Flying north towards KPRC, I was poking around and have often noticed the obstacle icons on the map. I doubt many of them are actually displayed in the sim, but since it was on my mind, I zoomed in to the mountain in question. What do I see? A tower! Same thing near KSEZ as well I noticed. Now my time will be looking for sim-displayed obstacles that match the GTN, lol
Thought this was neat (GTN750 related)
Thought this was neat (GTN750 related)
Chris J.
Asus Maximus VII Hero motherboard | Intel i7 4790k CPU | MSI GTX 970 4 GB video card | Corsair DDR3 2133 32GB SDRAM | Corsair H50 water cooler | Samsung 850 EVO 250GB SSD (2) | EVGA 1000 watt PSU | Windows & Pro 64 bit | FSX:SE
Asus Maximus VII Hero motherboard | Intel i7 4790k CPU | MSI GTX 970 4 GB video card | Corsair DDR3 2133 32GB SDRAM | Corsair H50 water cooler | Samsung 850 EVO 250GB SSD (2) | EVGA 1000 watt PSU | Windows & Pro 64 bit | FSX:SE
-
- Senior Master Sergeant
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: 27 Jun 2009, 03:39
- Location: Southern Germany
- Contact:
Re: Thought this was neat (GTN750 related)
In some areas (mostly USA though) there is an amazing precision in detail you would never expect to be when you look at the default terrain and mesh..
I was on a trip from the east coast to the west coast with the 182 equipped with the GTN750.. Just over North Dakota I flew in IMC conditions and suddenly got an obstacle warning. I ignored it ( ) as I really wasn't expecting an obstacle in 3000ft when North Dakota is around 1000ft elevation and... well... ND being some pretty flat prairie.. Thanks to the crash detection being deacticated I flew just through a radio tower... jep, in 3000ft..
I was on a trip from the east coast to the west coast with the 182 equipped with the GTN750.. Just over North Dakota I flew in IMC conditions and suddenly got an obstacle warning. I ignored it ( ) as I really wasn't expecting an obstacle in 3000ft when North Dakota is around 1000ft elevation and... well... ND being some pretty flat prairie.. Thanks to the crash detection being deacticated I flew just through a radio tower... jep, in 3000ft..
Re: Thought this was neat (GTN750 related)
How come you were in IMC without doing IFR?MarcE wrote:I was on a trip from the east coast to the west coast with the 182 equipped with the GTN750.. Just over North Dakota I flew in IMC conditions and suddenly got an obstacle warning. I ignored it ( ) as I really wasn't expecting an obstacle in 3000ft when North Dakota is around 1000ft elevation and... well... ND being some pretty flat prairie.. Thanks to the crash detection being deacticated I flew just through a radio tower... jep, in 3000ft..
These GTN series are quite neat, I've done some serious terrain avoidance with them when my VFR's gone bad!
I am, though, a bit in thought whether the sim presentation gives too good a picture of how well these things function in reality. The obstacles in database are likely well-cautioned, for they are single points with good definition, but I'd expect the TAWS resolution to be somewhat worse in reality. I don't know how jumpy the GNS's GPS altitude is when not coupled to a barometric source.
-Esa
-
- Senior Master Sergeant
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: 27 Jun 2009, 03:39
- Location: Southern Germany
- Contact:
Re: Thought this was neat (GTN750 related)
AKar wrote:How come you were in IMC without doing IFR?
Don't fly anywhere your mind hasn't been 2 minutes beforeThese GTN series are quite neat, I've done some serious terrain avoidance with them when my VFR's gone bad!
-
- Staff Sergeant
- Posts: 261
- Joined: 23 Nov 2012, 09:41
- Location: C29
Re: Thought this was neat (GTN750 related)
Part of how GPS determines your position is by also determining your altitude. If you think about it, because the whole thing is 3-dimensional, it would pretty well have to. Combination of triangulation and atomic clocks measuring time delay and such, although I'm grossly oversimplifying.AKar wrote:How come you were in IMC without doing IFR?MarcE wrote:I was on a trip from the east coast to the west coast with the 182 equipped with the GTN750.. Just over North Dakota I flew in IMC conditions and suddenly got an obstacle warning. I ignored it ( ) as I really wasn't expecting an obstacle in 3000ft when North Dakota is around 1000ft elevation and... well... ND being some pretty flat prairie.. Thanks to the crash detection being deacticated I flew just through a radio tower... jep, in 3000ft..
These GTN series are quite neat, I've done some serious terrain avoidance with them when my VFR's gone bad!
