AirNav Systems Forum
AirNav RadarBox and RadarBox24.com => AirNav RadarBox and RadarBox24.com Discussion => Topic started by: AirNav Development on October 26, 2011, 11:42:47 PM
-
Fortunately ShipTrax is almost finished and as promised many times by our team we will soon be ready to start improving the RadarBox client application again.
-
Hurrah!!!
Although the words "almost" and "soon" still leave it rather open-ended??
-
Rich,
If it helps from the Shiptrax forum threads, please note the following posted today
1- Software finished in 4 days;
2- Boxes, sleeves, logistics finished;
3- Hardware still doing final tests;
Alan
-
You know me Alan...................
Unfortunately , I'm now starting to use the current stature of my football team as a benchmark for everything else ;-)
-
Com'mon United
Alan
-
Another month has drifted past. Any news Airnav?
-
Yes we can share some good news. ShipTrax hardware had a last minute problem and we had to wait for a small change to be implemented and then test it. All is back on track now. Once it is out our team will focus solely on RadarBox.
-
I seem to remember this quote from Dev on January 28 this year;
"Regarding further developments: we understand some users get impatient but one more time we confirm that we are involved in 5 different projects for 2011. We can't disclose any details for now unfortunately and we understand your frustration because of this. The RadarBox database problems will be sorted out as soon as ShipTrax software development finishes (ShipTrax will be released in mid April and the software will be ready a long time before that)."
I for one would love to have an insight into what these are, as did many members back in January this year.
Whilst we all appreciate these things are fraught with problems,Shiptrax in particular,seems to be setting new levels of spin.
It was certainly a good move to quote "April" without an attached year! 2012 maybe?
We all look forward to seeing the other four projects next year then eh?
Honestly..................................
-
With all their resources how long does it take Microsoft to put out their latest and greatest. Cut them some slack, its not as if your existing software doesnt do what it says on the tin.
Alan
-
They don't do themselves any favours though do they?
This post was started by Dev a month ago.If they don't want anyone taking them to task, then why post with continued meaningless timescales and promises to make it look like something (?) is on the horizon?
Shooting themselves in the foot comes to mind?
There's only so much slack to be cut!
-
Fortunately ShipTrax is almost finished and as promised many times by our team we will soon be ready to start improving the RadarBox client application again.
Not much there about promised timescales, I see it more of an update and even since then we were advised of a now resolved hardware problem which further delayed Shiptrax.
Its like weans getting all excited about Christmas. Theres always some that get too excited and search about the house looking for their presents and cant resist taking a peek.
Yes we were advised there would be a new version and yes Dev started the thread a month ago but things change, problems occur and they have to be fixed which mean delays to other things you wanted to do, it happens every day in life. I agree that sometime saying less is better than saying more butusers were asking whats next.
Even when they really start and devote all their resources, its still going to take a while to write and re-write 600-700 Mb of new code a few times before they can even start testing it so its going to take some time yet before there will be anything even remotely workable on the table. I for one would rather they took their time and got a right good upgraded version of Radarbox ready for the market.
Alan
-
Its like weans getting all excited about Christmas. Theres always some that get too excited and search about the house looking for their presents and cant resist taking a peek.
Dear Santa Please can I have ShipTrax for Christmas?
Santa replies............................ "Hopefully December 2020"
;-)
-
Ho Ho Ho bah humbug
You are just grumpy coz your team is nearly out of the premier European competition unlike the real Manchester team!!!
Alan
-
"All is back on track now. Once it is out our team will focus solely on RadarBox."
Here is yet another completely meaningless statement which gives absolutely no indication whatsoever as to when any improved Radarbox client application will be available. Just how long is it that we've been waiting for that long list of bug fixes to be addressed? Three years? Four years?
"I for one would rather they took their time and got a right good upgraded version of Radarbox ready for the market" says Runway 31. Well, no problem there Runway, you'll get your wish in spades. Unfortunately I think many of us will be long gone by then and I'll have probably kicked the bucket myself.
Time to move on.
-
Ho Ho Ho Merry Christmas.
