Digital altimeters versus analog - which is easier to read

[faulknerwn 36]

Just out of curiosity - I am 40 years old, and only for a period of 6 months in my entire life have I lived in a house with an analog clock. From the time I was a little kid, all our clocks were digital

I mainly use a digital altimeter. Every once in a while I'm without one cuz mine is broken or lost or whatever and I grab a student altimeter. When in Freefall I have to stare at the analog for a couple of seconds to process it while the digital is just glance. This is verifiable on video - when reading analog my brain has to think and digital it doesn't

I know many people claim studies that show the opposite but I've got a little under 8000 jumps and it's a very noticeable difference to me in how fast I can read it. I just an curious if it's an age thing - if people grew up with old fashioned clocks it's probably easier for them.

[NWFlyer 2]

Same age as you; grew up with a mix of clocks, but I believe that every watch I've ever owned (other than my heart rate monitor watch that I only wear to exercise) has been analog. I like analog altimeters; maybe that's because I'm used to looking at my wrist and processing analog.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[JENNR8R 0]

40 is the age that your eyes start to need reading glasses. I grew up with analog clocks, but the numbers on the digital altimeters are BIGGER and easier to read.

What do you call a beautiful, sunny day that comes after two cloudy, rainy
ones? -- Monday.

[iowa 0]

I'm over 50 and prefer digital. Not so much for the for the reading at the time, but way better for the recall later and accuracy.

I see 5.6 and remember 5.6. Not just 5ish like I know my student is seeing.

Keith

''Always do sober what you said you would do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut.'' - Ernest Hemingway

[Hug1 0]

I am just a little over 40 and I prefer analog for freefall and digital for the pattern and occasional high performance landing. The digital altimeter that I use, begins with a V and ends with an O and respectfully, I can't read it during freefall However, the big dial gives me a range and as long as I'm not it the red. It's good to go!!

C. Huggins

[piisfish 135]

just under 40. Easier for me to use an analog alti. I actually just "estimate" altitude on the alti, and then go by the colors... Easy for me to switch between Feet and Meter alti's... Color zones are more or less the same

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Just out of curiosity - I am 40 years old, and only for a period of 6 months in my entire life have I lived in a house with an analog clock. From the time I was a little kid, all our clocks were digital

I mainly use a digital altimeter. Every once in a while I'm without one cuz mine is broken or lost or whatever and I grab a student altimeter. When in Freefall I have to stare at the analog for a couple of seconds to process it while the digital is just glance. This is verifiable on video - when reading analog my brain has to think and digital it doesn't

I know many people claim studies that show the opposite but I've got a little under 8000 jumps and it's a very noticeable difference to me in how fast I can read it. I just an curious if it's an age thing - if people grew up with old fashioned clocks it's probably easier for them.

There are a plethora of studies that show analog is better than digital. Kinda reinforces the 'a picture is worth a thousand words' adage.
I would suspect that your personal reaction time is more about paralysis by analysis.
As the old engineering joke goes, you are trying to measure a pipe to the nearest tenth of a millimeter and then cutting it off with a hacksaw.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[nigel99 143]

I think it is important to make the distinction that analog is best for approximation, while digital is best for precision.

If you need to know that the altitude is > x analog is quicker. However if you need to know that you are at 5.6k then digital will be quicker.

I use an alti to tell me when to deploy so analog works best as I honestly don't care if I deploy -/+ 500 feet of when I told people I would. If I needed to know more precise altitudes then I would replace or supplement with a digital.

Out of interest it is not uncommon for scientific instruments or meters to have both digital and analog displayed simultaneously. It is surprising that the altimeter market hasn't followed suit.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[piisfish 135]

Quote

Out of interest it is not uncommon for scientific instruments or meters to have both digital and analog displayed simultaneously. It is surprising that the altimeter market hasn't followed suit.

maybe that because people using the instruments you mention do not have a planet thrown at their faces at 200km/h

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[popsjumper 2]

Over 40 and prefer analog.

-Grew up with analog clocks.
-Glance satisfies need.
-Digital requires focus and longer distraction from what's going on around me.

As an aside, with my polarized lenses, the numbers on my Neptune screen are unreadable but the flow of colors across it are very nice.

I agree somewhat with Nigel.
There's room for both depending on your needs.


Side question:
Why is it claimed that digitals are more accurate than analogs?
Different sensors or what?
Or is it simply because digitals give you a solid number regardless of how accurate that number is.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[GLIDEANGLE 1]

Age 54
Grew up w/ analog clocks
I have myopia, presbyopia, & astigmatism.

In the discussion above there seems to be confusion caused by blending the questions of SEEING the altimeter & INTERPRETING the altimeter. I found that I had great difficulty SEEING the analog, which made Interpreting it very difficult. Now that I use an Alti-2 N3 altimeter... I can see the altimeter well enough to interpret it efficiently.

The studies which conclude that analog is preferable to digital probably had analog meters which were sufficiently visible. Once both kinds are equally visible, I can understand that analog might be better for our analog brains.

The choices we make have consequences, for us & for others!

[tdog 0]

Quote

There are a plethora of studies that show analog is better than digital.

Would you mind citing your sources and posting links to a sub-plethora of the complete plethora you claim? I have never seen any studies so I would like to read.

[riggerpaul 1]

over 40
grew up with mostly analog
own both and like both about equally

My digital is a DigiTude. The "thousands" digit is much larger than the other numbers.

