Foreflight v. WingXPro

middies10

middies10

Well-Known Member
I did a recent thread search to see if their was a comparison between the two but came up with nothing. I was hoping to get some input of which software you guys prefer. I have been reading reviews on various sites but would still like Jetcareer's input.

Thanks guys.
 
I did the same thing a couple of months ago and from what I read ForeFlight was the clear winner. .. So I bought it.
 
They are both excellent. Almost a year into FF and, while I expect I will renew, am running the WingX trial to do another comparison.

These are two companies that have been leapfrogging each other since the beginning with advances in features and usability.

I personally like the FF interface better but there are two WingX features that I hope make their way into FF. One is the split screen, which surprised me. I thought of it as one of those cute but unessential features. But being able to brief an approach while still viewing the en route chart is a pretty good benefit.

The second is the one feature of FF I never liked. Because the route function is tied to the search function, searching for that "proceed direct ABCDE intersection" you never heard of before has the result of deleting the route. You can get it back, of course, but it's multiple steps. WingX's search function is independent of its route function, so searching for that intersection and adding it to the route is, IMO much more elegant.

But I wouldn't be at all surprised to see one of those added in an upcoming FF update.

Your best bet? Do a trial run in both and pick the one that seems more intuitive to you.
 
Another vote for fore flight. I use it "unofficially" on every leg. The enroute chart and layovers with TFRs, radar, etc is the bomb.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
They are both excellent. Almost a year into FF and, while I expect I will renew, am running the WingX trial to do another comparison.

These are two companies that have been leapfrogging each other since the beginning with advances in features and usability.

I personally like the FF interface better but there are two WingX features that I hope make their way into FF. One is the split screen, which surprised me. I thought of it as one of those cute but unessential features. But being able to brief an approach while still viewing the en route chart is a pretty good benefit.

The second is the one feature of FF I never liked. Because the route function is tied to the search function, searching for that "proceed direct ABCDE intersection" you never heard of before has the result of deleting the route. You can get it back, of course, but it's multiple steps. WingX's search function is independent of its route function, so searching for that intersection and adding it to the route is, IMO much more elegant.

But I wouldn't be at all surprised to see one of those added in an upcoming FF update.

Your best bet? Do a trial run in both and pick the one that seems more intuitive to you.
Click to expand...

I would love to try a trial of each, but I already used them before I got this gps for my iPad. Yes, I know, big mistake.

I see that if I wanted approach plates, it would cost an extra 75 for Foreflight correct?
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
They are both excellent. Almost a year into FF and, while I expect I will renew, am running the WingX trial to do another comparison.

These are two companies that have been leapfrogging each other since the beginning with advances in features and usability.

I personally like the FF interface better but there are two WingX features that I hope make their way into FF. One is the split screen, which surprised me. I thought of it as one of those cute but unessential features. But being able to brief an approach while still viewing the en route chart is a pretty good benefit.

The second is the one feature of FF I never liked. Because the route function is tied to the search function, searching for that "proceed direct ABCDE intersection" you never heard of before has the result of deleting the route. You can get it back, of course, but it's multiple steps. WingX's search function is independent of its route function, so searching for that intersection and adding it to the route is, IMO much more elegant.

But I wouldn't be at all surprised to see one of those added in an upcoming FF update.

Your best bet? Do a trial run in both and pick the one that seems more intuitive to you.
Click to expand...


Mark how do you like that SV on WinX?
 
Foreflight...product is excellent and when needed, support staff are awesome, whenever I have had minor issues. I have sat next to someone running WingXPro, we didn't get along...
 
One basic feature missing with ForeFlight, track up. I really hate flying to the bottom of the screen.

What's up with that?
 
middies10 said:
I would love to try a trial of each, but I already used them before I got this gps for my iPad. Yes, I know, big mistake.
Click to expand...
Write to support. Tell the that you tried it before without a GPS and would like another trial. Both of these companies are very responsive to customers.

I see that if I wanted approach plates, it would cost an extra 75 for Foreflight correct?
Click to expand...
If you wanted geo-referenced approach charts it would cost $75 extra. The approach charts themselves are included.
 
Fencer said:
Mark how do you like that SV on WinX?
Click to expand...
There are limitations to the trial versions. Mostly, the limitations are that you can't access things that have separate subscription fees that are essentially passed on to another vendor. So, for example, with the WingX trial you don't get geo-referenced approach plates (Seattle Avionics) or SV.

It may be another of those things that I eventually change my mind about but it's not a feature I care that much about (I've flow a DA40-G1000 with SV and, while it was very cool to look at a screen and see the runway numbers on the approach, it struck me as a bit too game-ish.
 
fholbert said:
One basic feature missing with ForeFlight, track up. I really hate flying to the bottom of the screen.

What's up with that?
Click to expand...
Purely WAG: The digital charts being used are not truly electronic in the sense that, if you turn them upside down, all the lettering is right-side up. Perhaps the people a FF figured that the gain from track up would be negated for most users by anything readable being upside down and haven't received enough feedback in the other direction to raise it's priority.

I have this image of developers like this having a bug/feature request list with assigned priorities based on a combination of customer demand and the developer's own concerns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top