Okay, so then you'd be paying $1300...

 

Again - we're talking about licensing multiple things here, and not just charts.

(I'm not actually sure how much charts are from Navigraph, but I know the app I use RW is about $75 a year for US charts only.  I think Jepp is around $500+)

 

I need to find a way to force people, Simpsons-style, to write "EFBs are not only for charts" over and over on the proverbial blackboard until it sinks in...

 

Never mind all the other stuff an EFB does.  Are you saying PMDG would need to pay Navigraph/Jepp/whatever a licencing fee around $1300 just to include chart functionality on a display screen in one of their products?  So they had to pay a licencing fee to include a functioning FMC that could use Navigraph data?  This is the part I'm confused on the $1300 fee thing.  I know you can do maths but If PMDG sold only 900 all they'd need to do is charge an extra $2 per customer to make up for that fee.  Again, if it comes down to the user deciding to use the functionality and purchase a chart package from Navigraph/Jepp/etc. then that's our decision.  I don't see the problem if we're just dealing with a licencing fee unless it's a per year type of deal for PMDG. 

 

Is the issue being able to licence all the other things that are in the real world 777 EFB like performance data etc?  Now I'd understand that.  Then it might not even come down to a cost, but certain companies wanting that info in public.  Maybe.  Seems unlikely.  

 

Then the question would be why not just do an EFB-Mini and only create chart viewing functionality?  The answer is probably simple, and is that PMDG doesn't cut corners.  If they do something, they do it right.  

 

*ramble over*

can't wait this thing to be released. because i am sure that i will not be able to seat my 747 v2's seat till this monster is released

 

 

Never mind all the other stuff an EFB does. Are you saying PMDG would need to pay Navigraph/Jepp/whatever a licencing fee around $1300 just to include chart functionality on a display screen in one of their products? So they had to pay a licencing fee to include a functioning FMC that could use Navigraph data? This is the part I'm confused on the $1300 fee thing. I know you can do maths but If PMDG sold only 900 all they'd need to do is charge an extra $2 per customer to make up for that fee. Again, if it comes down to the user deciding to use the functionality and purchase a chart package from Navigraph/Jepp/etc. then that's our decision. I don't see the problem if we're just dealing with a licencing fee unless it's a per year type of deal for PMDG.

 

No.

 

If you were to go back and read my post again, it would probably be a little clearer:

Someone argued that $1800 was too expensive and they argued one could substitute their own Navigraph subscription for much less.  I'm unsure of how much Naivgraph's charts cost (because I get RW charts from other sources) so I compared them to Jepp world subscriptions.  That would knock it down to $1300, and that $1300 would be for the performance data, and whatever else RSR and the team found to go in that bucket.  It was an off-the-cuff figure by me, simply to illustrate that there's a lot more to that cost than charts.

 

Additionally, you'd think that, being in the business of selling things, that simple math like $1800/individial-sales would be a little elementary.  As a businessperson, a fixed cost like that is easy to handle and justify, particularly because it only gets cheaper as I sell more.  Following that, a life lesson is that if it seems too simple, it probably is...

 

...and what I mean by that last paragraph is:

It's $1800 per person, with an ongoing fee.

 

Why?  Charts have to get updated.  You pay for the updated versions.  EFBs don't mean that you suddenly don't have to pay for charts anymore.

 

 

 

Then the question would be why not just do an EFB-Mini and only create chart viewing functionality? The answer is probably simple, and is that PMDG doesn't cut corners. If they do something, they do it right.

 

Data management...

 

How are those charts going to get updated?  If your answer is "by the user," then how do you provide an option for those who want it updated for them?  How do you do this without too much additional cost and performance hit in the sim?

 

...but mostly:

 

Of all parts of an EFB, why would you only model charts, which would probably be the least useful feature, and hardest - logistically - to implement?  Everyone keeps getting so hyped up about EFBs because they can present charts in the sim.  These people also tend to use zoom levels of 0.00000000000000001 because they somehow think it's more realistic (dat periph' doe!).  Now, how exactly are you going to read the tiny print on that chart? 

