What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Skyview vs. G3X Decision

UnPossible

UnPossible

Well Known Member
Hey - I'm getting ready to place the last big order for my panel. I had been planning on going with Dynon's Skyview system - as when I evaluated these systems it appeared to offer the best bang for the buck. However, with the recent significant price drop on Garmin's G3X system and autopilot, the price for a 2 screen system from either Garmin or Dynon appears to be nearly a wash.
I wish I would have noticed the price drop when I was at Oshkosh, so I could have looked into the G3X system in more detail when I was there.

What I am trying to figure out now, is what I gain or lose in switching from a Skyview system over to a G3X system. So far I have identified the following...

Gain - XM Weather, Taxi Diagrams
Lose - Screen in front of co-pilot, AOA

I really wish I would have directly compared these two at Oshkosh...... So for the folks that were able to play with both, did you have a strong preference either way, and if so why? Are their any other items to add to the gain/lose columns between the two systems? (note - panel will be VFR panel with 2 axis AP, I'm not planning on any additional GPS units, etc)

Thanks,
Jason
 
The standard question - What's your mission - VFR or IFR?

And if you are going to want to have weatehr in either case, you need to ad that cost delta to the Skyview if you are comparing Apples and Apples.
 
Jason, that's a tough decision. I don't envy you.

I have Dynon's old D-100/120 combo and am as happy as a clam with them. Their performance has been, and continues to be, flawless. However, knowing how I am, I can see the day coming when I'll "need" to change my panel just because the new stuff is so gosh-darned-whiz-bang-neat!

That said, you've mentioned some important parameters for consideration in your comparison. Like me, you apparently don't intend to fly IFR anytime soon. From what I've seen, the G3X has a whole bunch of features that I would never use, and a screen that's pretty cluttered.

I'm a pretty simple (minded) guy -- if I have to read instructions on how to use something, then it's too complicated for me. In that regard, the Dynon units have been perfect. However, I have no idea if the Skyviews are as intuitive and user-friendly.

I glance at my AOA pretty regularly, but I don't rely on it as much as I probably should. Wouldn't want to fly too far or too often without XM weather. That said, it's a toss-up if the price is the same. Both are good companies with good reputations. You're likely getting much more bang for the buck with the G3X units, but possibly more complexity and options that you won't want or need.

Keep us posted on what you decide. Good luck.
 
Don Jones said:
It is post #9 of this thread
Click to expand...

Thanks Don, I got lost in all the Osh threads and missed this one.

Wow with the new pricing from Garmin and TT, they are finally comming to the table with some competition for the market.

I am looking at a panel revamp in a year or so. It will be interesting how this all pans out....
 
5 Hz GPS Update vs 1 Hz GPS Update

I've been told by a Dynon rep, that their GPS updates 5 times a second vs the Garmin which is once per second, allowing for smoother motion of the map when turning. Anyone have any collaboration on this?
 
We would encourage you to do your own math on equivalent systems, and you will find the Dynon still carries a significantly lower price. The way you make the Dynon SkyView look like it's anywhere near the same price is by comparing two 10" SkyView screens against two 7" Garmin units and leaving out things like engine probes, antennas, and wiring harnesses from the comparison. If you're happy with 7" screens, then compare our 7" screen to theirs.

When all is done and all the required accessories, antennas, and wires are included, two 7" SkyView screens with an autopilot and transponder costs about $4,000 less than an equivalent G3X system (based on ACS's current prices of a G3X and MSRP on SkyView). Given that a 10" SkyView costs $900 more than a 7", even two 10" units from Dynon cost $2,200 less than a dual G3X.

A 10" Screen gives you 109% more area than a 7" unit, so the screen size is a huge difference.

Weather is something we expect to have early next year, and we will likely support ADS-B (free) as well as XM. You aren't giving this up by going SkyView, although there will be some cost when we do that for the weather receiver. We are definitely going to have raster data (charts, sectionals, etc) in the future.

You're getting much higher terrain resolution, more flexible engine monitoring, free database updates, and the ability to have redundancy in your attitude solution with a second AHRS when you go with Dynon.

