Here you can address missing features and enhancement recommendations for the app. The Jeppesen development team will constantly review this discussion to understand your needs.

Views: 18012

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yes, Jeppesen is very slow in development of MFDVFR in comparison to the competition and I suspect this is de to lack of assigned resources and maybe lack of intellectual power applied to the application.

I had a trial of version 1 and let go after 30 days, because I thought it is not usable. I gave a second with version 2 and have a mixed feeling. I kept a Skydemon account live in parallel this year, for safety&redundancy reasons and also due to the fact that I only have one iPad and an iPhone and MFDVFR is still unavailable on the iPhone.

Now half of the year is gone, my original plan was to mainly use Jeppesen MFDVFR and get rid of Skydemon once the iPhone version of MFDVFR comes, but reality proved me wrong. Looking at my records of flights for the first half year I see over 90% flown with Skydemon as an aid and MFDVFR was mostly carried as an emergency backup. It does have its benefits, for me mainly abroad where SD does not provide sufficient georef'ed approach and taxi charts, but this will only be a matter of time.

So, yes Jeppesen you have to speed up to keep in touch with the fast moving general development or MFDVFR is in danger to follow AirNavigation Pro on the route to be a minor option (first I would love to see a fix for the enhanced power drain ...).

I am an early adopter to JeppVFR since day one (Beta 0,9). But have not renewed my account this year. Jeppesen should license their charts to someone who likes to develope software. I guess users won't find out what is going wrong within Jeppesen - but since it should not be a problem of resources nor developers, I guess it is policy. My understanding is that users did a lot of work to make JeppVFR a good experience, but somehow the dev-team is restricted in implementing all the good stuff. Garmin has obviously less problems in that part but does not own vector charts.

The first problem of JeppVFR is the decision to divide VFR and IFR into two worlds, different software teams, different App's. Problems with night VFR, IFR Routing Points and Z-flights are predetermined with the first sw-release. Usability would grow if there is one APP with in-app-purchases for whatever I need. Since my physical cockpit never changes weather in VFR or IFR it must not be necessary to have different Apps for different flying conditions.

Good reply Benjamin. Perhapse, Boing don't like the Jeppesen VFR Software and they spend no much money to this software project.
I am so sorry for this, but now i spend my money to SkyDemon.

Hello Michael.

just to clarify, there is no link between the "Garmin Pilot" app, and a "Mobile FliteDeck VFR" subscription.

The new option to implement Jeppesen Terminal charts into the "Garmin Pilot" app is related to the "traditional" static Jeppesen Terminal charts only.

The vector based Jeppesen VFR “seamless zooming" charting technology is available exclusive with "Mobile FliteDeck VFR".

For the "Mobile FliteDeck VFR” team,

Markus

 


Michael Frank said:

I´am using MFDVFR from the first time and extended my subscription early this year.

Without any doubt, the Charts are the best on the market. The Look&Feel ist great across all countrys.

But yes, the Software itself is frozen in his current state with (too less) basic features.
As i read that this year that there are no features planned (only extending coverage) - i was a little bit disappointed.

But now there is - hopefully - for me light at the end of the tunnel.

The Garmin Pilot App (which is imho the best and professional software at the market) offers a connection opportunity with Jeppessen.

This would be the best step ever. I think Jeppesen Mobile Flite Deck will not be developed again in the future. 

Has anyone sucessfully connected a Mobile Flite Deck VFR Subscription with the Garmin Pilot App?

I had no success, but will try to ask Jeppesen what to do.

 

Just as a reminder.... Swiss ATC refers to missing towns / plugin/interface for XPlane flight simulator for Winter practice / basic featues

Hi

I have been using this product the second season both within Swiss and US airspace and it has worked pretty stable.

Using it in Switzerland I found that ATC often refers to towns not shown on the Jeppesen charts for position reports, orders or clearances. They refer to the official ICOA sectional and terminal charts for reference. Not so in the US airspace of course as they rarely refer to towns.

I have posted the following requests before but I keep being confident that from next year the task list will be worked off....