 

"Oh, I'll pan and zoom."

On an approach?  Sure you will.

"Why not?  I'm shooting an ILS CAT-III Autoland!  I don't need to be doing anything else..."

Right...forgot about you lot.  Well...enjoy that time you're forced to do a VOR approach!  I'll keep glancing down at my iPad/printed chart.

No.

 

If you were to go back and read my post again, it would probably be a little clearer:

Someone argued that $1800 was too expensive and they argued one could substitute their own Navigraph subscription for much less.  I'm unsure of how much Naivgraph's charts cost (because I get RW charts from other sources) so I compared them to Jepp world subscriptions.  That would knock it down to $1300, and that $1300 would be for the performance data, and whatever else RSR and the team found to go in that bucket.  It was an off-the-cuff figure by me, simply to illustrate that there's a lot more to that cost than charts.

 

Additionally, you'd think that, being in the business of selling things, that simple math like $1800/individial-sales would be a little elementary.  As a businessperson, a fixed cost like that is easy to handle and justify, particularly because it only gets cheaper as I sell more.  Following that, a life lesson is that if it seems too simple, it probably is...

 

...and what I mean by that last paragraph is:

It's $1800 per person, with an ongoing fee.

 

Why?  Charts have to get updated.  You pay for the updated versions.  EFBs don't mean that you suddenly don't have to pay for charts anymore.

 

 

 

 

Data management...

 

How are those charts going to get updated?  If your answer is "by the user," then how do you provide an option for those who want it updated for them?  How do you do this without too much additional cost and performance hit in the sim?

 

...but mostly:

 

Of all parts of an EFB, why would you only model charts, which would probably be the least useful feature, and hardest - logistically - to implement?  Everyone keeps getting so hyped up about EFBs because they can present charts in the sim.  These people also tend to use zoom levels of 0.00000000000000001 because they somehow think it's more realistic (dat periph' doe!).  Now, how exactly are you going to read the tiny print on that chart? 

 

"Oh, I'll pan and zoom."

On an approach?  Sure you will.

"Why not?  I'm shooting an ILS CAT-III Autoland!  I don't need to be doing anything else..."

Right...forgot about you lot.  Well...enjoy that time you're forced to do a VOR approach!  I'll keep glancing down at my iPad/printed chart.

Kyle if you read my post 98 in this thread you will see that Navigraph airport charts cost approximately a third of an euro (slightly less for smaller airports). They are based on information provided by Jeppesen. I would therefore think that the cost of licensing airport charts from Jeppesen for use in a gaming flight simulator must be quite small.

 

I appreciate that PMDG may not wish to be tied down to working with one firm and therefore restricting their customers to using Navigraph.

 

I would use an "EFB mini" if provided and from reading this thread I think others would too. We are quite capable of using the zoom function and updating our charts via Navigraph. I also accept and understand that others may not wish to use such a function.

 

As far as all the other functions of an EFB including electronic versions of Boeing manuals etc I accept that it would be costly to license that information. That is why I would be happy with an “EFB mini”

 

I see that other people are of the view that PMDG would not do an "EFB mini" as it's not a complete simulation of the EFB. If you accept that then it follows PMDG should not be producing simulated airlines as they can't simulate weather radar. That of course is a ludicrous assertion. Compromise will always be required when producing a desktop simulation.

 

In short I would like to see an "EFB mini" but I accept that it's doubtful that PMDG will produce one.

 

As an aside Kyle may I refer you back to this part of your post and I quote

"Everyone keeps getting so hyped up about EFBs because they can present charts in the sim.  These people also tend to use zoom levels of 0.00000000000000001 because they somehow think it's more realistic (dat periph' doe!).  Now, how exactly are you going to read the tiny print on that chart?"

 

Can I ask how you know how these people "tend to use zoom levels" etc? To be honest I find the above quote patronising and arrogant.

In that case, what is the purpose of your post..?

 

 

 

Kyle if you read my post 98 in this thread you will see that Navigraph airport charts cost approximately a third of an euro (slightly less for smaller airports). They are based on information provided by Jeppesen. I would therefore think that the cost of licensing airport charts from Jeppesen for use in a gaming flight simulator must be quite small.