You'll have a well equipped airplane no matter what solution you choose.
 
Brice,
Our GPS does update at 5Hz. Garmin says they do as well, but they only send data OUT at 1Hz. Thus we can't update at 5Hz if someone is using a Garmin as our position source. That's all we are trying to warn people about if they are choosing SkyView and want to use a Garmin handheld to drive SkyView.

We do have smoother map updates in turns, but that's because we have a processor that can update our map at least 20 times a second, and we can track our 5Hz GPS all the time. You need more than just a 5Hz GPS to be able to draw things smoothly at 5Hz.
 
I don't have either. Heck, I don't even have my PPL done quite yet. But, Garmin did not drop their price because they are benevolent. They dropped it because of competition. That should tell you at least something.

Tim
 
As Tim said, Garmin's new pricing is due to competition and there is viable business in the experimental area. You need to not look at just the initial price though. There are other costs involved and Garmin has never been cheap in this area. Garmin will probably be around for a long time. So will Dynon, I think. Somebody else might not be. Dynon has always given value for the dollar, and the dollar has always been a priority with them. They continue to come out with new products once they are tested and dependable. Garmin does this too, without question, but I think you'll spend more money for comparable equipment in the long run than with their non-certified competition.
 
G3X Screen Brightness

Does anyone know the G3X (GDU 370 or 375) screen brightness in nits?

Is the G3X the same as the 696? (600 nits maximum)

All I could find online relative to the G3X screen brightness was:

?7" diag. (17.78 cm) 480 x 800 pixels, color sunlight readable WVGA TFT with adjustable backlighting.?

Thank You,

Bill Palmer :)
 
You will be happy with either system. I have a G3X and my hangar mate has a Skyview. He often tells me after looking at my screen he should have considered then Garmin and when I look at his I think maybe I should have considered the Dynon.

No matter what you put in you'll be happy and a year later something neater will come out and you'll think, "gee I should have waited".:)
 
Bill Palmer said:
Is the G3X the same as the 696? (600 nits maximum)
Bill Palmer :)
Click to expand...

Don't get too focused on "nits" - that is not the only thing that matters when it comes to reading a screen in sunlight conditions. There are a couple of other factors and some, quite frankly, are more important (such as reflectivity of the surface - you want none).

Minimum if all else is perfect is around 400 nits in my experience. 800 nits tends to be ample for the average, reasonably good screen. 1000 and more is needed if your screen is not too great dealing with sunlight effects on its surface and might also have internal reflections or washing out effects.
Remember, you need 4 times the light output for an optical effect that most people would judge to be "double" the brightness.

You need to look at the entire screen performance and also how it is used (bubble canopy vs. shaded canopy for example).

Generally, if you look at the screen when it is off and you can see yourself mirrored - chances are this screen is either not very good in sunlight or needs a lot of light (and hence power/heat) to compete with reflections.

When you fly behing a screen - you don't want to see a reflection of your shirt when you are bathed in sunlight and you want to be able to see the screen detail when you are flying into the sun (this tends to partly blind you). The only other test you need to do is make sure you can see the screen detail when sunlight is directly falling onto the screen (in particular if you have a bubble canopy).

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics
 
Jason, it's only one variable in your equation...but notice who's here, responding to your Q's. As mentioned, Garmin has lowered their prices to more successfully penetrate this (your) part of the marketplace. But that doesn't necessarily mean they are/will be responsive to it re: product features, cost, product lifespan, backward compatibility, etc. Yet manufacturers like MGL and Dynon are here, participating daily and no doubt getting a good feel for this marketplace (that's 'us') in return. In your shoes, I'd fold that into my decision-making.

Jack
 
Good point.

Considering that there are many many more forums that they also chime in on (yes VAF is not the only one...there are other brands of experimentals), this means something to me as well. Granted we do occasionally see post from people that eat in the Garmin cafeteria also.
 
Jack Tyler said:
Jason, it's only one variable in your equation...but notice who's here, responding to your Q's.

Jack
Click to expand...


