Replacement for Golden Eagle?

SkyHog

SkyHog

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
18,431
Location
Castle Rock, CO
Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
So, I have been using Golden Eagle for flight planning when offline (running in WINE on Linux/OSx). Obviously, with the recent actions of FlightPrep, that's not going to continue.

Anyone have any suggestions for an offline planner? Preferably one that is platform independent, but that's not a necessity (I have no Windows PCs in the home anymore except my work tablet, which I don't install any software on). Also, if its able to use the FAA's sectionals, that's a plus too. I tried using Google Earth with the sectionals, but it churns to a near stop when loading all of them concurrently.

Thanks guys!
 
Voyager by Seattle Avionics is now offered in cooperation with DUAT, similar to the relationship between Golden Eagle and DUATS.

Voyager's maps are resident on disk so it can be used offline. It has some nice features (some that FP only offers in a $79.95 upgrade to Golden Eagle), but it's a resource hog and is very slow. It works ok on my Windows XP machines, but it crashes on my laptop with Vista.
 
I'd almost guaranty that Seattle's product would not work in Wine. It's DirectX intensive (not to mention every other thing in the system intensive) and all of the experience I've had with Linux and both Wine and virtual boxes tells me that those kinds of applications don't work.

If you're willing to pay, Flitesoft does work under Wine.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I'm beginning to wonder which is worse: FlightPrep's overzealous patent protection program or a vendor that sees the negative reaction in the community as a marketing opportunity.
Click to expand...

Easy...FlightPrep's overzealous patent protection program.
 
Until they announced their hookup with DUAT last week, Seattle Avionics was also offering the older free version of Voyager, 3.7. It has less-detailed maps (no terrain), does not use Direct-X and is much faster, but still has most all of the good features of Voyager 4.

But the Version 3.7 option has now disappeared from their website. Too bad.
 
I'm sticking with Golden Eagle. Its free. It works Well and their customer service is great. I prefer DUATS to DUAT and thats about it. I have no issue with a company enforcing its valid patent. If its invalid let someone take em to task.
 
AdamZ said:
I'm sticking with Golden Eagle. Its free. It works Well and their customer service is great. I prefer DUATS to DUAT and thats about it. I have no issue with a company enforcing its valid patent. If its invalid let someone take em to task.
Click to expand...
Me too. I did download the Seatle stuff because it is always nice to have a back up and using DUAT will also help them to maybe keep their contract with the FAA. Golden Eagle works, it was built for DUATS, using it only helps DUATS so even if you do not agree with what FP is doing using it is not the same thing as supporting FP. Not using it only hurts oneself and DUATS.
 
AdamZ said:
I'm sticking with Golden Eagle. Its free. It works Well and their customer service is great. I prefer DUATS to DUAT and thats about it. I have no issue with a company enforcing its valid patent. If its invalid let someone take em to task.
Click to expand...

Someone has taken them to task. Next up: Patent Reform. Then: Tort Reform (if anyone can define it).

That is, if I got to rule the United States for a little while.
 
ScottM said:
Me too. I did download the Seatle stuff because it is always nice to have a back up and using DUAT will also help them to maybe keep their contract with the FAA. Golden Eagle works, it was built for DUATS, using it only helps DUATS so even if you do not agree with what FP is doing using it is not the same thing as supporting FP. Not using it only hurts oneself and DUATS.
Click to expand...

Well that depends. I've found that the only thing worse than Golden Eagle feature wise is the Online Flight Planner from FlightPrep, of which I've had a free account for years (not sure why, or how I got it). Try using it in anything other than Internet Explorer sometime. Holy cow what a piece of ****. But I digress. The only thing that set Golden Eagle apart was its ability to be used offline.

Add to that, any ad revenue generated by the use of Golden Eagle is revenue that goes right into the legal fund of Flight Prep. Probably the same lawyers that helped them "ignore" the prior art that existed before filing for the patent.

Anyone that continues to use FlightPrep is supporting CFIT accidents, fuel exhaustion accidents, and any number of other accidents that will be caused by lack of planning. Because quite simply, in 2011, people don't use paper anymore. And using computers to simplify a paper process certainly shouldn't be patentable, nor should it ever be restricted.