-
Well Bratters at my time in life I reserve worrying for things which really matter
Alan
-
Hi
Over the year that we have been waiting for a new issue i have lost track of what we may expect to be resolved.
Can AN at least give us a list of the bugs that they are going resolve in the next issue so that we are happy none are missed.
I am not asking for new innovations or requests for certain niceties but just known bugs.
Thanks
Brian
-
Any news if MLAT will be implemented in this update??
Cheers!
-
The sad thing is...
By the time they get around to doing the "bug" fixes, the hardware is now well dated and all other virtual boxes are providing more (and mostly for less £). So even with fixes done, possibly still be lacking.
As for Mlat, think it was said sometime back, the current hardware will not support mlat and that would be a new feature not a bug fix.
-
01 Dec - Surely its time for the latest news regarding development timescales for ANRB. Come on Air Nav please tell us the latest information and how much further Shiptrax has slipped again just when we all thought it was so close........ I wasn't taken in over a month ago either BTW.....
-
Hello? Anyone in?
-
Work is progressing for ANRB as well at the moment, AirNav Dev will provide details on ShipTrax soon.
We won't give any timescales for ANRB yet as we do not want to work to pressure from deadlines rather work to a product which we think matches our customers needs and demands.
-
We won't give any timescales for ANRB yet as we do not want to work to pressure from deadlines rather work to a product which we think matches our customers needs and demands.
So let's put this to the user community and once and for all identify what these needs and demands are, to avoid you guys wasting valuable time on issues that we're non plussed about?
Regards
Rich
-
So let's put this to the user community and once and for all identify what these needs and demands are, to avoid you guys wasting valuable time on issues that we're non plussed about?
Good idea. Here's the current list of what I have as a bugs list. Anything to add?
-
Good start Tarbat!
Could I suggest, that priority is given to helping the Updaters, after all they've put so much effort into improving the users enjoyment?
I'm sure there's dialogue from them with the "powers that be", but let's sort their plight out first to give them a better platform,or whatever else they may need.
Personally,for what it's worth, I'd rather see work directed to fixing known problems before expanding on the capabilities with things such as MLAT etc
Rich
-
Hi
Thanks Tarbat for the list.
This is basically what i was asking AN for so that every one can make sure all bugs are addressed.
I hope everyone takes time to check the list an post if they think any are missing.
Thanks
Brian
-
This is basically what i was asking AN for so that every one can make sure all bugs are addressed.
I hope everyone takes time to check the list an post if they think any are missing.
And you can be assured that my final list is what Airnav will be using. Just keen to ensure that all the significant bugs are included in the list, so feedback welcome.
-
Hello
The serious issue of ADS-B Aircraft taking 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) is not included in the list.
Andrew
-
I agree with all above, the first priority should be for airnav to create a 4.03 patch to cure the bugs. In my opinion this patch is already 18 months overdue. This will tide us over whilst prolonged development and alpha/beta testing of whatever version comes next goes on.
Will look at my detailed list of bugs at home over the weekend, you have the black hole bug in twice. Here are some more that I can think of while at my workdesk.
- 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.
http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=5633.msg64557#msg64557
- 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
http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=6527.0
- The same flightnumber/different day bug:
If you pick an aircraft up on seperate 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 full 24/48/72hour period and the flight does not go into reporter.
- The ICAO code not coming from server with other updater information bug:
If aircraft are downloaded from server, the updater team entered ICAO code is corrupted by the server.
- Local alerts not working if aircraft previously on network Bug:
Good start Tarbat!
Could I suggest, that priority is given to helping the Updaters, after all they've put so much effort into improving the users enjoyment?
I'm sure there's dialogue from them with the "powers that be", but let's sort their plight out first to give them a better platform,or whatever else they may need.
Rich
Rich
Us updaters have the tools we need, what is falling down is the information we are creating is corrupted in the way it is presented to users either as it passes through the server, or is interpreted from the updater created information held in Navdata.
The various bugs listed above and on tarbats sheet highlight that ICAO codes, diacritical marks and photo links which we have control of are corrupted at various stages and are not presented to users in the manner which we have created it.
Regards
ACW367
-
Thanks Andrew and ACW367. All added to the list.
