A good graphic library for this application?

Hello,

(asked for topic delete due to deliberate pertubative non-informative contributions)

Adafruit have a good GFX library as well as supplying the Nokia 5110 displays which are very easy to use

You can find links to the library for the display, the gfx library as well as the data sheet (well worth a read) here ...

You aren't thinking of putting that into an aircraft though are you??

thermalhound:
Adafruit have a good GFX library as well as supplying the Nokia 5110 displays which are very easy to use

You can find links to the library for the display, the gfx library as well as the data sheet (well worth a read) here ...

Downloads | Nokia 5110/3310 Monochrome LCD | Adafruit Learning System

You aren't thinking of putting that into an aircraft though are you??

If you don't install it, the FCC (/ECC/ I dunno) has no control over it.
That is why there are many light GA planes with a velcro patch in the middle of the yoke for a cheap GPS unit.

I still prefer to fly with kit I know is going to work reliably if I get myself (intentionally or not) into the situation where I might need it :wink: Also I've never really understood having vast amounts of instruments in VFR aircraft as your head is supposed to be outside the cockpit. Fun to make though. I designed a prototype inertial reference system for a glider a few years back. We never installed it for previously mentioned reasons but it was fun to do.

thermalhound:
Adafruit have a good GFX library as well as supplying the Nokia 5110 displays which are very easy to use

You aren't thinking of putting that into an aircraft though are you??

Sure i do plan to pût it in my aircraft! Not for IFR use of course, just as safety device in case one would get surprised (fog...) but actually latest inertial sensors are just better than some certified ahrs....

Regarding this library i didnt find the way to dray a full polygon not only borders. This is the main moving geometric shape you can see on screen

latest inertial sensors are just better than some certified ahrs

Depends on how you define better. More accurate? Maybe, but if you can fly a pitch attitude with a resolution of better than 0.1 degrees then you are a better man than me. More reliable? Without certification in an aviation environment there is no way you can be sure of that, thats why a certification exists in the first place. I know how expensive modern avionics are but I also see it as a necessary cost. And while I'm speaking about the "aviation environment" please don't forget that if you did find yourself in fog (not that an AH will save you but it is the situation you mentioned) it is not only you that is now dependent on this homemade instrument, but everyone else in the airspace (thinking selfishly here) and everyone on the ground.

I don't mean to preach but I also don't want to see you kill yourself because you pushed on into a situation that you wouldn't have done if in the back of your mind you didn't know you had this "instrument" that would help save you

+1 to thermalhound. False confidence has spawned enough crash investigations already!

If you have your own indicators then you must train yourself to not rely on them over real instruments.
Convenience is one thing. Reliance of any kind is another.

You must be ready for a time when conflicting data will happen so that you don't get locked in indecision.
That happens enough already.

We get people who want to put LCD panels inside of their motorcycle helmets right by their face.
Funny but the time you really need the helmet you have no idea exactly what will happen but do you really want an LCD right by your eye and face? That plastic visor, it's amazing how fast they break like glass. Been there myself. Glad I don't wear an eye patch.

thermalhound:

latest inertial sensors are just better than some certified ahrs

Depends on how you define better. More accurate? Maybe, but if you can fly a pitch attitude with a resolution of better than 0.1 degrees then you are a better man than me. More reliable? Without certification in an aviation environment there is no way you can be sure of that, thats why a certification exists in the first place. I know how expensive modern avionics are but I also see it as a necessary cost. And while I'm speaking about the "aviation environment" please don't forget that if you did find yourself in fog (not that an AH will save you but it is the situation you mentioned) it is not only you that is now dependent on this homemade instrument, but everyone else in the airspace (thinking selfishly here) and everyone on the ground.

I don't mean to preach but I also don't want to see you kill yourself because you pushed on into a situation that you wouldn't have done if in the back of your mind you didn't know you had this "instrument" that would help save you

let's be clear : I'm not IFR pilot , my aircraft is neither certified for it. I absolutly avoid any situation where AH can be usefull.
But still I will have it, because as for my parachute with expired date, it's much better than most aircraft having nothing
I found funny once to discuss with a guy telling me that I was "crazy" to fly with an expired ballistic chute ... just after he told me that he had none on his ultralight :grin:
same for HA. If once I get surprised and have a layer to cross, I really prefer having uncertified GPS + AH than nothing , at this moment

the latest MEMS inertial are not only more accurate (not very important) , but more stable , meaning that they have less error than some meant for it (one have tested that after several rapid turns of sensor compared to commercial AHRS , drift was 2 or 3° only compared to 5° for the commercial one , Dynon if I remember)

Regarding the question of the topic, how can you consider drawing this horizon line , (the moving one) , filled beneath

let's be clear : I'm not IFR pilot , my aircraft is neither certified for it. I absolutly avoid any situation where AH can be usefull.

I am an instrument rated pilot, and my (work) aircraft is certified for it, and I still actively avoid any situations where an AH is useful. Nearly 5,000 hours in aircraft ranging from single seat gliders up to Airbus 320's has taught me that.

But still I will have it, because as for my parachute with expired date, it's much better than most aircraft having nothing

Good philosophy, better to have and not need etc, but not a valid argument here really as your parachute, regardless of the fact it is expired, was professionally made and installed into the aircraft and was designed for purpose. What you are proposing is neither.

