crwper

Your configuration file looks fine. What kind of earphones are you using? How are they mounted? Michael

I'm in the same boat... One of the things I like about FlySight is that I know it will start logging when I turn it on. If something unusual happens on the jump, or if I fly particularly well, I'm not worried about whether or not the FlySight will decide I've ended the jump. I'm always wondering if there might be a way to make things a bit "smarter", but at the same time, I feel like a lot of that should be deferred to the analysis software (e.g., Paralog). If the analysis software fails, you can always crunch the data manually, or try a different program. However, if the FlySight fails to log a jump, there's nothing you can do. Michael

Looking at the configuration file the other day, I was thinking it might be best to use just the vertical speed threshold for all modes, and perhaps eliminate the horizontal threshold. Really, the horizontal threshold is only useful in the "inverse glide ratio" mode--not too important for the places FlySight is actually being used. Applying the vertical threshold to all modes would make FlySight's behaviour very predictable, which I like, and also simplifies the interface a bit. For exceptional uses--e.g., flying a wingsuit with jets--there's likely no way to reliably detect the difference between "in flight" and "not in flight". I suspect the user would just have to put up with a few beeps in the plane. On the topic of freefall detection... One advantage we have here, perhaps, is that the FlySight will always start a new log when you turn it on, and end the log when you turn it off. In contrast, most audible altimeters, for example, use freefall detection to delineate jumps. The nice thing about FlySight's way of doing it is that, if your detection algorithm is not quite perfect, it wouldn't start a new jump--just miss one or two data points on a single logged jump (or include a few points it shouldn't have). Michael

Here are a couple of new templates. These ones have two surfaces: The top one is the original, and the bottom one is a bit flatter. If I've understood correctly, the bottom surface should match your helmets much better. Thanks for your help! Michael

I've put together a couple of templates, which I've attached, and would appreciate any help you guys can offer with a bit of a test... To use the template: Choose the appropriate file depending on your normal paper size (letter or A4). Print the PDF and cut out the template. Using the template, check the curvature near the back of your helmet. You may need to move the template around a bit to find a spot that fits well. The big question is: Can you find a spot on your helmet where the template is a good fit? Using 0.090" VHB tape to secure the mount gives a bit of leeway, but the mounting face (i.e. the faces marked by red arrows on the template) should fit within about 1/16" (1.5 mm). If you're able to do the test, please PM me to let me know what kind of helmet you have, and whether or not the template fits. If it doesn't fit, is it too flat (i.e. the outside edge touches, but the inside is more than 1/16" from the template) or too curved (the opposite)? Thanks so much for your help! Michael P.S. I'm working on the screw mount issue. With luck, I may be able to put a couple of holes on either side near the middle of the mount.

I'm not sure I understand, but maybe I can answer some of your questions. The FlySight does not have a barometric altimeter. In the past, this has been considered a necessity for freefall measurements because one of the main things we're interested in is speed measurements. Most consumer GPS units log data based on the NMEA standard, which provides position and horizontal velocity, but not vertical speed. This means that, in order to figure out vertical speed, we need to take differences between pairs of altitude measurements. GPS altitude measurements have a bit more error than barometric measurements, so a barometer makes a big difference in that case. FlySight, on the other hand, logs full 3D velocity measured by the GPS receiver using Doppler shifts. This is much more accurate than taking differences, and eliminates the need for a barometer. In a way, this capability isn't unique to FlySight. WinTec's units use the same family of GPS receivers as FlySight does, so the same information is available to them. The problem is, they don't log that information, so it's not much help to us that the receiver makes the measurement. Of course, the biggest difference with FlySight is the in-flight audible feedback, but it seems like you're asking about barometric altitude in particular. Does that help at all? Michael

These ones will be made from aluminum. As long as I'm having them machined, most of the cost is going to come from that procedure. So, I figured I might as well use a slightly higher-quality material so people are getting their money's worth. I actually have a few GoPro mounting kits sitting on the shelf, because this was one of my original mounting ideas. One of the clips that comes in the mounting kit can be removed from its arm and screwed directly onto the base of the FlySight. You can then clip the FlySight into a regular GoPro mount. The problem is, it's sticks out quite a lot, and certainly presents more of a line snag hazard than the new mount. Michael

The prototype would work well for most helmet-sized curved surfaces, but not for a flat surface. I'm thinking of producing two styles: one for curved surfaces, and one for flat. The only issue with this, I think, is that the center of the mount is only 1 mm thick. This keeps the mount light and low-profile, but it doesn't give much purchase for a screw. I'll have to give this a bit more thought... VHB tape is pretty phenomenal stuff. If anything, I'm concerned that it might be too strong. To remove the mount from the helmet, I had to pry it off with a large screwdriver. By the time it let go, it made such a loud "crack" that I thought I might have broken the helmet. Michael

An interesting suggestion. One concern comes to mind... With the Liquid Flatlock, the mounting surface is generally flat, so it's relatively easy to machine the bores. The FlySight mount, on the other hand, is intended to be mounted on a curved surface. If the bores are machined perpendicular to the top surface, then the nuts inside the helmet won't sit flush. If the bores are machined perpendicular to the bottom surface, then the taper on the top becomes quite deep, and the bores become costly to machine... Regarding the VHB tape: Is your concern that it won't be strong enough, or that it will be too strong (i.e. it will be difficult to remove the mount if desired)? Michael

