AOPA's new Internet Flight Planner

[TangoWhiskey]

So, what do y'all think?

http://www.aopa.org/aifp

It's in Beta til 11/19, when it goes live. Better than RTFP, as it works from any browser (even ... MACS!)

Looks like I'd have a great tailwind from FTW to St. Joseph, MO at 9500! And some weather...

 

[AdamZ]

Why can't they make it with the Rubber band function?

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Why can't they make it with the Rubber band function?

Rubber-band would be nice... you can almost do that by right clicking on the map and creating your own waypoint, then right click again and 'add to route'. You can also right-click over any navaid or airport and add it to the route. Once it's in the route table, you can left-drag the items in the order you want.

Not as easy as true rubber-banding, but the functionality is there.

I still don't see DP's and STARS.... I REALLY wish they'd add that.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Why can't they make it with the Rubber band function?

They tried- they couldn't make it happen. I don't know why Something about keeping it entirely web-based. We asked that same question some time back.

I've been running it for 3 or 4 weeks now- things to watch are the chart- airspace and obstacles. Also double-check your nav log. It is giving reasonable results but last week I got it to give an ETA for a C150 with a head wind > cruise. It did report negative fuel. It also let me fly a trip with a 90° crosswind faster than the plane could fly.

The WX makes sense outside of AK and HI.

 

[AdamZ]

So when its released will RTFP be totally done kaput as in they won't update it? If so it would make sense to remove it from my computer to fee up the space.

 

[mikea]

They tried- they couldn't make it happen. I don't know why Something about keeping it entirely web-based. We asked that same question some time back.

I've been running it for 3 or 4 weeks now- things to watch are the chart- airspace and obstacles. Also double-check your nav log. It is giving reasonable results but last week I got it to give an ETA for a C150 with a head wind > cruise. It did report negative fuel. It also let me fly a trip with a 90° crosswind faster than the plane could fly.

The WX makes sense outside of AK and HI.

WHAT are you doing?!!!!!! Testing with extreme data?!!!!! Just go with what it says.

 

[ScottM]

From what I read this new FP is entirely online and does not work offline? If that is the case I don't like it at all. I don't use the old RTFP as it had trouble with firewalls and did not really work well offline, but it did work a little. I have been suing Golden Eagle for seveal years as it has no issues with firewalls and is very functional offline.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

They tried- they couldn't make it happen. I don't know why Something about keeping it entirely web-based. We asked that same question some time back.

I think they need to ask Google how they did it with Google Maps, which is also entirely web-based.

 

[SkyHog]

From what I read this new FP is entirely online and does not work offline? If that is the case I don't like it at all. I don't use the old RTFP as it had trouble with firewalls and did not really work well offline, but it did work a little. I have been suing Golden Eagle for seveal years as it has no issues with firewalls and is very functional offline.

Now, more than ever, we need tort reform.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

From what I read this new FP is entirely online and does not work offline? If that is the case I don't like it at all. I don't use the old RTFP as it had trouble with firewalls and did not really work well offline, but it did work a little. I have been suing Golden Eagle for seveal years as it has no issues with firewalls and is very functional offline.

Does this mean you have tried the new flight planner & it doesn't work? Or are you presupposing that since others didn't work, this one will not work also?

If you have tried it and it doesn't work- send an e-mail off to the address that pops up on the beta warning- they will try to fix it.

As Skyhog noted- I don't get why you are suing Golden Eagle if it works well






:smile:

 

[RMCN172RG]

I joined the Beta group and have played with it.

My biggest complaint is the lack of options in the way it prints.

 

[gprellwitz]

Does this mean you have tried the new flight planner & it doesn't work? Or are you presupposing that since others didn't work, this one will not work also?

If you have tried it and it doesn't work- send an e-mail off to the address that pops up on the beta warning- they will try to fix it.

You can't really "try to fix" the inability to work while offline. It's a major architectural change. They made the decision up front.

As for rubberbanding, it can be done in an online-only program. In addition to the aforementioned Google Maps solution, Aeroplanner.com does it.

 

[tlglenn]

I beta-tested it and I like it, but there are some features in the old program I want to see.

 

[sba55]

I think they need to ask Google how they did it with Google Maps, which is also entirely web-based.

I can tell you how they did it.

They have a very large team working on Google Maps and a huge common code base that they can share among their online apps. AOPA/Jeppesen doesn't have those sort of engineering resources.

Also worth pointing out that some of the best engineers worked on the algorithm to get the rubber banding feature to work. It requires a lot of computing resources and they even had to come up with an entirely new way of sharing the work load among a cloud of commodity machines. When you use that feature, that request goes to multiple machines; it seems like it's "real-time", but it's very computationally expensive.

-Felix

 

[jesse]

I can tell you how they did it.

They have a very large team working on Google Maps and a huge common code base that they can share among their online apps. AOPA/Jeppesen doesn't have those sort of engineering resources.

Also worth pointing out that some of the best engineers worked on the algorithm to get the rubber banding feature to work. It requires a lot of computing resources and they even had to come up with an entirely new way of sharing the work load among a cloud of commodity machines. When you use that feature, that request goes to multiple machines; it seems like it's "real-time", but it's very computationally expensive.

-Felix

All true--they could do it--but it takes a lot of work. As far as the code base, things like the YUI make a lot of this sort of development easier. I doubt the YUI would provide for this though.

That said, you know as well as I, that developing a good application in a web browser is a hell of a challenge and requires a lot of trickery and compatibility testing. It is way more work then most people imagine. It is amazing to see what people have accomplished with javascript in the recent years though.

 

[sba55]

All true--they could do it--but it takes a lot of work. As far as the code base, things like the YUI make a lot of this sort of development easier. I doubt the YUI would provide for this though.

YUI wouldn't cut it. Google has a big advantage in that they have a very, very large code base (bigger than YUI) that provides a lot of this functionality. That, and they spend $$$$$ on Google Maps.

That said, you know as well as I, that developing a good application in a web browser is a hell of a challenge and requires a lot of trickery and compatibility testing. It is way more work then most people imagine. It is amazing to see what people have accomplished with javascript in the recent years though.

Yes. That's why I've now stopped worrying about technical details and just wear my "Make It So" T-Shirt. PM Star Trek style!