You might be surprised how many guys that "eat in the Garmin cafeteria" are building RV's (and busy writing code for the G3X as we speak)! The G3X software has gained features by leaps and bounds (in free S/W upgrades) just in the 8 months I have had mine powered up, and the price drop is pretty remarkable for a monolithic company like "Big G". I think the homebuilders within the company might be staging a coup or something...

Expanding on nits, Rainier is right - it's really not a place to focus anymore. In our OSH forum on choosing an EFIS, Stein and I agreed that all of the "majors" are now good enough that it is just no longer a discriminating selection criteria - they all pass.
 
As Paul said, true all the way around. I will say that if you're using someones participation in forums to gauge your choice of avionics, then I'd take a closer look at exactly what that participation is...is it just marketing information modified to look like an answer to a question or is it really clean objective information, is the person actually answering a question that was specifically asked, quantity vs. quality, etc.. or are they simply trying to interject "information". Find out if the person participating is actually building an airplane RV because (or has); the result may surprise you (does the person have a name)?. One thing I can say surely is that building a plane by committee is not a good way to actually make a final decision no matter who you are. Without fail, group decisions will leave you questioning your choices down the road.

Forums are a great place to gather information and due diligence, discuss many various topics, but also are notoriously skewed and subjective when it comes to something personal like choosing various componentry for your plane. Take a look at the discussions revolving around engines, nosewheels, primer, and other areas to see what I mean.

With few exceptions, people will lean towards recommending what they have chosen to install. Similarly, no sane manufacturer is going to recommend a competitors product and will also try to slant things in their favor with their relative participation in discussions. If you're choices are determined by the bubble of VAF forums, well..... :)

Cheers,
Stein
 
Nuts! Er, Nits!

Relative to ?Nits:?

In my experience trying to decide which displays are the most readable, the ?nit? brightness specification is definitely the number which means the most. As I have viewed the various EFIS displays, their overall readability seems to track the ?nit? specification quite well. I know there are other factors such as resolution, contrast, backlighting, screen surface roughness (reflectivity), and other ?specifications? which definitely contribute to readability, but it is my opinion, based on my own experience, that ?nits? far outweigh the other specs. I would suggest that ?nits? are certainly very important for us ?bubble canopy? types.

I applaud the manufacturers (AFS and Dynon, for example) that have no problem quantitatively specifying their screen brightness. On the other hand, it?s too easy for other manufacturers with dimmer (usually cheaper) screens to state something like ?sunlight readable? which is a subjective marketing statement; not a quantitative engineering specification. Also, with all due respect, I understand that what others may deem as perfectly acceptable to them (the 696?s 600 nits, for example) is a subjective opinion based on their own experience and, of course, what they have in their own panel. Based on all the displays I?ve seen, and what I would personally/subjectively want, I would suggest that a minimum of 1,000 nits is extremely desirable in a bright, sunlit cockpit and maybe absolutely necessary in the brightest environmental conditions. It?s my quantitative, subjective opinion, anyway!

Note: I know that I?m not going along with the ?Garmin crowd? here, and I?m swimming upstream against some of the most powerful VAF forces and opinion makers, but I would suggest that those shopping for an EFIS pay very close attention to the ?nit? quantitative specification, if available, and even closer attention if it?s not specified!

Bill Palmer :)
 
Is the 696/G3X really only 600 nits? I have the 100 series Dynons with the bright screen option (800 nits), and the 696 seems way brighter. I do have the bright screen enabled in the DSAB settings and both systems turned up all the way.

-Rob
 
Bill Palmer said:
Note: I know that I?m not going along with the ?Garmin crowd? here, and I?m swimming upstream against some of the most powerful VAF forces and opinion makers, but I would suggest that those shopping for an EFIS pay very close attention to the ?nit? quantitative specification, if available, and even closer attention if it?s not specified!

Bill Palmer :)
Click to expand...

Keep swimming Bill - I didn't intend to say that quantitative brightness isn't important - just that in my experience, the big players had all reached a level where they were "good enough" (to my eyes). Certainly some may be brighter than others (and I have seen some so bright that you can't dim them enough for night flying), and the proof is how they look to you.