I just received the mount prototype, and I'm pretty stoked about it. I've couldn't wait to share a few photos--I hope that's alright. I thought I'd get the prototype made out of aluminum instead of plastic, since materials are a small part of production costs on this one. The results are, I think, stunning. The top of the mount is basically a shallow dish machined precisely to the shape of the FlySight's base. The bottom of the mount has been machined to fit the curvature of an "average" helmet. To give you an idea, it's a little more curved than the GoPro mount, which I've noticed tends to be a bit flat for the back of most helmets. The mount is secured to the helmet with 3M VHB tape, which forms a secure enough connection that I had to pry it off with a large screwdriver. A piece of double-sided Velcro passes freely under the mount, so it can be removed if the FlySight isn't in place--leaving only a minimal platform stuck to the helmet. The big thing I wanted to test with this prototype is how securely the Velcro holds the FlySight. Even though the strap doesn't look very tight, it's very difficult to get the FlySight to move at all within the mount. It's possible to slide it out the side, but you have to brace against the mount and push very hard with your thumbs.. The other upside of this design is essentially zero line snag potential. I suppose you could get a line under the mount if you displaced some of the VHB tape, but, again, you'd really have to work at it. I'm going to do a little more testing with the mount myself, and then I'm hoping to do a production run early in April. Any feedback would be appreciated! Michael

That's slick. If I didn't know better, I'd have said the pouch was made for the FlySight. Did you buy this online or at a bricks-and-mortar store? Michael

The Chinese motorcycle helmet speakers arrived. I haven't had a chance to test them in freefall, but on the bench they seem like they would be loud enough. For $4 shipped, you get about what you'd expect. In the detail photo, you can see that the connection between the wires and the speaker has no strain relief. On a closed-ear helmet, I'm not sure this is an issue, but it could be. The speaker itself is just under 3 cm in diameter. However, a couple of mounting issues occur to me... First, there are two speakers, so you'd either need to tuck one away, or make some modifications of your own. Second, you can see there's a big volume adjuster on the cable, which could be a bit awkward. As far as modification goes, it looks like the wires themselves are enameled. It's been my experience that these are a bit tricky to work with, so I wouldn't recommend it as your first soldering project. Overall, given the price, if you're a bit of a tinkerer I'd say it's worth a go. I'd be interested to hear if the helmet speakers used by others require any less modification, if they're sturdier, etc. Michael

I'm planning to add a "FlySight plays well with..." page to the website. If anyone has something they'd like to see added to the page, let me know. It would be my pleasure to showcase any quality accessories. Michael

Wow, great job! I've hit a bit of a speed bump in manufacturing my own mount... It looks like machining the mounts will be a bit pricey--they'd have to sell for $40 or so. I'm currently looking into injection molding, which I hope will reduce that price significantly. Michael

Kell.nl recently posted pictures of his setup. That's probably a good starting point. I've just ordered some motorcycle speakers from eBay. They haven't arrived yet, but I'll let you know how they work when they do. The price is certainly right. Michael

I'd recommend starting with the default value of 3:1 (i.e., a max value in the configuration file of 300). This has served me pretty well on both my Prodigy 2 and Phantom 2. Michael

This is a particularly interesting subject for me. My interest in real-time feedback has been inspired partly by technology like this which helps people who have lost their sense of balance. Devices like the Brainport stimulate the user's tongue to tell them when they're leaning to one side. The brain can use this information, in lieu of a normal sense of balance, to remain upright. Perhaps even more interestingly, research has shown that, the longer something like this is used, the longer the patient can actually go without it. The brain isn't just using the device as a crutch, but is actually figuring out what else indicates an off-balance position. This sort of learning really only works with immediate feedback. If you look at data after a jump, you'll get a conscious idea of how well you did--still a valuable thing to know--but it doesn't really help your brain learn the way immediate feedback does. My hope with FlySight is that, given immediate feedback, our brains will actually pick up on cues that we wouldn't necessarily have noticed on our own--things like the sound of the air going by, the feeling of being tipped slightly forward, or the sensation of pressure on the chest. With time, I think these things will begin to form a sense of glide ratio.

Have you tried GPSBabel with LukeH's style file? I haven't checked the most recent version of GPSBabel (have to run to a meeting right now), but it may have native support for FlySight CSV files, as well. Michael

The base price is $249 on the North American website, and 249 € on the European website, which works out to about $341.50. Most of the difference is due to the VAT and import fees associated with sending FlySights to Europe. I share your frustrations with the cost of import, but, alas, I can't do much about it. Michael

Agreed. That's the same stuff I've been sampling for use on my own mount. Michael

My design was inspired partly by something a local jumper put together--basically a shallow "U" with a double-sided Velcro strap passed under the mount. The whole thing was screwed into his helmet. Very simple and quite effective. Michael

[replyIs it totally snag proof? If not am wondering if a slope sided shroud would make it impossible to snag a line. Good question. My original design was shaped a bit more like a dish, with the corners coming up to meet the FlySight. The idea was to eliminate the overhanging corners present in this design. However, it would still be possible for a line to snag if it found its way under the beveled edge of the dish (not sure if this is clear). My thinking with this design is that it eliminates "pinch" snags like the one mentioned above. The most likely way for a line to snag on the current design would be, I think, if it kind of lassoed around the whole thing--but I'm not sure there's much to be done about that. Ultimately, a persistent snag with this mount would almost certainly pull the FlySight loose, which would resolve the safety issue (though not the material loss). Once I have a prototype in hand, I'll have a much better idea whether or not the mount presents a snag hazard. Michael

btw, any news about the planned "low-profile mounting system" ? I've got a prototype on the way, and if it works well, I should have a couple hundred sometime in February. I don't have any nice renders on hand at the moment, but the attached image shows the design. A double-sided Velcro strap will pass under the mount and around the FlySight, with tabs holding the FlySight in place in the other direction. The four feet can be secured with adhesive foam tape (it will ship with the same stuff used in the GoPro mount), or with a more permanent method. Like the GoPro mount, the curvature of the feet should match well with most helmets. Any thoughts on the design? Michael