Nav Software
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
The JIFP is a nice product (I have checked it out myself) but it a major issue when using it away from home.
The typical data transfer between your PC (on which the Jepp JIFP client software is installed, so this isn't an internet cafe option) is a lot of megabytes per flight planning session, so broadband is essential. If you are travelling, you have to bring your laptop, with wifi or you have to find some place (an internet cafe, perhaps) that will let you plug an ethernet cable into it.
The actual user interface is virtually identical to Flitestar, which while being a lot more powerful than Navbox (and indeed I use Flitestar IFR myself for airways flight planning) doesn't even begin to compare with Navbox on the usability front.
It's readily apparent what Jepp did - the JIFP client is a virtually unmodified Flitestar and the internet connection accesses the remote database (instead of accessing the ex-CD database which the standard Flitestar product does). That's why there is so much data being transferred for each user operation.
Jepp are going the right way though. What they need to do is offer approach plates (i.e. Jeppview) in this way. The entry cost of JV3 is far too high for private pilots.
Navbox Pro is cheap - around £60 and that includes the updates for the year.
The typical data transfer between your PC (on which the Jepp JIFP client software is installed, so this isn't an internet cafe option) is a lot of megabytes per flight planning session, so broadband is essential. If you are travelling, you have to bring your laptop, with wifi or you have to find some place (an internet cafe, perhaps) that will let you plug an ethernet cable into it.
The actual user interface is virtually identical to Flitestar, which while being a lot more powerful than Navbox (and indeed I use Flitestar IFR myself for airways flight planning) doesn't even begin to compare with Navbox on the usability front.
It's readily apparent what Jepp did - the JIFP client is a virtually unmodified Flitestar and the internet connection accesses the remote database (instead of accessing the ex-CD database which the standard Flitestar product does). That's why there is so much data being transferred for each user operation.
Jepp are going the right way though. What they need to do is offer approach plates (i.e. Jeppview) in this way. The entry cost of JV3 is far too high for private pilots.
Navbox Pro is cheap - around £60 and that includes the updates for the year.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
From: Aylesbury,Bucks
I now have my Navbox Pro. It is quite obviously NOT of the same calibre as FliteStar.
In summary if you have done all of the keywork on your charts first, then Navbox can be a cheap plog generator and is relatively easy to use. The screen is much less cluttered than flitestar because it doesnot show all the airspace at the higher levels
.
However if you want to do serious VFR planning (e.g spanning more than one chart, complex airspace, multiple stops) then flitestar wins hands down. Especially if you invest in the raster charts to overlay your routes (thus showing glider sites etc.etc.). Although I have expressed some frustration, it is much more powerfull than NavBox, the plog is more customisable, and can have notes added (which I do to give pre-organsed radio list that I determine).
Niether package does a good NOTAM narrow route brief, but flightstar does a much better job of airfield NOTAM/METAR/TAF integration.
At about £80 I would recommend FliteStar from planning, but if you want an quick inexpensive tool then have a go with NavBox. BUT try drauk's website first for simple planning it excellent. - especially the notam stuff.
just my opinion
In summary if you have done all of the keywork on your charts first, then Navbox can be a cheap plog generator and is relatively easy to use. The screen is much less cluttered than flitestar because it doesnot show all the airspace at the higher levels
.However if you want to do serious VFR planning (e.g spanning more than one chart, complex airspace, multiple stops) then flitestar wins hands down. Especially if you invest in the raster charts to overlay your routes (thus showing glider sites etc.etc.). Although I have expressed some frustration, it is much more powerfull than NavBox, the plog is more customisable, and can have notes added (which I do to give pre-organsed radio list that I determine).
Niether package does a good NOTAM narrow route brief, but flightstar does a much better job of airfield NOTAM/METAR/TAF integration.
At about £80 I would recommend FliteStar from planning, but if you want an quick inexpensive tool then have a go with NavBox. BUT try drauk's website first for simple planning it excellent. - especially the notam stuff.
just my opinion
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
I'd be careful with Flitestar VFR if using it as a chart substitute. I've just heard that the VFR version doesn't show Class A airways (can't verify this as I have access to an IFR version only) so planning an OCAS route with it alone is a great way to get done.
Navbox has configuration for various things to display on the map, but yes the map is simple.
Navbox has configuration for various things to display on the map, but yes the map is simple.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
From: Aylesbury,Bucks
I agree. You still need the real charts but when planning. The facility in FliteStar to overaly the REAL charts (scanned in by Jeppesen) is really powerful.
The big issue with simplistic planning on these programs is the lack of coverage for gliding and parachute sites. Thus the use of the scanned charts.
You MUST then plot it onto a real paper chart for verification (it is easier to miss something on a computer screen than a real chart).
If find this is much faster when crossing over multiple charts or navigating complex airspace.
One benefit of these programs is the airspace is updated much more frequently than the paper charts! So using both should be safer.
You point about the class A airways seems to be true
- but the scanned charts do show them.
The big issue with simplistic planning on these programs is the lack of coverage for gliding and parachute sites. Thus the use of the scanned charts.
You MUST then plot it onto a real paper chart for verification (it is easier to miss something on a computer screen than a real chart).
If find this is much faster when crossing over multiple charts or navigating complex airspace.
One benefit of these programs is the airspace is updated much more frequently than the paper charts! So using both should be safer.
You point about the class A airways seems to be true
- but the scanned charts do show them.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
All true; however the price of Flitestar VFR starts to go up very rapidly once you factor in a year's update for the standard database and a year's update for the Raster Charts for Europe.
The comparison with Navbox, which does the same job provided you have the printed charts, gets more remote.
All this stuff is so far removed from standard PPL-taught flight planning with the silly circular slide rule... I think most people reading this wonder what the hell this discussion is about
The comparison with Navbox, which does the same job provided you have the printed charts, gets more remote.
All this stuff is so far removed from standard PPL-taught flight planning with the silly circular slide rule... I think most people reading this wonder what the hell this discussion is about