I'm in the "Bubble Canopy" crowd, obviously....the best thing is if it is so bright that you can't see the display, you're probably in VFR conditions anyway....;)
 
Wow - thanks for all the EFIS suggestions to think about.... After kicking this around a bit over the past couple of days, I've decided to bite the bullet and drive the 5 hours or so up to MN to visit with Stein's folks to get my hands on both systems. Seems like the best way to really see the differences between two systems.

Thanks again,
Jason
 
Bill Palmer said:
Also, with all due respect, I understand that what others may deem as perfectly acceptable to them (the 696?s 600 nits, for example) is a subjective opinion based on their own experience and, of course, what they have in their own panel. Based on all the displays I?ve seen, and what I would personally/subjectively want, I would suggest that a minimum of 1,000 nits is extremely desirable in a bright, sunlit cockpit and maybe absolutely necessary in the brightest environmental conditions. It?s my quantitative, subjective opinion, anyway!
Click to expand...

I take it, you don't have a 696... ;)

It's not just "perfectly acceptable"...............but redicuously bright, in ALL sunlit canopy situations. I usually don't use the aircraft's shades, and fly in the bright sunlight of the western Rockies. I wouldn't even want it to be brighter.

So much for the nits..........it looks like they don't measure up! :p

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
I've decided to bite the bullet and drive the 5 hours or so up to MN to visit with Stein's folks to get my hands on both systems. Seems like the best way to really see the differences between two systems.
Click to expand...

It will be time and money well spent.
 
disagree

L.Adamson said:
I take it, you don't have a 696... ;)

It's not just "perfectly acceptable"...............but redicuously bright, in ALL sunlit canopy situations. I usually don't use the aircraft's shades, and fly in the bright sunlight of the western Rockies. I wouldn't even want it to be brighter.

So much for the nits..........it looks like they don't measure up! :p

L.Adamson --- RV6A
Click to expand...

I obviously don't have the HAWK eyes that you have, but I do have a 696 in the panel of my '8 along side a 10" Skyview. The 696 is pretty good for a 600 nit display but it doesn't come CLOSE to being as readable as the Skyview.

Frankly thats the killer for me for the G3X system. I just refuse to strain to read the screens.

I like the 696 a lot, but I always have to make a bit of effort to read it, as opposed to just glancing at it. Again, its not terrible, just not nearly as good as the brighter screens that are out there now.

Okay, now all of the eagle eyed types can chime back in that its not really true. :D:D:D
 
Bright and Fast!

Well, Larry, I?m glad you like your 696. I?m familiar with the 696 and also think it?s a good GPS. On the other hand, I do believe that the nit (1 candela per square meter), or an equivalent, convertible quantitative measure, is generally accepted as the screen brightness (luminance) specification. Is that not correct? I understand that screen clarity is a complex, integrated, and thus usually subjective measure (includes resolution, contrast, etc.), but I?m not aware of an alternative to the nit, or its equivalent, to quantitatively specify just the screen brightness. My original question still stands: Can anyone specify the screen brightness of the G3X?

Larry, how would you describe the 75% cruise speed of your 6A at 8,000 feet MSL; 50 degrees Fahrenheit? ?Fast,? :D I assume? How about knots or mph, IAS or TAS?

Bill Palmer :)

P.S. I?m done with this thread; I don?t think there are any medals for asking a quantitative question, trying to be objective, or swimming upstream!
 
Bill Palmer said:
My original question still stands: Can anyone specify the screen brightness of the G3X?

.....I don?t think there are any medals for asking a quantitative question, trying to be objective, or swimming upstream!
Click to expand...

Why? It has little bearing on the thread as whole. If it were unusable, it would be unusable...but that just isn't the case. If someone is choosing an entire system based 100% on the spec of a nit, then why not choose any one of another hundred or so different specs as your basis? Do you buy a new car only based 100% on the wattage of the radio speakers without ever seeing or driving the car? ;) What each person utilizes as refernces for choice can and do vary (remember, some people need a Peterbilt and others need a Vespa). The point others were making was that like decibles, nits can be subjective.