 

Okay, great, but again, that does me no good.  Why, you ask?  A third of a Euro gets me one airport.  If my goal is worldwide sales, I need to make this plane marketable to the entire world.  How do I scale that solution?  Sure, you can let them import data from external sources like Navigraph and the like, which eliminates your cost issue, shifting it to those providers, but that only eliminates part of the cost.  As I've mentioned probably ten times by now, the EFB is more than a chart viewer, and licensing the cost data is a great deal of the cost.

 

Furthermore, a 0.33E is terrible.  That's about $0.50 per airport.  I can get the entire United States for $80 yearly.  For $80, I couldn't even cover the primary airports of the United States over at Navigraph.  Granted, the tradeoff is that I could get airports that I would otherwise have difficulty getting charts for (internationals, etc).

 

Either way, the point is moot because I was attempting to use world-wide coverage as a basis for comparison.  Unless you know how many airports Navigraph covers, the cost per airport metric doesn't really help me.

 

 

 

I would use an "EFB mini" if provided and from reading this thread I think others would too. We are quite capable of using the zoom function and updating our charts via Navigraph. I also accept and understand that others may not wish to use such a function.

As far as all the other functions of an EFB including electronic versions of Boeing manuals etc I accept that it would be costly to license that information. That is why I would be happy with an “EFB mini”

I see that other people are of the view that PMDG would not do an "EFB mini" as it's not a complete simulation of the EFB. If you accept that then it follows PMDG should not be producing simulated airlines as they can't simulate weather radar. That of course is a ludicrous assertion. Compromise will always be required when producing a desktop simulation.

In short I would like to see an "EFB mini" but I accept that it's doubtful that PMDG will produce one.

 

...but what's the point?  The logic there is about as backwards as someone trying to argue that we should all dispense with hardware and start flying the plane by using the mouse to drag the one on the screen around, simply because it's in the real plane.  I don't think people realize how useless the thing will be when it counts.  That's entirely subjective, but it is what it is.

 

I don't really see your comparison of the weather radar and "EFB mini" idea.  Firstly, the weather radar was more of an impossibility issue (until recently, anyway).  The EFB isn't even installed on all aircraft, so choosing not to model is isn't at all a related issue (weather radar is required in commercial aircraft, and an EFB is most definitely not).  Beyond that, it's arguably worthless as a chart viewer, and I find the comment about the manuals (which are already licensed, by the way) somewhat laughable.  Then again, maybe if they included an EFB people might actually read them...

 

My argument is more that the only real point to even modeling an EFB in the 777 is to get the neat features Boeing would offer that aren't offered elsewhere (performance data and the other unique features of the 777 EFB).  I can get, print, or otherwise show charts in other - more useful and practical, mind you - ways.  As such, having the "EFB mini" option really isn't attractive, not because it's not "fully modeled," but because it's wholly worthless for what I'm trying to accomplish.

 

 

 

As an aside Kyle may I refer you back to this part of your post and I quote
"Everyone keeps getting so hyped up about EFBs because they can present charts in the sim. These people also tend to use zoom levels of 0.00000000000000001 because they somehow think it's more realistic (dat periph' doe!). Now, how exactly are you going to read the tiny print on that chart?"

Can I ask how you know how these people "tend to use zoom levels" etc? To be honest I find the above quote patronising and arrogant.

 

First, regarding the arrogant comment:

Hi, I'm Kyle.  Have we met?

 

I don't know for a fact, or have statistical data for my zoom level comment.  You'll note I said "tend to" and then used an exaggerated number - FS can't zoom to 0.00000000000000001 - to make it a little more obvious that I'm half-joking.  If you look a lot of the pictures people post here on the forum, though, you'll notice that a lot of them use lower zoom levels.  If you look at the various posts discussing zoom levels, you'll also see that there's a big group that advocates the lower zoom levels for the peripheral effect (where I also made a joking comment).

