AirNav Systems Forum
AirNav Radar => AirNav Radar Discussion => Topic started by: CYYZGUY on April 03, 2013, 12:11:42 PM
-
I know the updates have been a long time coming... As a long time user and satisfied customer, I am really starting to wonder what is taking so long? A lot of promises have been made, but very little progress it seems.
A loyal airnav customer who is starting to really wonder...and is the provider for Canada's largest airport CYYZ.
Best regards,
-
Hi CYYZGUY,
Have a look at the development update thread which will answer your query. http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=7206.120
The beta has been under test, this has been assessed and has been returned to Airnav for further development and a further beta is awaited.
Alan
-
All I'll say Jason is "Don't hold your breath!".........................
-
As I said John the Beta was under test and the results of the testing have been returned to Airnav for further work, cant be any straighter than that.
Alan
-
Hi Alan, not getting at you in any way whatsoever!
-
Beta testing of the new Windows client software version is going on as the first version was released to some beta testers. We are now correcting the reported errors and we will be back with more information.
-
Thanks for the update AN.
-
Again, hope there will be public beta soon.
-
I think a public Beta is well over due, I get fed up with all this " behind closed door " stuff, and people having to keep asking about progress, other companies release it to the general public, at least then we know something is being worked on.
-
Oliver14,
An early release of a Beta before it is ready and in a suitable condition to be released would be completely irresponsible and would lead to a barrage of complaints and no company would be any different. As one of the testers I would not agree to the release of a beta in such a condition.
I have made sure that users are kept up to date between this and the Development Update thread without people having to ask as has Dev and a realease of an unsuitable beta wouldnt add anything to the process.
Alan
-
This recent popped up in my inbox......
"Do you have a mode-s receiver and it's not a RadarBox?
Want to share data to RadarBox24.com?
We've started today beta testing of our brand new Data Sharing application.
Apply now and benefit from new features when they become available."
Sounds like that's a beta in full swing? Nothing to with us though obviously.
-
Hopefully AirNav use different dev team to develop share SW from bug fix team.
br
This recent popped up in my inbox......
"Do you have a mode-s receiver and it's not a RadarBox?
Want to share data to RadarBox24.com?
We've started today beta testing of our brand new Data Sharing application.
Apply now and benefit from new features when they become available."
Sounds like that's a beta in full swing? Nothing to with us though obviously.
-
Bratters
If you read it you will see that it refers to Radarbox24 and not Radarbox, two different things completely.
The website deals with data that has already been handled and is available on the server, whereas the box software has got to process the data before sending it to the server, 2 completely different processes.
Alan
-
Alan,
I agree, that it's two completely different products. But from the past we know that AirNav only seems to have a very small DEV team that is working on all those different things (e.g. ShipTrax, server crashes, RadarBox24 and RadarBox). So to me it seems that AirNav still focuses on developing new products and not really on finalising a new version of the RadarBox software.
But I am not surprised about that anymore.
Actually I will be very surprised if there will be a new Radarbox version within the next 3 years. It's been already more than half a year since AirNav said they were going to fix the existing bugs as soon as possible. And it has been many years since those bugs have been reported.
In terms of bugfixing a product AirNav is the worst company I ever dealt with!
And honestly, it doesn't help me to read about very slow progress and bad excuses why there is still no new release. The only thing that would me is a fixed version of the software. I don't care about all the internal processes and why they are so bad.
And this statement "As one of the testers I would not agree to the release of a beta in such a condition." doesn't sound like there will be a new version soon. Sounds more to me as if the dev team doesn't really know what they're doing and making it even worse.
And if AirNav wanted to tell us something useful they would tell us what has already been fixed and which issues are still outstanding. So that we can get an impression of how many things still need to be done to be able to estimate how long that might take. Everything else is simply useless!
-
New release date anticipated to be the 12th of Never.......
These threads are highly entertaining!!
The only problem is, I've lost count of how many different ones we've had with so much ambiguity and FALSE hope......
-
Thanks for your reply Runway 31, I just thought that after all this time, there may have been a Beta version in a " suitable condition " for release, my mistake.