I do have to remind myself that seeing my target digit on the big number is about 1000 feet higher, that is, if looking for 4000, the first moment I see the big "4" is 4999, just below 5. This has gotten easier with use. So, seeing the number I want sort of primes me to notice more. With the analog I don't think I do anything like that.

[DaVinciflies 0]

39 and prefer digital.

I may be fooling myself but I like the precision of a digital and having a number to remember for debriefs. Having said that I have not used an analogue since I was a student and needle positions would be something I would need to relearn for at a glance recognition.

I believe both are effective for freefall needs and whatever someone wants to use is fine.

I do not participate in jumps where the time taken to register a number on an alti is problematic.

[missbrz 0]

I'm 23, grew up with mostly analog clocks until recently & wear an analog watch. I prefer digital altimeters. I can look see 6.0 and know I'm at 6.0. For analog I see the number towards the bottom & know I'm at 6-ish. It take me too long to actually see if its at 6.0, 5.8, 6.2. I'm fine with analog in a pinch, but I like my digital.


edited for clarity

[Anvilbrother 0]

I am in the same exact boat, I can glance at a neptune and be good, but have to focus on the analog one for a moment. I told that to a couple friends and they did not have the same opinion. Guess it comes down to habit, or how some peoples brains are wired.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I am over 40 and find digital hard to read in freefall. However I watched my analogue dial jump 500 feet while taking a tandem low(ish). They are useless on high performance landings.

[airtwardo 6]

I'm over 50 and like my digital, it took me a few jumps to get use to it but nothing major. I like it more because of the smaller size and weight than my analog altimeters.

Quick note~ I don't believe one is MORE accurate than the other, the readout may make it appear so but...

What is actually reading the pressure change is about the same in both internally.

And if you really think your digital is dead nuts on...jump with 3 or 4 of them and compare the readouts in freefall.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Fast 0]

I just can't deal with analog altimeters on any kind of regular basis. It always seemed like the needle was all over the place. IT may take a fraction of a second longer to read an interpret an 8 on a digital altimeter if everything was equal, but it isn't cause I spend a whole second trying to figure out which direction the thing is even pointing. I mean, I never really associated a direction to a number well.

For me it's like looking at one of those watches that doesn't have any numbers, just hands, I know it's kinda sorta around 2:15, but it could just as easily be 1:15.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

I just can't deal with analog altimeters on any kind of regular basis. It always seemed like the needle was all over the place. IT may take a fraction of a second longer to read an interpret an 8 on a digital altimeter if everything was equal, but it isn't cause I spend a whole second trying to figure out which direction the thing is even pointing. I mean, I never really associated a direction to a number well.

For me it's like looking at one of those watches that doesn't have any numbers, just hands, I know it's kinda sorta around 2:15, but it could just as easily be 1:15.

One quick way to fix that is to rotate the altimeter 90 degrees so that the 3000' red is at the 12 o'clock position. Your eye puts up straight up noon at lot quicker than any other.

More old-times had theirs mounted in that manner, all of my dials are that way either wrist or chest mounted.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Quote

There are a plethora of studies that show analog is better than digital.

Would you mind citing your sources and posting links to a sub-plethora of the complete plethora you claim? I have never seen any studies so I would like to read.

Years ago I was paid to do this research.
I do not have access the my report any more, so I cannot tell you what articles I used then.
What you need to do is do research on human factors and instrumentation.
I guarantee that there are many articles in this area.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[CMiller 1]

26, and analog is way easier to read. A quick glance and I can see the position of the dial and know instantly where I'm at, a whole lot faster than if I had to read characters. Plus, my analog altimeter will never run out of batteries.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Side question:
Why is it claimed that digitals are more accurate than analogs?
Different sensors or what?
Or is it simply because digitals give you a solid number regardless of how accurate that number is.

I researched this question with the altimeter mfgs several years ago.

The jist of the answer is that both analog and digital altimeters have the same uncertainty in measurement.
You can create a calibration curve for any altimeter with a more precise aircraft altimeter and an altitude chamber.
Most altimeters are more accurate closer to MSL as opposed to 'altitude' 13k AGL.
The error is greater at higher altitude (as a trend).
The amount of error is around 10-15 ft at lower altitudes.
The error can be significantly greater at 'altitude'.

You also need to account for reading accuracy. (in addition to the measurement accuracy)
With analogs you may have parallax errors.
With digitals you may have misreads or transposition of numbers.

Generally digital displays are more sensitive to illumination issues.
Digital 2 may look like a 5 etc
Analog - shadow of indicator arm may make it harder to read.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[nigel99 143]

Quote

Quote

There are a plethora of studies that show analog is better than digital.

Would you mind citing your sources and posting links to a sub-plethora of the complete plethora you claim? I have never seen any studies so I would like to read.

Certainly not the best reference out there and Makeithappen did point to the proper search terms, however I use this document enough that it was easy to find. Look at Table III on page 33. http://www.everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD+(1400+-+1499)/MIL-STD-1472F_208/

Popsjumper - I am probably guilty of confusing accuracy with precision on some of my posts. Just because a digital altimeter reads 1021foot - it does not mean that it has a 1 foot accuracy. It is actually a valid thought because people using digital altimeters for "accuracy" to start things like swoops better be sure that the instruments measurement uncertainty isn't going to kill them.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[kallend 1,621]

I'm 65 and I can read either.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.