I'd rather give my alcoholic uncle a beer.
 
SkyHog said:
Because quite simply, in 2011, people don't use paper anymore.
Click to expand...

I don't use paper? The only reason I don't use paper right now is that I don't have time to fly. When I have get back into the air, I'll certainly still be able plan my flight with paper and pen.
 
AdamZ said:
I'm sticking with Golden Eagle. Its free. It works Well and their customer service is great. I prefer DUATS to DUAT and thats about it. I have no issue with a company enforcing its valid patent. If its invalid let someone take em to task.
Click to expand...
The problem is that their patent is a bunch of crap when you look at it. They're taking out the little guys that simple can't afford to take them to task. Not everyone can afford to defend themselves legally or have the know how to do it themselves.

A programmer could never ever see their product and if they were to build any sort of flight planning solution they would build a solution that would likely violate the patent. The patent is extremely generic.

Think about this. Someone could have never seen a Flightprep product, started developing their own idea in 2005, put three years of their time into it, release it in 2008, have it on the market as a free product for two years and then suddenly their being sued by FlightPrep and cannot defend themselves. They didn't damage FlightPrep whatsoever. I'm sorry but that is crap.

The FlightPrep patent was so bogus that it took them 9 years to make it happen.
 
jesse said:
The problem is that their patent is a bunch of crap when you look at it. They're taking out the little guys that simple can't afford to take them to task. Not everyone can afford to defend themselves legally or have the know how to do it themselves..
Click to expand...

Thats a fair statement and if true then there is a problem. I know zilch about the patent and couldn't opine on it being a POS or not.

jesse said:
A programmer could never ever see their product and if they were to build any sort of flight planning solution they would build a solution that would likely violate the patent. The patent is extremely generic.

Think about this. Someone could have never seen a Flightprep product, started developing their own idea in 2005, put three years of their time into it, release it in 2008, have it on the market as a free product for two years and then suddenly their being sued by FlightPrep and cannot defend themselves. They didn't damage FlightPrep whatsoever. I'm sorry but that is crap.

The FlightPrep patent was so bogus that it took them 9 years to make it happen.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with what you are saying however; My limited understanding of patents and patent law makes me think that the designation Patent Pending addresses that situation, of course thats my understanding and it could be inaccurate. If they did use the patent pending designation then the other guy should be on notice of the claimed right. If they didn't use the designation then as my mom says tough nooggies. As for the patent taking so long, my partner who was a patent attorney said its very common for a patent to take quite a while to get. I don't know enough to say whether 9 years is unusual.

There has also be discussion about whether the patent is for the idea of "online flight planning" or the technology upon which it is done" the former shouldn't be protected IMHO the later is a different story.

In my limited experince with IP matters if a person or organization has a flimsy claim and they write you a cease and disist letter and you tell them to bug off thats where they will leave it lie because they don't want you testing their claim. Again if its a crap patent then I'd have an issue with what they are doing.

I'd also think that if FP did sue then Jepp and AOPA would have to jump in with an amicus. I also think that a lot of the other sites that shut down in fear was BS some of them that cited the FB/Runwayfinder issue weren't even flight planning sites They just provided approache plates in PDF form and other items of aviation interest.Well I guess only time will tell how this will all pan out.
 
The problem with "Patent Pending" is that you'd have to see their product to even notice that desination. The problem with software patents is that they often patent basic design patterns that nearly ever software engineer uses. There are TONS of software patents out there that the major companies hold as an arsenal that damn near everyone violates.

In this case the FlightPrep patent is so generic that you'd likely violate it simply by building any sort of flight planning application. You could take a developer that has never seen a flight planning application , ask him to build one, have him talk to a pilot to see how they do it on paper and he'd build something that violates it.

Software patents usually try to target basic design patterns they don't generally patent anything that is truly unique. That's why they need to go, imo.
 
Bob Noel said:
I don't use paper? The only reason I don't use paper right now is that I don't have time to fly. When I have get back into the air, I'll certainly still be able plan my flight with paper and pen.
Click to expand...

I should have worded it as "In 2011, the next generation of pilots don't use paper. There will always be some value in knowing how, as a backup method, but plain and simple, if you spend your life doing everything on a computer (as most people under the age of 35 do), you're not going to use paper for something that a computer does better and more accurately.