-
as a fairly new user to radarbox and i can say i am more than pleased with it
I am curious to know what the additions are going to be when the beta version is eventually released.
as people have already been testing it i assume they are in a position to tell us at least what the proposed
changes/improvements are going to be so we know what to expect
thanks
Nick
-
Nick,
There are no additions or enhancements proposed, only bug fixes.
The thumbnail photo(s) of aircraft retrieved from the Airnav server are not always the same image(s) retrieved from the links in fields LK and LK2 in the aircraft table.
The Mangled Type Designator Bug - ICAO Aircraft Type field gets "..." or other incorrect data populated into the field.
Data (callsigns, altitudes, squawks, routes, etc) being assigned to the wrong aircraft.
The Serial Confusion Bug - Information about an aircraft displayed next to the aircraft photo is derived from the aircraft table using a lookup key of the registration (AR). Where a duplicate aircraft exists with the same registration this can result in the wrong information being displayed. Lookup should be done using the ModeS Hex Code.
The 'Via' routes bug - Where the 'via' destination is shown as the final destination of a route, and the real final destination is not displayed.
The Flight Merging Bug - If you pick an aircraft up on separate days using the same flightnumber as it had on the last day you recieved it, then the starttime/endtime for that flight in mylog show as being the full24/48/72hour period and the flight does not go into reporter.
Local alerts not working if aircraft previously on network.
Equatorial Black Hole bug - Aircraft disappear from the map in the zone between 2°N and 2°S.
Preference box needs to be resizable to cope on PCs using 125% font size, or small screen size.
The Diacritical mark bug - The fonts used next to the photo does not support diacritical marks. All diacritical marks in the Navdata corrupt when shown next to the photo.
If you sort the Network Flights list by Distance ascending, there's always 10-20 aircraft at the top of the list with Distance and Bearing BLANK. Even though they are listed with a valid Latitude/Longitude, and appear on the map.
When setting the range in the advanced filters with the lat & long settings, then saving as a .flv, filter extension file, works as it should, but after closing AirNav & restarting the program the range filter cannot be used because there appears to be a default setting of lat 39.75 long -105.00.
The Spurious Position Bug
The Aircraft in Limbo bug
The Magic Carpet Bug
Aircraft Sessions Extended - Flights are being logged, when the aircraft has timed out. Does not occur to all aircraft.
ADS-B Aircraft take a long time to appear in the 2D map after they are first received when you are activated for 3D (The 3 buttons are visible on the top right of the screen).
Admin Restriction - On Certain corp machines, networks, admin is not given to the user and hence, RadarBox cannot be run without admin rights.
Alan
-
We all would have thought that Oliver.
-
hi Alan
thanks for that detailed information
I m not suprised its taking a while to sort it all out
Keep up the good work
Nick
-
Hi Alan,
Thanks for the info about the bugs that are going to be fixed. Unfortunately I cannot see the bug with aircraft that are shown at the wrong altitude in the 3D view on this list.
Does that mean that this very simple bugfix (a multiplication is missing) which I am waiting for for several years won't be fixed??? That would be extremely disappointing!
AirNav can you tell me anything about this?
-
AV61 Quote.......
hi Alan
thanks for that detailed information
I m not suprised its taking a while to sort it all out
Keep up the good work
Nick
Err not quite.........while we have been waiting I've seen two grandchildren go through university, learnt to speak a new language and my wife has written a book.
Airnav have come up with ...........not a lot.
PS Is it me or should the forum "quote" operation also be added to the bug list? Can't get it to work myself.
-
Bratters,
The quote function hasn't been working for weeks !
-
Add it to the bloomin' list then. It's like painting the Forth bridge this. Endless.
-
September 17, 2012
http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=7206.msg84155#msg84155
Airnav Support
The Plan Forward:
After listening to customers this week, we have decided that the development team due to the delays on the new top down version will go back to Version 4 code and rectify the major bugs and issues that customers are facing. (This will delay the RadarBox related projects we mentioned only) We are putting plans in place to get this setup and contacting customers who have had certain issues to work through them with us (we do have certain details of these provided). We hope to then achieve a beta version soon to all customers (we obviously cannot give a date but we will be working on get this out as soon as possible).