-
Tarbat - with your number 4 on the list, you have:
The Hex Code Confusion Bug - Data (callsigns, altitudes, squawks, etc) being assigned to the wrong aircraft.
Airnav have strongly stated this cannot be fixed. Therefore I think this should be instead called:
The Hex Code Confusion Design Limitation.
All we can hope for in the future is that in the supporting Airnav literature and tutorials fully explain the nature of this limitation, so that users can understand that not every aircraft they see in myflights is actually airborne in reality.
-
Tarbat - with your number 4 on the list, you have:
The Hex Code Confusion Bug - Data (callsigns, altitudes, squawks, etc) being assigned to the wrong aircraft.
Airnav have strongly stated this cannot be fixed. Therefore I think this should be instead called:
The Hex Code Confusion Design Limitation.
Whereas I (and others) believe it can be fixed. A user configurable setting in Preferences that sets the number of identical messages that must be received with the same Hex Code and Data (callsign, altitude, squawk) combination before the data is presumed to be correct. That would stop the occasional corrupted message being presumed correct. On the downside, it would reduce the display of this data on the edge of your reception range, hence the need for it to be user configurable.
It's what Kinetic did (without the user configurability bit) on the SBS-1.
And attached is the list in PDF for those without Excel (sorry!).
-
Just a question on your list regarding the "Users Affected". How can you be sure that only "Very Few" users are affected by a bug as not everyone will appreciate there is a bug or in fact reports it, but just tollerates it?
On the subject of Hex Code Confusion, with 40 aircraft in the list, I have seen 2 aircraft eg EZY & BAW, showing the same F/N but a diffferent route, which suggests a software problem.
Bearcat
-
Just a question on your list regarding the "Users Affected". How can you be sure that only "Very Few" users are affected by a bug as not everyone will appreciate there is a bug or in fact reports it, but just tollerates it?
We're trying to identify which bugs have the most impact on end-users. For example, the equatorial black hole bug is a bug that exists in ALL users' systems, but most users would never notice the bug. Whereas the mangled ICAO type bug is probably noticed by everyone. It's a designation I've used in my previous job as a UAT co-ordinator.
On the subject of Hex Code Confusion, with 40 aircraft in the list, I have seen 2 aircraft eg EZY & BAW, showing the same F/N but a diffferent route, which suggests a software problem.
Can you post a screenshot with an example of this. Or a link to a previous discussion about it. Thanks.
-
I guess I'm being a bit cynical in thinking that the grading will reflect on the resolve to sort these bugs.
On the subject of the route issue I'm not sure if I have a screenshot, I'll have a look later and post it if I have one, as it's something I've just tolerated.
-
Tried to upload a jpeg screenshot (76Kb) but getting a security error when uploading
"Your attachment has failed security checks and cannot be uploaded. Please consult the forum administrator."
-
Tried to upload a jpeg screenshot (76Kb) but getting a security error when uploading
"Your attachment has failed security checks and cannot be uploaded. Please consult the forum administrator."
Can you upload the screenshot to your flickr account?
-
Didn't think about that. It's there now
Bearcat
-
Rich
Us updaters have the tools we need, what is falling down is the information we are creating is corrupted in the way it is presented to users either as it passes through the server, or is interpreted from the updater created information held in Navdata.
Regards
ACW367
That's what I was tryimg to say! Just didn't come across right - you know me!!
Not the correct thread, but I can't believe how much improvement has been generated by the updaters over the past 12 months, and I also applaud AirNav for the ongoing releases of the database files(which I notice, there's just been another).
The icing on the cake would be to resolve those issues that lead to the corruption ACW refers to.
Regards
Rich
-
Updated list in Impact/Severity order.
-
Hi Tarbat
Excellent table which clarifies the bugs and give us something concrete to check against in the next software issue.
I see though from your latest list you have included MLAT and Beamfinder which are new features and wondererd if you were hoping to include in this list other items that were discussed earlier in the year identified in thread
http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=2885.msg61369#msg61369
Perhaps you could just add 021 Other features and just add the link above to cover them so they don't get forgotten.