 

I'm curious as to how it's patronizing and arrogant, actually.  If you're a user of lower zoom levels, it's more of a fact that you're going to have to do a lot of zooming on an EFB to see the detail of a chart.  You may not like that I said it, but it's a fact of life...

Kyle

I am not suggesting that PMDG provide the actual charts. I am saying I would like to be able to load my Navigraph charts into a "mini EFB".I will buy the charts therefore I decide what charts I want.

 

I understand that you want all the other features of an EFB. If that was possible I too would want them all. I agree with you that it would be far too expensive. I would like a "mini EFB" and you don't and as I clearly said in my last post "I also accept and understand that others may not wish to use such a function." For you it may be pointless but am suggesting that for others that is not the case.

 

In you last paragraph you state "I'm curious as to how it's patronizing and arrogant, actually. If you're a user of lower zoom levels, it's more of a fact that you're going to have to do a lot of zooming on an EFB to see the detail of a chart. You may not like that I said it, but it's a fact of life.." On reading that I wonder if you actually read all of my post. In case you didn't I will quote part of my third paragraph "We are quite capable of using the zoom function" In other words I know that I will have to use the zoom feature so you are telling me something that I have already stated.

 

You have also missed the point I am making when I wrote "I see that other people are of the view that PMDG would not do an "EFB mini" as it's not a complete simulation of the EFB. If you accept that then it follows PMDG should not be producing simulated airlines as they can't simulate weather radar. That of course is a ludicrous assertion. Compromise will always be required when producing a desktop simulation." The clue to the point being made is contained in the sentence "That of course is a ludicrous assertion".

 

In summary and to avoid doubt, I don't think or expect PMDG will produce an EFB nor a mini version. I accept that you think it's pointless to produce an "EFB mini". What I don't accept is that it's wrong for me or others to think that an "EFB mini" is a nice idea. Why can't you accept that difference and celebrate the diversity of our species?

 

 

I am not suggesting that PMDG provide the actual charts. I am saying I would like to be able to load my Navigraph charts into a "mini EFB".I will buy the charts therefore I decide what charts I want.

 

I get that, as clearly indicated in my post.  I was simply evaluating it from the high level of creating an EFB.  One has to consider where the charts come from.  If that happens to be Navigraph, great, but on a high level, when developing the concept, you must consider all sources.

 

 

 

I understand that you want all the other features of an EFB. If that was possible I too would want them all. I agree with you that it would be far too expensive. I would like a "mini EFB" and you don't and as I clearly said in my last post "I also accept and understand that others may not wish to use such a function." For you it may be pointless but am suggesting that for others that is not the case.

In you last paragraph you state "I'm curious as to how it's patronizing and arrogant, actually. If you're a user of lower zoom levels, it's more of a fact that you're going to have to do a lot of zooming on an EFB to see the detail of a chart. You may not like that I said it, but it's a fact of life.." On reading that I wonder if you actually read all of my post. In case you didn't I will quote part of my third paragraph "We are quite capable of using the zoom function" In other words I know that I will have to use the zoom feature so you are telling me something that I have already stated.

 

Yes, I saw that.  The overall point I'm making is an external device/chart simply requires a glance.  To look at a chart in the sim requires panning, zooming, and then panning and zooming back to where you were.  Unless you have buttons on your hardware for this, you're taking your hands away from the controls in a critical phase of flight.

 

 

 

In summary and to avoid doubt, I don't think or expect PMDG will produce an EFB nor a mini version. I accept that you think it's pointless to produce an "EFB mini". What I don't accept is that it's wrong for me or others to think that an "EFB mini" is a nice idea. Why can't you accept that difference and celebrate the diversity of our species?

 

Did I say it was wrong for you to think it's a nice idea?  I don't recall ever saying that.  Would you like to quote it for me?

 

I don't think it's wrong for you to think it's a nice idea.  I'm simply providing reasons as to why I think it's a rather ineffective idea.  It's an opinion.  Take it, leave it, debate it, do whatever to it that you'd like to it.  In the end, I'm not telling you that you can't think it's a good idea.  There's a huge difference between saying you can't have an opinion, and your opinion is stupid.  I may do the latter, but I'll never do the former.