We understand the frustration from customers regarding some of the issues and we will putting our full efforts behind this to rectify Version 4 before moving back on to the new version. We do apologise profusely for the delays however we hope to be able to bring the beta and other new developments as soon as possible to the public.
--------------------------
November 03, 2012
http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=7206.msg85587#msg85587
Airnav Development
We are happy to announce that a new version of the software with all reported bugs corrected is already on beta testing stage.
Work continues and we will let you know once we have more news.
--------------------------
3 February 2013
http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=7485.msg89120#msg89120
Airnav Development
At this time we have V4.04 almost finished but we have to totally focus on the server problems we had 1 month ago. Once everything is totally stabilized with the server we will work on RB4.04 again.
--------------------------
2 March 2013
http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=7522.msg90021#msg90021
Orkney
Previous bugs - status:
001 - Tested OKAY. Thumbnails correctly match photos on links at planespotters.net.
002 - Tested OKAY. No "..." or other odd ICAO codes.
003 - Tested OKAY. I haven't seen any problems with data assigned to wrong aircraft.
004 - Tested OKAY. Two aircraft with same REG, display correct information.
005 - Tested OKAY. ANZ1 displayed as EGLL to NZAA via KLAX.
006 - Tested OKAY. 6 days of testing, no flights going over more than one day except near midnight.
007 - Tested OKAY. Aircraft going from network to local alerted on local.
008 - Cannot test – not located on the equator.
009 - Preference box can now be resized, but if you do, you lose the APPLY OKAY and CANCEL buttons.
010 - Tested OKAY. Added a "é" into Company Name, and it displayed okay next to photo.
011 - Tested OKAY. Sorting on DISTANCE in Network list now correct.
012 - Tested OKAY. Range filter settings saved okay.
013 - Tested OKAY. Not see any purple rain or aircraft out of position.
014 - Cannot test, as I've never seen this bug.
015 - Cannot test, as I've never seen this bug.
016 - Cannot test, as I've never seen this bug.
017 - Tested OKAY. Not seen this happen.
018 - Cannot test, as I have admin rights.
ACW367
Airnav you said 70% complete. How can a patch be only 70% complete when you have so many test objectives signed off in beta and waiting releases in patches. Why haven't you released said patches. Why do we need a full 4.04. On my phone and computer most all software companies release patches to the current version as small exe to fix minor bug problems as they are identified and solved.
If 12 of the 18 issues are fully solved through Beta testing WHY OH WHY have they not been released to us over the last six months/year/two years as:
Patch 4.03.1
Patch 4.03.2
Patch 4.03.3
Patch 4.03.4
Etc
Just about every other company does this. In my google store for phone Apps I currently have 15 patches available for download, with the majority just to correct bugs without a full new version release. For the excellent complement to Airnav - Flightaware, I have just downloaded the next patch to the well running V3.2 - Patch 3.2.7 is advertised as having stability and performance improvements against the previous patch 3.2.6
Waiting for Airnav patch 4.03.1 soonest which gives us the 12 beta tested and signed off improvements. Hopefully 4.03.2 would then quickly follow with the remainder which are not yet sorted/signed off.
Airnav
Why are you still waiting months for 4.04 when all us users want is small patches to 4.03 as individual bugs are signed off. WHERE IS 4.03.1 THAT DELIVERS THE 12 FIXES THAT WERE CLEARED BEFORE CHRISTMAS. WHY A FOUR MONTH DELAY ON THAT PATCH.
4.04 is not important, patches 4.03.1 etc that deliver the individual cleared bug fixes are exceptionally late. Surely the by-monthly thread from users tells you that you may require a change in your corporate strategy to match companies like those mentioned above by using small REGULAR patches, rather than large new private/public tested betas which appear to be an overwhelming proposition for a company of your scale.
-
Well said, ACW.
