As a huge fan of FS Navigator, there were six features that made this program outstanding for me, especially in casual flying. I always thought Aces should include it's features in their "top down" view. That would really help the novice or more casual user.1. It ran on a second monitor.2. Could fly to a chosen point, by then automatically engaging autopilot.3. Could move aircraft to a new point, thus speeding up flight time to a destination.4. ILS outgoing "scope" ranges were visible on map, and one could then drag appropriate radio frequencies to radios without manually entering them.5. Right click-drag to get miles to the airport was very nice too.6. The ability to darken the second monitor map for night flying, was very nice as it really reduced the light "wash over". Bob (Las Cruces, NM)

Being able to create a flight plan and share itCreating your own SIDS and STARSThe list goes on :-)

>Happy new year to all!>>There seems to be much interest in flight planners and moving>maps these days. I have been experimenting in this arena for>several months. My early results can be seen here:>>http://picasaweb.google.com/rich.lucas.maps/FSXFlightPlanner>>The software utilizes the new GPU-accelerated vector>technology in Windows Presentation Foundation.>>I am trying to gauge interest and determine if this should>evolve beyond a fun personal project. A beta candidate is>probably several weeks away. Your honest feedback is>appreciated.>>Best Regards,>Rich Lucas>Please explain your statement "The software utilizes the new GPU-accelerated vector technology in Windows Presentation Foundation."

My favourite features of FSNav were the drag and drop flightplan creation, direct export to FS and the F9 hotkey to the MMD. Cheers and thanks all for their efforts,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

I paid for FSNav years ago and was rather disappointed that it will end with FS9. The market seems to be wide open at this time. Plus we all know that the FSX planner is far too basic. Check what other planners do, such as FSNav, Copilot, FSCommander and SFP. I suggest that you keep the interface as simple and as intuitive as possible (right click menus, drag and drop, toolbar, menus). The three possibilities of using Simconnect should all be implemented. I especially like number 3 where I can switch to the planner in full screen while the sim continues to run--kind of like looking at a map while flying a real airplane.It is good you are looking into low level programming and offloading the vectors to the GPU. You will have competition in 2008, but I like your look (especially the geographical features). Ultimately I believe it was the "look and feel" of FSNav (especially the map) which made it successful and that is an area you can work on with an organized beta team. Good luck!Ben

I just have to put a plug in here for FSBuild http://www.fsbuild.com/. I

Rich, I like the combination of clean lines and subtle colors in your screenshots.

WHat i am after is a map that utilises FSX textures and terrain dat to use for VFR flying, that can just be dragged around with the mouse so that you have to work out your own position visually insted of FSX doing it for you, the gps does that anyway. But its good anyhow.

>I've got to say "Me Too" - since I've also been working on a>flight planner! There sure is going to be a glut! :-lol >>http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/182714.jpg>>(sorry I don't have a gallery of images, since the UI is not>so polished yet, and this one is zoomed out, scaled down and>cropped as part of a flight screenshot sequence)>>My planner, "VFP - VFR Flight Planner" concentrates on VFR>aspects of simming, which is under-represented IMHO, and is>best suited for VFR flights of <1000nm (no SIDs/STARs etc, but>it does have towns, cities, roads etc).>>I've taken a temporary break from forward development,>interestingly enough, to bring it into WPF (it's currently a>GDI+ app), mainly as a result of needing to learn WPF! But,>again, I'm several weeks from user testing.>>Anyhow, I wish you good luck with your project - I think>you've got something there, but then, I think I have too! ;)>>Cheers>Tim Arnot>WOW a VFR planner, a dream comes true to me!

The software makes heavy use of vector graphics to achieve clean lines and curves at all zoom levels. The terrain elevation coloring currently uses raster imaging with different data sets for the various zoom levels.A brief comparison of the two methods can be found here:http://www.logodesignworks.com/blog/vector...hics-differenceWindows Presentation Foundation (WPF) is a graphical subsystem. It is pre-installed on Windows Vista. XP users get WPF by installing the .NET 3.0 framework. WPF is based on DirectX under the hood. If you have a DX9 or DX10 graphics card, WPF will offload most of the image rendering to the graphics processor. This allows rendering of complex visuals while maintaining reasonable frame rates.

Thank you for all of the great feedback.I now see a curve ball which I should have seen before.Earlier I mentioned that an in-process map was a possibility down the road, primarily due to performance concerns. As I am reading the "why I liked FSNav posts", it appears that the in-process map was one of its biggest reasons for adoption. I define "in-process" as the ability to see (and possibly manipulate) the map on the FSX computer/screen while FSX is running in full screen mode.The primary reason I started this project was to OFFLOAD the moving map from the FSX computer onto a 2nd system dedicated to panels. The frame-tax to run the Garmin GPS-500 was up to 6 frames per second with stutters (in terrain mode) -- and this is on a E6700/GTX8800 rig overclocked to 3.2 GHZ. At the big airports on a cloudy day, this was the difference between 20 FPS (usable) and 14 FPS (not usable).I am not confident that the average simmer's hardware can deliver the horsepower needed to run this in-process without impacting FSX -- a common problem in the add-on space these days. Perhaps this will change as the hardware plays catch-up, as we saw with FS2004.If in-process is a "must have" and a criteria on which the success is ultimately judged, I may have to pass for now. It appears there are other stealthy projects out there. Perhaps they can reasonably address this need. I will keep working on this in the background and see what others bring to the table over the coming weeks.Best Regards,Rich

Rich,Why does it have to be in terrain mode? FSNav IIRC did not have that feature and was quite suitable. Perhaps it could be selectable. Would that save a few FPS?Cheers,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

Looks incredible!

I liked FSNav too but mostly it was the look and feel and ease of use that appealed to me. The fact I couldn't plan my flights in advance outisde the sim was on the negative side for me. Also, the moving map is something I can personally live without. When I need a moving map I prefer using gauges supporting it rather than another tool for it. I take pleasure in doing things as close to reality as possible so I prefer planning my flights and then print out whatever charts I need and then "bring them", just like I would when flying in real life.So, please, if you do decide to support a moving map function, please make it an option.Seeing both your works looks as this stage, please move on with the projects. As far as I can see you're way ahead of everything else in the "looks" department.CheersOh, and I'd love to be a beta tester! :()/Jonas

Chris,Tentatively yes, and I think you would need options for those trade offs to be made. I am assuming most folks are getting 20-30 FPS in flight, and 10-20 in areas with detail scenery. The good news is that FSX/SP2, seems to be maxing full use of the cores now. The bad news is that add-ons do not have much headroom (unless the user starts adjusting affinity masks and all that good stuff).This is also assuming that WPF would co-exist with FS in the same process. Although the map software would run in the FSX process, I think WPF may not. Both use DirectX, and XP/DX9 may be limited to one app at a time in full screen mode (need to verify this). I think DX10 make provisions for multiple apps/threads to share the display.Regards,Rich