That's not a slam on anyone by any stretch of the imagination, just an observation of how life is these days.
 
You'll get plenty of practice planning on paper preparing for the IR written. BTDT, passed in October.
 
I like Fltplan.com. While geared to the corporate pilot, perhaps, it has everything I need, and my own data is accessible from any computer. My flight plans are saved, it shows winds aloft, wx depictions, IFR and VFR charts, approach plates-- I hardly ever use anything else. Oh, yes... and it's free.
 
Amelia said:
I like Fltplan.com. While geared to the corporate pilot, perhaps, it has everything I need, and my own data is accessible from any computer. My flight plans are saved, it shows winds aloft, wx depictions, IFR and VFR charts, approach plates-- I hardly ever use anything else. Oh, yes... and it's free.
Click to expand...
But its not available offline, is it?
 
I'm way behind the technology curve, what with my only-makes-phone-calls phone, but I understand those who are With It are pleased with the company's Droid app, which, then, is available anywhere cellular service is.
 
It could be that you need to be a computer programmer to fully understand how ridiculous approving FlightCrap's patent actually is. The ability to click points on a graphic image to specify data points is just part of the foundations of many modern software packages. It's only in the more recent times, since graphical operating systems have become commonplace, that this ability has really been available/achievable in a cost effective way to developers, and these abilities are improving all the time with improvements in processing power. To suggest that they were the ones that invented this idea is just plain stupid.

Also the idea that splitting maps up into sections/panes for display is just the only viable way of achieving the aim. As for getting servers to do the work, removing the need for data to be passed to the client PC, well durrrrrrrr, that's called client/server technology and that's how 99% of the internet works.
 
AdamZ said:
I'm sticking with Golden Eagle. Its free. It works Well...
Click to expand...

Adam,

I used Golden Eagle on and off over the years until I found that it has one pretty big flaw (at least it used to...maybe they've fixed it).

That flaw is/was that it always used "right now" winds aloft data to calculate your groundspeed regardless of how far in the future the flight was going to be. For example, if you were planning an 8am flight at 9pm the night before then the winds used were for 9pm and not for 8am the following day.

This can obviously make a HUGE difference.
 
timwinters said:
Adam,

I used Golden Eagle on and off over the years until I found that it has one pretty big flaw (at least it used to...maybe they've fixed it).

That flaw is/was that it always used "right now" winds aloft data to calculate your groundspeed regardless of how far in the future the flight was going to be. For example, if you were planning an 8am flight at 9pm the night before then the winds used were for 9pm and not for 8am the following day.

This can obviously make a HUGE difference.
Click to expand...

The Seattle Avionics product does use projected weather, FWIW.
 
I think the patent system needs an overhaul.

Microsoft just got awarded a patent on double-clicking, which they applied for... In 2002! Raise your hand if you never double-clicked anything before 2002... Yeah, didn't think so. The double-click has been used on the Mac since 1984.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I think the patent system needs an overhaul.

Microsoft just got awarded a patent on double-clicking, which they applied for... In 2002! Raise your hand if you never double-clicked anything before 2002... Yeah, didn't think so. The double-click has been used on the Mac since 1984.
Click to expand...
Not just the patent system needs overhaul the trademark and copyright laws need upgrading as well. Remember that Verizon tried to trademark Push To Talk (PTT) a few years ago? This was a term first coined in the early 1940s as it related to a two way radio that a certain Schaumburg based (Chicago then) company had made for the US Army. Don't even get me started with how F'ed up copyright is. When people start realizing that they are no longer buying music or books for their electronic readers/listeners but just a license to use that material on that one device and that they will have to keep buying licenses I think there will be a big backlash.
 
timwinters said:
Adam,

I used Golden Eagle on and off over the years until I found that it has one pretty big flaw (at least it used to...maybe they've fixed it).

That flaw is/was that it always used "right now" winds aloft data to calculate your groundspeed regardless of how far in the future the flight was going to be. For example, if you were planning an 8am flight at 9pm the night before then the winds used were for 9pm and not for 8am the following day.

This can obviously make a HUGE difference.
Click to expand...

Your right about that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top