We really do need some action from AirNav. We've had only words for too long now. Even I am starting to get frustrated by the lack of a patch!
Rod
-
Rod - have you read Airnav's latest? I think 4.04 is it - take it or leave it but might have misconstrued the message.
http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=7661.0
-
AirNav are talking about releasing more information in a couple of weeks.
What we should be having is a patch NOW containing the fixes that are tested (well, we should have had that months ago).
We have been waiting an awfully long time.
Rod
-
Rod, I don't think you would want the version "containing the fixes that are tested". The last version I beta-tested had too many problems to make it a viable release candidate. As with any beta-testing, testing the fixes is the easy bit. Testing that nothing else has been broken is the hard bit.
http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=7522.msg89996#msg89996
In my opinion, items 1, 3, and 7 made this version unfit as a release candidate. Of course, these may have been fixed in later beta releases, only a current beta tester can confirm that.
-
Agreed, Tarbat, but we don't seem to have moved forwards at all for so long. You say that you are no longer involved in Beta testing - I've never been involved in 4.04 or any bug fixes.
Perhaps if a few more testers had been involved, progress would have been better.
Rod
-
Agreed Tarbat as I have stated there was no way the last Beta, the one I looked at, could have been released to the public and no number of testers would have made any difference.
Alan
-
Hello
I did beta testing on shiptrax and I was always being told I would get a new radarbox version to test. This has unsurprisingly never come. I would still like to test it but I do not know why it has taken so long to get nowhere.
It is very annoying having the same errors and annoyances as we did when we purchased the system in 2009.
Andrew
-
Speaking as the average joe soap long term box owner, I am pleased to read some honest critical contributions from those who many of us have long regarded as "company men".
For years now we have been in the great debt to the "tarbats orkneys runways etc" of this world who have laboured mightily to keep our boxes up to date. On the occasions when exasperation and irritation with the endless delays and prevarication bubbled to the surface, critcism of Airnav so often came out as critcism of the very people who were keeping the show afloat.
It was not meant to sound like that and it was never intended to be that way. However there is notdoubt that a them & us culture was arising. Those who were in the know and could do things were on the one side and those who were in the dark and pretty feeble with computers were on the other.
I sense for the first time that we are all in the same boat and hopefully all pulling in the same direction.
Things are not looking good hereabouts.
-
RodBearden said "Perhaps if a few more testers had been involved, progress would have been better."
Rod, the number of testers isn't the problem. I always provided fast turnaround on testing, with comprehensive feedback on faults found, things fixed, suggestions, etc. I must have put in hundreds of hours to testing of AirNav products, both hardware and software. Many hours spent testing a new version that didn't even deliver the fix it was meant to, and also broke something else that previously worked.
I've been a testing manager in the past (UAT, Regression, etc.), but nothing like testing AirNav products. My experience of Airnav beta testing is endless frustration as you wait for the developer to become available again to work on something you gave feedback on weeks ago.
The solution isn't to have more testers. The solution is more developers, or at least developers who have the time to work on the software rather than doing their other job.
-
We understand that some users and testers are frustrated because of the apparent lack of development.
Anyway work continues on our side on V404 and several other systems. More news to follow.
-
not some users , most users!!!
-
"More news to follow."
Always the same bla bla for years!!! I don't want news, I want a new version. Because the news is always that there are new problems or that there will be more news to follow.
Does your "more news" function look like this, AirNav?
function MoreNews(){
print("Work continues. You can expect exciting things to come. More news to follow...")
sleep(1month)
call MoreNews()
}
-
Hi Henning. We understand your frustration.
PS: Your MoreNews procedure looks great. :-)
-
Tarbat
What I meant by my comment is that before a public release, a wide range of conditions needs to be tested - north/south/on the equator, different operating systems, in view of ground operations etc.
If we are still at the stage where one or two testers are finding significant bugs, then we are further away from a public release that I had hoped.
Rod
-
If we are still at the stage where one or two testers are finding significant bugs, then we are further away from a public release that I had hoped.
That can't possibly be right Rod, last September/October time it was within a few days of being released...............?