I am, though, a bit in thought whether the sim presentation gives too good a picture of how well these things function in reality. The obstacles in database are likely well-cautioned, for they are single points with good definition, but I'd expect the TAWS resolution to be somewhat worse in reality. I don't know how jumpy the GNS's GPS altitude is when not coupled to a barometric source.
-Esa
-stefan
Re: Thought this was neat (GTN750 related)
It is still cool
Andrew
ASUS ROG Maximus Hero X, Intel i7 8770K, Nvidia GTX 1080, 32GB Corsair Vengeance 3000 RAM, Corsair H90i liquid cooler.
All Accusim Aircraft
Accu-Feel, 3d Lights Redux
ASUS ROG Maximus Hero X, Intel i7 8770K, Nvidia GTX 1080, 32GB Corsair Vengeance 3000 RAM, Corsair H90i liquid cooler.
All Accusim Aircraft
Accu-Feel, 3d Lights Redux
Re: Thought this was neat (GTN750 related)
I bet it was the Hillsboro antennas (I guess it's the KVLY tv station antennas) - I got my pilot's license in Grand Forks ND, just north of there - and sure enough, they are there. Actually the western portion of ND is very scenic, and not so flat... many hilly portions of the state and buttes takes the elevation up to around 3500 msl ft in places.MarcE wrote:In some areas (mostly USA though) there is an amazing precision in detail you would never expect to be when you look at the default terrain and mesh..
I was on a trip from the east coast to the west coast with the 182 equipped with the GTN750.. Just over North Dakota I flew in IMC conditions and suddenly got an obstacle warning. I ignored it ( ) as I really wasn't expecting an obstacle in 3000ft when North Dakota is around 1000ft elevation and... well... ND being some pretty flat prairie.. Thanks to the crash detection being deacticated I flew just through a radio tower... jep, in 3000ft..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVLY-TV_mast
Used to be the world's tallest man made structure. I believe it's second now at 3125 ft MSL
Re: Thought this was neat (GTN750 related)
An amateur radio operator's dream tower! Good luck climbing it to fix something!
Chris J.
Asus Maximus VII Hero motherboard | Intel i7 4790k CPU | MSI GTX 970 4 GB video card | Corsair DDR3 2133 32GB SDRAM | Corsair H50 water cooler | Samsung 850 EVO 250GB SSD (2) | EVGA 1000 watt PSU | Windows & Pro 64 bit | FSX:SE
Asus Maximus VII Hero motherboard | Intel i7 4790k CPU | MSI GTX 970 4 GB video card | Corsair DDR3 2133 32GB SDRAM | Corsair H50 water cooler | Samsung 850 EVO 250GB SSD (2) | EVGA 1000 watt PSU | Windows & Pro 64 bit | FSX:SE
Re: Thought this was neat (GTN750 related)
It is actually rather complicated. Determining the pseudoranges is the easy part when speaking of precision applications. The issue is that this position fix often is somewhat jumpy, depending on the conditions. Position shown to the user is typically a solution produced by some significant Kalman filtering, which essentially works by predicting how the position fix would evolve and by constantly updating that prediction by observed (but noisy) fix. Essentially this process is what you see when you bring your phone's GPS on for instance, when the position first drifts around a little before stabilizing to more or less where you are. It is a property of Kalman filter that it is somewhat jumpy, and tends to drift around the true value (which is obviously unknown). This filtering is often improved based on certain assumptions putting physical constraints to the receiver's location: a hand-held device for instance can typically be assumed to remain close to Earth's surface, nailing down the solution pretty firmly. In aviation GPSes, I understand the classic way to help with a good solution in aviation use where the fix is moving in three dimensions over time, is to restrict the allowed evolution of the position fix in coordinates where little change in motion is expected. How the exact filtering process is constructed can mean that one coordinate is sacrificed in stability or accuracy to make the rest more stable. I understand that at least the early GPS devices were less solid in their vertical accuracy than in latitude+longitude.shortspecialbus wrote:Part of how GPS determines your position is by also determining your altitude. If you think about it, because the whole thing is 3-dimensional, it would pretty well have to. Combination of triangulation and atomic clocks measuring time delay and such, although I'm grossly oversimplifying.
-stefan
At least in one aviation-related case I am aware of where the accuracy of the GPS was found insufficient on its own, the accuracy was improved by having several independent units installed to the extremities of an airplane, so that their geometry in relation to each other was known, and these were fed into another round of filtering.
It would be interesting to monitor the "raw" data from a modern GPS to see how they hunt you down!
-Esa
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests