no element for altitude diff.
Originaly it was without unit, I don't think it's OK.
Do you have any suggestion how ADSB warning should look? I'm open to any suggestion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is a suffix and a bunch of other elements on that particular item, right? I think part of the reason for different symbols for distance/km and altitude/km is the silly mix of units used in aviation.... :)
Just check the units options for the OSD.
It should be ok to use dis/km for horizontal distance and alt/km for vertical difference.
You can probably look at the radar osd element for consistency, but they may be ommiting the distance units for brevity. The analog osd canvas is a lot smaller than the hd osd canvas, which is probably the motivation for the compressed decimal symbol as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would you be OK with?
BTW: inav radar does not use units as I know
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks ok for me. @MrD-RC any feedback on this?
|
BTW, if you want to aim for 8.1.x, you should target maintenance-8.x.x branch instead of master in your pr. |
error414
force-pushed
the
adsb-better-look
branch
from
0bd7871 to
a4ded42
Compare
|
Now it looks exactly like on screen
|
error414
force-pushed
the
adsb-better-look
branch
from
a4ded42 to
59f80d7
Compare
|
it works, tested many times on the field https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixcL9D2hAxo |
error414
changed the title
error414
changed the title
error414
force-pushed
the
adsb-better-look
branch
2 times, most recently
from
86d3c07 to
077ac69
Compare
|
One useful things would be having a relative heading indication indicating the direction of the detected aicraft relative to us, in order to know if it is approaching us, or flying away from us, next to detected aircraft speed indicatio. If the arrow points in the same direction of the indication of the position of the aircraft, it means it is flying away from us. Instead if the direction is opposite, it means it is heading towards us. example: aicraft in front of as, heading away from us Dist: 5.00km dir: → alt: 1.5km aicraft on right side, heading away from us Dist: 5.00km dir: → alt: 1.5km aicraft on right side, heading toward our position Dist: 5.00km dir: ↑ alt: 1.5km aicraft in front of as, passing by sideways Dist: 5.00km dir: ↓ alt: 1.5km aicraft behind us, heading toward our position what to you thing about? It would help to determine if the detected aircraft proximity risk is increasing |
|
it's already done in this pull request https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPTyB57Cp44 it works exactly as you said |
Isn't it the vehicle position relative to us? |
|
yes, you can see that durring turn heading if vehicle is changing |
…ng and second line for ADSB warning
error414
force-pushed
the
adsb-better-look
branch
from
e0b50e4 to
8f7e71f
Compare
|
recapitulation what this PR changes.
Note: Tested many times on the field with TT-SC1 and it works without any issue, values from OSD were checked by flight radar. |
error414
changed the title
3 participants
Inav Configurator #PR iNavFlight/inav-configurator#2311