-
Tarbat quote...
"The solution is more developers, or at least developers who have the time to work on the software rather than doing their other job."
Airnav reply quote.....
"Anyway work continues on our side on V404 and several other systems."
I rest my case M'lord.
-
Don't honestly think I've every experienced such a shambolic lack of progress with a product with so much potential.
I've had my box for over four years now, and other than the "novelty" of 3D, which if I'm honest does nothing for me, have seen virtually nothing that has made me sit up and take notice.
It's like a broken record on here, and I'm sure this post will probably provoke another "We understand your frustration, but you won't believe what's on the verge of being released" from AirNav..........................
I'm sat with my "box" on as I type this.......................Just noticed a RAF Tristar appear in MyFlights, a type no doubt sadly due to reach retirement very soon..................I honestly expect the Dreamliner to be retired before we get any developments released.
It's simply unacceptable.
-
+1
-
You have to wonder how many programmers are actually on staff?
-
I'd guess around somewhere fewer than 1
-
I agree totaly with Marpleman,I sometimes wonder why I keep the box,most if not all of my time in now on pp and dongle sorry to say.
ANRB do's have a fantastic easy to use user interface I've got to give praise there.
-
"ANRB do's have a fantastic easy to use user interface I've got to give praise there."
The reason I commited to the RB rather than the SBS, which were the available options 5 years ago!
-
The polished look to the program was one of the reasons I went with a Radarbox. Little did I know that a new version hadn't been released in years and by the look of it, won't be released anytime soon.
With the price of an RTL dongle and Planeplotter being so low, you would think AirNav would protect it's high price point for the Radarbox and network access by continuing development and keeping it's customers happy.
My Radarbox sits idle now and I won't be renewing my network access subscription when it's up. I've already gone through one long outage with no compensation for the lost time.
-
I agree with all the comments here......... sadly too i will definately will be stopping my live subscriptions when its due to renew
we have all been let down by Airnav and nobody there seems to be interested any more.they seem to be more interested in radarbox 24 etc
sad but thats exactly how see andi feel at this time
-
same for me. that's exactly the meaning of my "first" thread.... contributors get less traffic. i think i will ditch my rb and my contribution to rb24 in the end if nothing gets better
-
Ok, at the risk of this thread getting forgotten about, which let's face it, is exactly what AirNav would like to see, SteveJ and myself discussed, very briefly, how many developers were on the AirNav roster.................
Does anyone know, or care to divulge, exactly what the set up is with AirNav in respect of resource?
During my time as an "updater", it was never made apparent just exactly what the backroom team (?) consisted of resource wise.
If there is a team of people beavering away in the background, exactly what are they doing? Most likely they'll be busy posting free boxes out to anyone who lives in an area not covered by the hundreds(??) who , like me, live in an area adequately covered for their "network" purposes, and who, unwittingly had to pay for the privilege of owning the hardware,and obtaining access to the network.............
I find it insulting
-
Regarding all these points and again we fully understand all your concerns.
Regarding the network coverage: RB24.com and the RadarBox Windows client software Network are eactly the same. This means that the extensive network increase we had last month on RB24 also reflected on the network for the windows clients software. We've added 100 new H24 stations in the last 4 weeks.
Rgding the new version of the windows client software: it is still being developed at this time with, as reported earlier, most of the bug reports already corrected.
-
Oh well, no suprises there then!
None of my questions answered. At least consistency prevails
Hope all those with free boxes are enjoying the novelty.
All I'll add, is I hope they never have the audacity to ask questions like the paying customers continue to do.That really would be too bitter a pill to swallow.
-
not exactly true i have a screenshot and there are less Aircraft in rb network than radarbox24
-
Same old message from Airnav.
No matter what we as users say it does not seem to influence AN.
We seem to be just a slight annoyance which can be delayed by 'it is still being developed at this time'.
I gave up my subscription to Airnav and use Planeplotter. No problems.
I bought my AN box many years ago and one Xmas i said lets wait till Easter to give them a chance. I have
lost my memory as how many years ago that was.
I only check this website occasionally to see these updates.
For all you newbies start posting your dis-apoinment to try and put pressure on AN.
Sad old user.
Brian
ps This does not include the people who provide such wonderful updates to the database and those who do testing.
-
Same old message from Airnav.
No matter what we as users say it does not seem to influence AN.
We seem to be just a slight annoyance which can be delayed by 'it is still being developed at this time'.
I gave up my subscription to Airnav and use Planeplotter. No problems.
Sad old user.
Brian
ps This does not include the people who provide such wonderful updates to the database and those who do testing.
+1
-
well guys I have to say, I have always had support when I needed it, always had an answer on email when needed! I really have no reason to complain...been a good service!
I think it is time to act like adults and enjoy the hobby! Remember it is a hobby and we should all enjoy it!
-
Jaskel
I am happy you have had no problems and believe you have had good service.
I assume none of the bugs affect you.
I don't know how long you have had an AN box but i have had mine for many years and am fed up with the simple bugs that we have put up with which could have been sorted along time ago.
I don't believe that ' it being a hobby' is any excuse for the failure to give updates to cure bugs that have been there since the box was issued. Especially due to the price of the box and subscription to the network.
By the way i find your comment 'act like adults' as slightly insulting.
I am 56 and believe i have commented fairly based on the promises AN have made over the years about the status of a new software update.
Brian
-
yes i have had some issues over the last 2.5 years I have owned it and the issues got sorted fairy quickly.
If you don't like it then go find a product that doesn't have bugs...I assure you that you will die looking cause it doesn't exist.
-
Jaskel, the point Chewycanes and others are making is there have been no new updated software released since 2009.
No product or software is bug free and it's how a company deals with these bugs by releasing a patch that shows a company is proactive in fixing the bugs.
I have owned Radarbox since 2009 and I remember few months later after purchasing the box, Airnav released V3.13, I was impressed. I have experienced many bugs in the software for many years since then.
Now few years later, not a single patch or update has been released, only hot air (enough to fill a large balloon) and false promises. V4.03 doesn't count, as its just v3.13 with 3D added.
You just have to look at the forum posts and the mounting evidence going back many years to see what has been going on. To say "it is time to act like adults" is an insult to many users who have spent hundreds of £ on this box.
Have a look at Airnav's ADSB comparison table and pay attention to the last point: "Free and regular official software upgrades = yes" and 6th from top "Continuous Software Updates = yes" If that isn't false advertising, I don't know what is.
http://www.airnavsystems.com/RadarBox/whybuyradarbox.html
-
Jaskel
This forum is also for free speech which can include critisism.
If i or anyone says things AN don't like they have the ability to reply or ban us.
Your comment of 'I assure you will die looking' certainly does not help the 'adult' argument when you do not know the status of peoples health that your are argueing with.
Brian
-
I will also not be renewing my network coverage when it comes around.
There are so many things that could have been done with minimal programming but we get nothing. The question is asked as to how many developers there are. If I look at hwat could have been done vs what we have seen (nothing) I can only equate ANRB to a one man mom and pop shop.
Pity - they HAD a product that was the best but they have been overtaken.
What should be more embarrassing to ANRB is that the best services provided to users comes from volunteers - database updates, logos, silhouettes, etc
-
Quote jaskel "If you don't like it then go find a product that doesn't have bugs...I assure you that you will die looking cause it doesn't exist."
What sort of nonsence is that? It's OK to have faults because all products have faults? I've never heard such rubbish!!
As for "die looking cause it doesn't exist" - words fail me.
-
Ok, my 2 cents worth here. Since I started the thread. I am on both sides of the fence here. Quite simply, the product does what I want it to do....I can track the planes that are around me, go outside, identify them, grab the binoculars and enjoy the hobby. I can also see the frustration from lack of updates.....
I guess none of the bugs really affect me too much.
Would be nice to know however that airnav systems is further developing the client software and will hopefully come out with a new full version one day..
Jason
-
I have not got on the bandwagon of if only and when!
I agree with CYYZGUY in that I have paid my money and the box assist me in what is my hobby!