You've clearly chosen nits as your deciding factor, but I submit that a singular point like that should only be one part of a methodology for choosing equipment. As others have said (re-read Ranier's rather informed post), nits don't tell the whole story. Do you bypass specifications of an AHRS in favor of a nit? How about software or other hardware? I guess my point isn't to argue brightness, it's to say that your position is just that...your position and isn't necessarily one of those objective things that can and does apply equally to everyone. I've said this dozens and dozens of times, but there is yet to be a single solution available in the market that is a perfect choice for every single person and each airplane coupled with their specific mission.

Given the myriad of informtion and current systems available, sometimes it's easy to get strangely fixated and obessed on a singular point to use as the great equalizer between systems...but it's just not that simple. People try to do that with many different data points as a way to quantitatively "score" systems but like I said before; there isn't one singular thing you can use as an absolute, 100% of the time.

Different strokes! :)

My 2 cents as usual.

Cheers,
Stein
 
This could have been a useful thread. Instead it's a NITwit thread.
I'm trying to help a friend with a decision on avionics for his RV8.
He seems to be under the impression that a 2 screen G3X( 370 +375) does not have full reversionary capability. That's to say, if you lose one screen(375)say, will the single adhrs turn the 370 screen into a PFD?????
He's been told this is so.
I think the closest apples to apples would be 2- 7inch skyviews, 1 adhrs, arinc 429, gps, engine monitor against 2 screen G3X, 1 LRU, engine monitor in a system that includes a GNS 430.

I DON'T GIVE A RATS@#$% ABOUT NITS! THEY ARE ALL READABLE!!!!!
 
jthocker said:
snip... That's to say, if you lose one screen(375)say, will the single adhrs turn the 370 screen into a PFD?????...snip
Click to expand...

Yes it will. On the way back from OSH my PFD went black (suspected ground or power issue) - switching my 3rd screen with the PFD a couple days later didn't solve the problem.

Anywho, the PFD went black and the MFD turned into a PFD (leaving the engine info at the top). Took half a second. Flew the last hour of the trip on that. I have a single ARHS unit.

It was touch and go there for a bit, but the remaining (4) GPS in my panel got me home. The horror! :D
 
Last edited:
DeltaRomeo said:
Yes it will. On the way back from OSH my PFD went black (suspected ground or power issue) - switching my 3rd screen with the PFD a couple days later didn't solve the problem.

Anywho, the PFD went black and the MFD turned into a PFD (leaving the engine info at the top). Took half a second. Flew the last hour of the trip on that. I have a single ARHS unit.

It was touch and go there for a bit, but the remaining (4) GPSs in my panel got me home. The horror! :D
Click to expand...

DR is 100% right...it does it automatically, or you can force it to do so if you like.

If DR's situation got much worse, I suppose he'd just had to rely on having someone else fly the plane for him (Paul/Louise/Matt)!?! :) [ed. Absolutely!!! dr]

Cheers,
Stein
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One more vote for "yup - the reversionary mode wors!" just came in from the hangar where I was doing some software configs, takign screens down one at a time, and either the 370 or 375 alone will giv eyou what you need (assuming the AHRS is still working).

We'll limp along on 3 GPS's Doug....;)

Paul
 
Thanks Doug, Paul, and Stein. I knew I could count on you guys!

I should have clarified, he was under the impression that it would not revert without a second LRU!
 
dedgemon said:
I obviously don't have the HAWK eyes that you have, but I do have a 696 in the panel of my '8 along side a 10" Skyview. The 696 is pretty good for a 600 nit display but it doesn't come CLOSE to being as readable as the Skyview.

Frankly thats the killer for me for the G3X system. I just refuse to strain to read the screens.

I like the 696 a lot, but I always have to make a bit of effort to read it, as opposed to just glancing at it. Again, its not terrible, just not nearly as good as the brighter screens that are out there now.

Okay, now all of the eagle eyed types can chime back in that its not really true. :D:D:D
Click to expand...

It has to be facing you. Not off to the side. Someone else took brighness comparison pics, and the different brands of displays were of different brightness, depending on where the camera was facing.
It was to prove the 696 was less bright, until the camera was in front of the 696. Then the 696 was brighter than the glass display.
 