Thanks
Brian
Thanks
Brian
-
Perhaps you could just add 021 Other features and just add the link above to cover them so they don't get forgotten.
Done.
-
What about the bugs which are already noted on this Airnav-Site: http://www.airnavsystems.com/bugs/ (http://www.airnavsystems.com/bugs/)
I think that not all of these bugs appear on Tarbat's list.
There is at least one bug which is in their list but not on Tarbat's list. It's the bug which I posted some time ago. It's that the altitude of the aircraft in the 3D-view is not correct:
http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=5238.0 (http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=5238.0)
This bug keeps me from using the 3D-feature!
BTW that bug is really easy to fix. Only one conversion from feet to meter has to added to the software.
-
There is at least one bug which is in their list but not on Tarbat's list. It's the bug which I posted some time ago. It's that the altitude of the aircraft in the 3D-view is not correct
Airnav has already explained that it is working as designed, and was done to create a more realistic view.
Its not considered a bug, and it was discussed during the 3D beta testing. Likely if there is a fix it would be an option that you could set if you wanted the "correct" altitude.
You might find you would revert to the default that Airnav have set anyway, as you would not like the "correct" view.
-
Its not considered a bug
That's not true and Airnav has added this bug to their buglist as you can see under the link which I have posted. I hope that they're going to implement the proposed solution with a correct altitude and the option to adjust the shown altitudes by a user-defined factor like it is possible in Google Earth for the terrain.
You might find you would revert to the default that Airnav have set anyway, as you would not like the "correct" view.
It's okay if I as the user can decide what I like best. I don't want someone else to tell me what I like! And especially not if that what is said to be the best is a technically incorrect solution!
-
It's that the altitude of the aircraft in the 3D-view is not correct:
I missed that one. Now added to the list as #22.
-
#1 on the bug-list for the bug-list. ;-):
Unfortunately, there is no #22 in the pdf Document...
Ingo
-
Unfortunately, there is no #22 in the pdf Document...
Yes there is. Page 2, 4th from the bottom.
-
Thanx, Tarbat.
I hope that "LOW" and "VERY FEW" doesn't mean that it won't ever be fixed... As I mentioned before it's just a very small fix which should be implemented within one minute.
-
Just to chime in on the area of the Application Interface - if all that empty space around the Menus and Toolbars could be recovered (allow user to remove toolbar or adjust it) and the status bar at the bottom ,, thanks.
-
From an aesthetic (and ATC) point of view I would like the +/- for climbing/descending replaced with up/down arrows. Surely this can't be a big thing to do !
-
How about putting the "green splash loading screen" in the background when the software is being loaded. It's very annoying when radarbox software takes 3-4 minutes to load and having that splash screen in front and blocking all windows.
This only happens with the radarbox software and never happens with other software I use with Win 7 . It's like going back to Windows 3.1 days when this was the norm, never thought it would still be happening in Windows 7.
-
I do not normally send in requests for changes to the software but I have a few things. If they have been addressed or already requested, please accept my apologies.
1. Can the recording function have an option to close the recording file every 24hrs and then start a new one?
2. Can the Island of Montreal (CYUL) be added to the map? I really do not live underwater.
3. Has there been any progress ion allowing the color config to remain after the app is restarted?
4. Diagnostic tools to measure over all performance of the signal strength and hardware? So if your antenna or coax become problematic you can see what's going on.
Again, if these have been asked I am sorry.
Regards
Paul
-
From an aesthetic (and ATC) point of view I would like the +/- for climbing/descending replaced with up/down arrows. Surely this can't be a big thing to do !
I agree, that would be really nice to have.
-
Hi Paul
Re point no 3 - your colours will be remembered if, once you've changed them how you want, you export them as Default and also as Real Radar. This is certainly something that should be improved, but at least it's a good work-round.
Rod
-
Thanks Rod!
-
Another change I would like is the ability to configure the contents of the aircraft label. For example whether you have the hdg or spd or altitude showing, or any combination of the three, whether you can show just the callsign or just the registration or the type , just the destination instead of departure and destination and also how many lines you want to see on the label with the option of one, two or three.