Yes it would be nice to have updates and no Air Nav do not help themselves by not setting out a clear timetable for upgrades, but unless you are prepared to purchase another brand we have to accept what we have got and PLEASE lets enjoy our pastime.
To the updaters What A Great Job they do lets remember that!
-
I am with Jaskel the last two posters here as, as far as I am concerned Radarbox does what it states in the tin. Instead of wondering what aircraft are around me I know by looking at the screen.
Yes I agree that the bugs could and should have been sorted out a long time ago but as far as I am concerned they no way detract from the display and from telling me what I want to know about the airspace around me and what is going on in the wider world.
I am aware that 4.04 is being worked on as I type and I trust that the testers will receive the beta within the next week or so and thereafter the results will determine what happens next, whether it is made available for wider release or whether like the last one it is sent back for further work. I expect it to be the former but time will tell.
I just hope that users are not underwhelmed by what they receive as in my opinion it will not make much of a difference other than the knowledge that the bugs are corrected.
Alan
-
Alan, will this update correct the problem of some aircraft logos not displaying if they are not putting out a true/proper ads/b signal. I think you mentioned this before...for example, none of the Westjet logos ever appear in radarbox, but they do in radarbox24.
regards,
-
No it wont as there requires to be an extra column to add the airline ICAO code and this isnt included but will be in the next version.
Its not anything to do with the ADS-B signal its just that WJA dont include their ICAO code in the majority of their flight ID's
Alan
-
How many other completely non-committal business do any of you know who continually make false promises, mis-representations, and more annoyingly churn out bog standard responses offering no information at all ?
I'd really love to see where the company I work for would end up, if it treated its customers with the same lack of respect AirNav treat theirs.
Maybe they'll lock the thread like they normally do ?
I gave up as a volunteer database updater because of the lack of support received from AirNav in the infancy of the database update programme .
To my mind the same amateur approach is taken to development work, and there is very little we customers can do about this non-existent (which irrespective of what anyone says - it is) development of their MAIN product.
This isn't some "off shoot" product we're talking about is it?
I'll ask again..................how many people are working on all this in the background as either full time or part time developers?
Jaskel - I think your comments are totally misguided, but hey , that's my opinion.
I have a tin of beans at home. On the tin it says "Beans". Can't deny that's what they are, but it also says on the tin, "Best before August 2009"
Enough said???????????
-
my opinion and experiences have been typed here, all positive in my opinion!
I have finished posing in this thread as it is going no where!
Now back to my hobby and may other hobbits enjoy m feeding the network!
-
I'm on the 'don't need an upgrade' boat.
I bought my radarbox for it's intended purpose and it does exactly what it it's supposed to do, pick up and display aircraft within my range.
I don't think I use half of the features in the software but then again I don't think I've ever fully understood how the thing works.
That don't matter to me. I just want to see what's up there as and when.
And the box does it :)
-
When I bought my RadarBox I had to make a decision between the SBS and the RadarBox. And because I really liked the 3D-View feature of the RadarBox I decided to go for it. The problem with this feature is that it does not display the planes at the correct altitude. I was hoping to get this fixed rather quickly because it's only a multiplication which is missing in the software. But since I reported it years ago it never got fixed.
And I am not even sure if it will be fixed in version 4.04. Maybe Alan can tell me whether it will or not.
So I am really frustrated because I paid a lot of money for a feature that I was never able to use the way I wanted it to use.
Meanwhile I bought an SBS-3 and have switched off my RadarBox completely.
I've given up hope and don't think we will ever see a new version of the RadarBox software. AirNav's statements are still the same they were many years ago. Why should I trust them more now? They don't give me any reason!
-
Surely Alan has got enough to do,giving up his spare time updating AirNavs database?
this is the entire problem
Alan,and the other guys,Orkney,ACW,Andrew,not forgetting Rod and Tarbat are all enthusiasts who do what they do for the love of it.
It should not be up to them to be the voice of AirNav.........
If they didn't offer what they know regarding where certain bug fixes and development issues were up to,we'd be completely in the dark.