To answer your point about you not stating it was wrong to want an"EFB mini". My view is that the tone of your posts indicate that you find the whole idea laughable and it follows from that wrong. I think the following quote illustrates this point: "Everyone keeps getting so hyped up about EFBs because they can present charts in the sim. These people also tend to use zoom levels of 0.00000000000000001 because they somehow think it's more realistic (dat periph' doe!). Now, how exactly are you going to read the tiny print on that chart?"

 

I know you think it's rather an ineffective idea and that's why I ended my last post by implying that you like I just accept that our views on this are different.

I have to question the utility of trying to program a "virtual" EFB into the 777, when it is far easier and practical to simply use the "Real Thing" - which is to say an iPad.

 

I have a 16 GB iPad 2 WiFi, which currently can be purchased on sale from numerous outlets for around $350. For flights in the US, I use the incredibly versatile Foreflight app. Everything a virtual (or r/w) pilot could ever ask for, terminal and enroute charts, airport facility directory, text and graphical weather, notams, flight planning etc. subscription price is $70 per year.

 

For the rest of the world, I subscribe to the Navigraph cloud service for EUR 43 per year, plus I have my browser filled with bookmarks linking to multiple European AIP sites for current charts, more current than what Navigraph provides, plus worldwide aviation weather sites etc.

 

In the iBooks app, I have all the manuals for each of my payware add-ons for immediate and easy reference.

 

Plus other aviation apps like the E6B, Flightradar24, Live ATC etc. It's a "real" EFB in every sense of the word, for a relatively low cost when one considers all that one gets.

 

 

Of all parts of an EFB, why would you only model charts

 

That's exactly what I said in the end of my post and I agree with you, it's pointless to do only charts, and PMDG wouldn't do an EFB with just charts anyway.  I'm still confused about the licensing aspect of the data/charts etc and I don't think what you're saying is totally correct.  It should be the same as licensing NAV data which almost every quality aircraft add on does these days.   But whatever.  I'm not too concerned about it.  Actually the little paper clip on the current EFB cover works perfect in the sim when holding my paper charts. haha

First, regarding the arrogant comment:

 

Hi, I'm Kyle. Have we met?

 

Haha. I haven't been on the forums in almost 3 months. But I'm glad to see you're still here, making friends. It makes me smile.

 

Going back to the OT,

 

I'm just glad the -300ER is coming along nicely. I'm also glad that a multitude of fixes/revisions are coming along for the -200LR.

 

I don't really understand why people whine and cry so much. We should all be happy that such a quality product is being created and offered to us. It basically comes down to "shut up or put up". Incase somebody needs me to hold their hand and draw that out in crayon.......Be grateful that you have the option of flying the T7. If you think this version of it isn't "complete" enough for you, I doubt you'll find happiness at "any other company" releasing the T7. If either of the first 2 points manage to elude you, then maybe you should try creating your own version - the version that comes with everything your heart desires. In that case, I wish you the best of luck...

Then there is also the issue of the performance hit of placing an additional "reader" into an already complex environment. Given that I can access a large number of charts via Eurocontrol, Airnav and so on, which are up-to-date enough for my purposes, I see no point in going to the time and cost expense of a mini-EFB or whatever else...

 

Then again, I am in the happy situation of running two PCs parallel... so charts and co run on the second PC...

 

I understand that not everyone has this luxury, or to buy an iPad or tablet...

 

A

Hello,

 

I don't mind having an EFB or not. But I'm also confused about the licensing part.

Does that means that Flightsimsoft have to pay that amount to give us performance calculation for TOPCAT?

Because at the end, the performance part of the EFB it is what we're going to get with TOPCAT.

Hello,

 

I don't mind having an EFB or not. But I'm also confused about the licensing part.

Does that means that Flightsimsoft have to pay that amount to give us performance calculation for TOPCAT?

Because at the end, the performance part of the EFB it is what we're going to get with TOPCAT.

Here's the topic we discussed that:

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/435258-efb/