So like most of us agree the most basic features needed would be synchronizing with the backup device and be able to backup configuration and configured flights.

All in all I am confident that this product can evolve or at least I hope so.

Regards,

Benno

  

 

Hello,

just my 2cts about MFDVFR and it's (lack of) development: The possible extensions, missing features etc. have been named in this thread, what seems to be missing is Jeppesen's commitment to invest. My subscription ends late October and if I don't see any roadmap until then, I'll spend my money elsewhere.

N.

Due to the slow development of the product and the still missing iPhone support, I did not renew my sub either, it is simply too expensive compared to the competition with that little progress. I do like the vector engine, I don't the power consumption and the missing vertical airspace graphs others offer.

Just a crazy idea for some maybe brave Jeppesonians- would it be thinkable to merge IFR and VFR versions and just offer one integral solution?

The ones flying both, VFR and IFR, are more likely to be willing to pay the Jepp premium, it will support the push towards the EASA initiative to get more pilots trained on IFR and it will re-unite what was separated.

My goodness, this same old argument has been going on for years now. Jeppesen have no real commitment to their woefully inadequate application and should throw in the towel. I honestly don't know why they started it. So many better applications in the US and Europe, and even Australia. Everyone, including Jeppesen, are simply wasting time - give it up and go home. Mature, alternaives products are out. And the worse part is Jeppesen charge the most for their third rate product. Please stop debating a non product.

Phil,

As I have stated previously on this forum: Jeppesen had their chances. They had more chances than any other software I know.

They didn't take one.

How much they actually care about their users shows already on this forum (that is NOT encrypted... at least... if you try to use https it isn't working...)

My Staement: Half baked and bitterly disappointing. The Software, Jeppesens Behaviour and the way they treat their customers.

Kind Regards

Tobias

As many fellow pilots here seem to be bashing JMFD VFR here, it would like to add a contrary experience:

I was looking for a adequate replacement for the German AIP VFR as issued by the DFS. Especially, I was not only looking for approach charts with the traffic patterns, but also for the very important airport details that are given in the text portions of the AIP (ops hours, contact details, available fuel, repairs, hangar, ...). Same for airspaces. That is, everything that is required for a proper preflight preparation. I also want this information to be accurate, complete and up to date, so that I can rely on it with confidence and cancel my subscription of the AIP VFR. I would like to be able to recommend it to a fresh "AIP VFR"-taught pilot with clear conscience so that he can maintain the standards of an EASA PPL license.

Well, really, even after a lot of research, I've not found any other app that solves the problem as elegantly and thoroughly as JMFD VFR. Yes, some features are missing, but most of them are toy features that I can well do without. I too have my personal list of seriously lacking features and expressed them clearly in the past. But for making any large flight under nontrivial conditions, JMFD VFR is my first choice. For me, it's the data that counts, not a feature overload as in some competing apps. (Just in case, before anyone gets to false conclusions: I'm in no way affiliated with them.) So I really hope that JMFD VFR is further developed rather than neglected or even abandoned.

Best regards,
Carsten

Even though I have my list of seriously lacking features too, I fully agree with Carsten, especially if you fly abroad. Phil Evans "trumplike" comments are only destructive - not very helpful. However I can understand that customers are getting impatient.

Always blue skies,

Ralph

Hello,

I just wanted to mention here that we have released "Mobile FliteDeck” version 2.1.5 earlier this week. This release contains:

- Improved compatibility with iOS 10.1.1

- Improved NOTAM filtering

- Minor bug fixes

If you have not updated yet, please make sure to get the update via the AppStore.

Stay tuned for more releases to come in the near future !

For the “Mobile FliteDeck VFR” Team,

Markus

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Forum

PRODUCT SUPPORT

In this category you will find discussion which should support you in finding answers regarding general or technical questions.

120 discussions

PRODUCT TIPS & TRICKS

Here we share useful information about new features and functions of Jeppesen Mobile FliteDeck VFR.

1 discussions

© 2017   Jeppesen   Powered by

Badges  |     |  Terms of Service