I really prefer having uncertified GPS + AH than nothing

I presume you have a mechanical (gyroscopic) AH installed in your aircraft already so you should already have a "get me out of here" piece of kit. Besides even with a GPS you can't fly (safely) any type of approach, you need other instruments (ADF / VOR). Would a safer and easier option not be to just rely on the proven kit you (should) have already installed and get a steer from ATC or even a talk down (SRA type approach) which requires nothing extra.

Aircraft ownership and maintenance is a pricey business but you can't put a price on safety. Again I don't mean to preach but I really think you'd be better off investing your energy in some IFR lessons so should you find yourself in a situation you will be better able to cope even with basic equipment (I have cloud flown gliders on nothing more than the ASI, a compass and the turn & slip).

Regarding the question of the topic, how can you consider drawing this horizon line , (the moving one) , filled beneath

This is a cool project and would be perfectly suited to display attitude info from a UAV or something similar (to be honest what I assumed you would be doing with it), however now I know what you are planning on using it for I don't feel I can help you in good conscience.

Good luck with it if you do decide to proceed, but most of all stay safe and if the weather looks like is even going to be remotely near what you would consider to be safe minimums just leave it for another day.

Happy landings :wink:

I knew a guy who said you could make a small fortune off a small plane.
I asked "how?".
He said "Well, you start with a large fortune...."

We have this ultralight category in my country precisly intended for those who wish to avoid perpetual boastings of those talented pilots with xxxx hours of fligh who come to tell their science and how you should do or not do
That's such boring and common behaviour but indeed you taught me nothing ... I validated my theory exam like any other pilot and this moralistic blabla is just meant to remind us how good you are, not helping in any maner

Yes, I'm allowed to put uncertified device in my ultralight, and YES it's more secure than nothing if one day I was in a bad situation where I have to cross a layer of cloud in spite of all my precautions to avoid the situation
I'm adult, I think I'm reasonable enough to take decisions ,and able to test properly a homemade device
I'm really sorry to tell that I don't need these advices, you just waste my time flying is a leisure, my new interest to arduino programing might be one too, if you don't want to help that's your point but please avoid sermons to pollute a topic

My question is still open on the best way to draw a moving line darkened beneath on the screen

altifly:
We have this ultralight category in my country precisly intended for those who wish to avoid perpetual boastings of those talented pilots with xxxx hours of fligh who come to tell their science and how you should do or not do

It would be a pretty strange country that has its ultralight policy based on that.

Having said that, I suspect the reason why you haven't heard what you want to hear is that the Arduino is probably not up to the job and the 5110 isn't either. This might also go some way to explain why the real thing is so expensive.

It's not hard to draw the horizon line, but I submit it's the filling underneath where the problem lies. You might find that the best approach is to do all the calcs elsewhere and then send a bit map derived therefrom to the LCD.

Failing that, you are faced with either calculating and drawing lines parallel to the horizon, or modifying a rectangular fill procedure to one with a "sloping top". The latter could work quite well as the display could be arranged to be just a window on a larger filled area which might then easily handle the situation where the transition from filled to clear is on the x-axis. Clearly, if you can afford an ultra-light, you can afford a more appropriate display than a 5110, but a 5110 could be used to prove the point.

Henning Karlsen has a 5110 graphics library that seems very similar to his library for larger displays, and the latter may be the resource to modify the former.

Nick_Pyner:
It would be a pretty strange country that has its ultralight policy based on that.

not policy. Phillosophy. Go try the kind of speech we read upper in that topic on a french ultralight forum .. immediate reaction
Lots of people just change to ultralight because they are tired of this mentality. And also because some ultralight offer the same capacity than some certified (mine ,all metal 2 seat exist in certified version with just minor changes), it's not even cheaper , just "easier" less administrative, more possibilities to choose landing grounds etc

it seems to me that all graphic libraries derive more or less from the same base and that having less pixels to manage (5110 is large but less pixels than the smaller 128x64 OLED) would make the think more feasable
I wish to integrate in 2 1/4 instrument which makes this 5510 screen the right size
If you know a similar screen with more performant library I'm interested to give a look
You suggested than one could use 1 arduino unit as GPU? to discharge the one collecting and processing datas? I'm interested too to study this possibility.
that's just not a matter of cost, but better a challenge. recently I gave a friend a functional electric AH that I was storing ...
thank you for your contribution!

Nick_Pyner:
This might also go some way to explain why the real thing is so expensive.

It's not just the have-to-cost-more $certified$ parts. It's the $certified$ installation.

Back in 88 I got to see replacement of a nichrome wire in a prop heater in a company plane cost $1500.
That was a less than $10 wire.

I think the extra money goes to cover paperwork, crash investigations, trial fees, and nice offices for top FAA staff.

FAA motto: We're not happy until you're not happy.

altifly:
You suggested than one could use 1 arduino unit as GPU? to discharge the one collecting and processing datas? I'm interested too to study this possibility.

I didn't actually mean a separate Arduino. That might be a solution but it could mean that one just sits around waiting for the other to feed it. I meant having the bitmap generated as a separate maths exercise and then fed to the drawing routine. The drawing routine might then be simpler.

I raise this because I have doubts about Arduio being able to deliver. Dense graphics and large fonts visibly slow it down.