Last edited:
Larry, how would you describe the 75% cruise speed of your 6A at 8,000 feet MSL; 50 degrees Fahrenheit? ?Fast,? :D I assume? How about knots or mph, IAS or TAS?
Click to expand...

It would be awfully s..l..o..w..

The ground around here, is usually higher than that.. :D

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Here is the thread mentioned with the 696 and SkyView in flight pictures:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=62578

Notice how the SkyView never has any glare or reflections due to the matte screen.

If the SkyView was on auto dimming, it may not have even been full bright in that cockpit environment where it didn't have sunlight right on it and a hand was in front of the light sensor at times.
 
Last edited:
What is with the glossy screen on the 696

I'm confused. Is there a glossy screen protector on the 696? Mine has a matte finish screen and doesn't have any problem with reflections. I suppose Garmin could have changed screens. Will check my hangar mates 696 as his is a couple of years newer than mine.
 
Apparently, my last post was deleted, but I PM?d Jon and Stein about their posts. The Result: Resolved Amicably! I can?t speak directly for Jon or Stein, but to summarize: (1) Jon doesn?t think I?m a ?NITwit,? but he had fun with the sarcasm. (2) Stein assumed that I?m focused solely on screen brightness for EFIS selection; I?m not. (3) The G3X?s screen brightness spec is still unknown. That?s All. The only ?fallout? seems to be that my ?airport buddies? are now strongly considering ?NITwit? as my call sign . . . not a good thing!
 
Tom, Chino, too?! Looks like Cable says "done deal, too." And from my
airport buddies! Who can you trust?!!! :eek:

Jon, No Sweat! . . . if you knew my "buddies" it was bound to happen!

Maybe I can wait it out or do something really dumb, as I usually do, to change it! :)
 
Sorry for the slow response, we are sometimes a bit short-handed after Oshkosh. :)

Raw backlight brightness is only one of many factors that goes into how readable an LCD display is, and is not always an adequate single point of reference for comparing two screens. Other factors such as viewing angle, color filters, contrast ratio, and anti-glare properties can be just as important under real conditions. Suffice to say Garmin considers all these factors and more when designing a cockpit display, which usually involves custom LCD glass that's engineered for a particular application.

The sunlight readability of a GPSMAP 696 unit used with a thrid-party panel-mounting bracket may not be a good point of comparison for the GDU 37X display unit. If the portable unit is panel-mounted without adequate provision for air circulation, the unit may dim its display in order to keep the temperature of its battery pack within limits during recharging. A GDU 37X is designed for mounting in a panel and has accommodations for cooling the display. As a result the GDU 37X does not have the same restriction as it is designed for the thermal environment of the instrument panel.

The current database prices for the G3X can be found on pages 6 and 9 of the following price list:
http://download.garmin.com/avdb/Garmin_Aviation_Database_Price_List.pdf

There are plenty of RV builders on the Garmin engineering staff and in other departments, many of whom read VAF every day even if they don't reply to every post.
 
Last edited:
This seems like the proper pace to continue the op topic. Im happy to see the other thread not peppered with comparisons in price and features. With that being said, iv been over to the dynon forum and it seems as though no comparisons or even mention in the slightest bit about the garmin releases. I hope that Dynon has some good news at sun n fun. There were hints that more info on the comm would be released i believe.

I have the sv in my -4 but cannot overlook the garmin now with prices being somewhat equal?
 
Many here seem to have a much different view than myself so, I will probably catch some flack but, here it is… I just pulled the trigger on a full Skyview system (dual screens and everything else they have) knowing about Garmin and what is being offered. I purchased a GNR 225 and a PAR 100EX for Radios. Why? Well, I think Garmin is only here because of Dynon, GTR and Advanced. I am going to support the folks that have worked to support us and not the Gorilla in the room. I will buy Garmin when there is no better choice but, that’s the deal with Gamin, they eliminate choice. I do not dislike Garmin but, I want to have a choice the next time I build out a panel and Garmin likes to be the only game and charge big $ so, let’s not let them kill off our vendors that have been working hard to provide us with better products for less $.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top