Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

GDL90 GPS Altitude msl vs WGS-84 ellipsoid #749

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

PepperJo
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request introduces a switch to the settings page to switch between GPS altitude MSL or height above WGS-84 ellipsoid for the GDL90 ownship geometric altitude message. GDL90 specifies ownship geometric altitude as height above WGS-84 ellipsoid but some EFBs expect MSL altitude. We leave the default to MSL but allow switching to height above ellipsoid.

Add setting's switch for ownship geometric altitude message
in GDL90 to enable altitude in MSL instead of altitude above
WGS-84 ellipsoid. GDL90 specification uses WGS-84 ellipsoid
altitude but some EFBs expect altitude in MSL.
https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/adsb/Archival/media/GDL90_Public_ICD_RevA.PDF

Signed-off-by: PepperJo <pepperjo@japf.ch>
GPL90 traffic reports expect barometric altitude. Convert
GNSS altitudes in traffic information to barometric altitude.
Estimate barometric altitude from reported GPS geoid height,
own geoid separation and barometric pressure.

Signed-off-by: PepperJo <pepperjo@japf.ch>
Add GPS height above WGS-84 ellispoid to the website.

Signed-off-by: PepperJo <pepperjo@japf.ch>
@cyoung
Copy link
Owner

cyoung commented Sep 29, 2018

@PepperJo - all of the EFBs on our compatibility list expect the altitude to be MSL. It was implemented wrong by most ADS-B portables, so we deviated from the spec on this since MSL was the "de-facto" standard. What EFBs expect it to be WGS-84, and is it possible to auto-detect them so that we can avoid adding extra options?

@PepperJo
Copy link
Contributor Author

PepperJo commented Oct 1, 2018

From this forum posts: http://forums.skydemon.aero/Topic19950-11.aspx
Skydemon expects WGS-84. Autodetection might be possible but what e.g. multiple different EFBs are connected?

@cyoung
Copy link
Owner

cyoung commented Oct 1, 2018

Stratux tracks client states. We used to shut off AHRS output only for detected ForeFlight clients because of a bug in ForeFlight. Something similar can be done to output WGS-84 if SkyDemon can be detected.

@PepperJo
Copy link
Contributor Author

PepperJo commented Oct 2, 2018

I will take a look and update the pull request accordingly if I find a decent solution.

@cyoung
Copy link
Owner

cyoung commented Oct 2, 2018

See networkConnection in main/network.go, this is where connection-level states are stored. We could make another capability flag to extend NETWORK_GDL90_STANDARD.

@VirusPilot
Copy link

@PepperJo - all of the EFBs on our compatibility list expect the altitude to be MSL. It was implemented wrong by most ADS-B portables, so we deviated from the spec on this since MSL was the "de-facto" standard. What EFBs expect it to be WGS-84, and is it possible to auto-detect them so that we can avoid adding extra options?

@cyoung - your EFB compatibility list is missing some very popular European EFBs which I already tested successfully with Stratux:

SkyDemon (only Traffic):

  • Stratux Settings: GDL90 MSL Altitude: off

Sky-Map (Traffic & AHRS):

  • Setup - IP Adresse: UDP, Port: 4000
  • Stratux Settings: GDL90 MSL Altitude: on

Air Nav Pro (only Traffic):

EasyVFR (Traffic & AHRS):

  • Stratux Settings: GDL90 MSL Altitude: on

Airmate (only Traffic):

  • Stratux Settings: GDL90 MSL Altitude: (not determined yet)

@PepperJo
Copy link
Contributor Author

I will split this pull request since it tackles 3 different problems...

@PepperJo
Copy link
Contributor Author

PepperJo commented Oct 24, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants