AirNav Systems Forum
AirNav RadarBox and RadarBox24.com => AirNav RadarBox and RadarBox24.com Discussion => Topic started by: Bell 407 on November 06, 2013, 05:29:12 AM
-
A simple question: Could AirNav Development please explain their reason(s) for implementing database encryption in V5?
Thank you,
-
With nearly 100 views from the users of this forum but over 24 hours later I still kindly request an answer to the posed question from AirNav Development.
Thank you,
-
I didn't answer before because you specifically wanted an answer from Airnav Development, but I'm willing to have a go anyway. My guess is that Airnav are trying to protect the intellectual property of the navdata database, by ensuring that the database can only be used by users of their software (ANRB), and not by users of other competing products.
-
Thank you Tarbat, appreciate your candid response.
But yes, I still do think I (we) would like to hear specifically from AirNav Development as to their exact reasons for database encryption. If that is forthcoming then it can be debated properly.
Thank you,
-
Bell 407,
Firstly we prefer if there is any direct questions to us that you use the emails or contact methods provided as we don't always read every forum post and its easily tracked that way.
The reasons behind the encryption were simple, we are using routines to gather route information from the network as well as the vast work of the database updaters regarding aircraft details and we have found some of this data was being passed around outside of RadarBox uses. We believe this data has been gathered from RadarBox users and data and the benefit of this should not be used by others not using RadarBox and therefore we wanted to encrypt this data to not allow it to be passed around.
We may have been short sighted in realising that valid tools and SQL queries are run on the database to users to enhance there database or for reports as mentioned in the beta thread. However at this time there isn't any easy way indentified to rectify the issues mentioned above and allow valid tools to be used.
-
Thank you AirNav Development for responding. It is much appreciated. I posted this question as a direct question to you but posted it on the forum as I believe there are many users who are certainly interested in this debate.
Your reasons you post are valid I suppose from your perspective. But let me pose a question to you and other users that goes to the core of “Who Actually Owns the Data” you are talking about?
Non-sharing of Data
I have your product plugged in at home and from the very first day I started using your product it collected data from my box, my antenna (so to speak) and saved it on my PC. I paid you for this privilege and you sent me the hardware and software. So my interpretation is that this is where the contract ended. Surely, and this is the crux of the matter, I believe therefore I am the owner of that data my RadarBox is collecting. I have spent many years developing a database of information that is unique to me and my area of reception. I would therefore like to, and should be entitled to, interrogate that data as and how I please. Therefore using 3rd party database software to do this is of no interest to AirNav. Correct?
Sharing of Data
The above may be interpreted differently however, when it comes to the whole sharing of data with the AirNav network. I am still the owner of the data I share with the network. I would interpret this as being correct? Yes, AirNav have the computer hardware and the expense of running a database to collect this data but you are collecting it from us the public or user of your hardware. Surely you have no proprietary right to locking us out of that data?
Personally, I am very passionate about this issue. Yes, I am one of the developers of the NavData Editing Tool Software, but I can assure you I am not the clever one in this development. I made a request to my colleague who is a database specialist to assist me with the issue I was having. I was lost in all the threads posted by some very clever users as to how to import and extract database information using SQL. I requested my colleague to allow me to work in the environment of MS Excel. At least I know that programme. And I know many many people know how to use MS Excel. Suddenly a new world of interest was opened up to me when I could manage my own database in MS Excel and your product became even more interesting to me.
To make it quite clear, the NavData Editing Tool has been made freely available to users. We have not made a cent off it but we are truly humbled by the reach that this small programme has had and how it has impacted on other users of your product. The positive response received was incredible.
To be honest the clunkyness of you asking us as users to have to update our own database through the single cell entry process is sheer madness. To give you an example. When FAJS changed to FAOR last year it took me all of 10 minutes to make this change in the database using the NavData Editing Tool. Please remember that your way would have required me to make copy and paste changes to more than 748 cells. Totally impractical to say the least.
So, in closing, I would like to extend this request, on behalf of most Average Joe users of your product, to please reconsider your need to encrypt your database files in V5. As I have said in a previous thread, I believe this is counter-intuitive to the information age that we all live in. Data moves around the world in many shapes and forms, and right now I am a part owner in that data which you are now locking me out of.
I would also like to request other users to post their comments especially about the beginning part of this post to test whether my understanding of who owns this data is correct?
Thank you,
-
Let just make one item very clear as this being lost in a few posts we have read so far from customers and yourself, any data in databases are still accessible to RadarBox users, we are not locking out anyone, it is however only accessible through RadarBox.
We have said that yes we were short sighted when it came to those users who are adding/changing there database via other tools and trying to think of way for this to be possible.
However we are right to be concerned for example if we provide route data (either through route data being added after gathering from airlines or through our network routines to indentify routes) being passed into the public domain.
-
Tried to post using the Quote button but that is not working. So here goes:
Let just make one item very clear as this being lost in a few posts we have read so far from customers and yourself, any data in databases are still accessible to RadarBox users, we are not locking out anyone, it is however only accessible through RadarBox.
Yes, but you are locking users into the clunkyness of your programme design. There is no freedom to do detailed Search and Replace functionality like MS Excel does for example. Speed is important. Multiple copy and paste into cells like you want users to do is painfully slow.
However we are right to be concerned for example if we provide route data (either through route data being added after gathering from airlines or through our network routines to identify routes) being passed into the public domain.
Yes fair enough I agree to that so happy to concede that point. But remember that is only one component of the entire NavData.db3 database but encryption blocks the entire database for users.
-
We agree that updates using other tools are much easier but the example that we are concerned about mentioned above also applies to Aircraft Data as well as Routes Data. This is our concern and why we have taken this step. This is why MyLog is not encrypted.
If there is an alternative that protects the data from being copied and passed around easily but allows to be updated through other tools then we will be happy to listen and take it on.
-
Bell 407,
You have asked a question and I will ask a question in return. What is the purpose of the Navdata?. The answer, to allow the details of the aircraft being picked up by the user to be identified and to display that information on screen. This it does along with displaying other information such as routes, airport locations etc. It is there for no other reason and without it the box would be useless.
I haven't discussed this with Airnav nor the other updaters but I will offer this and it is my own personal viewpoint.
When I got my box back in 2009 the database was a joke with lots of aircraft missing information and for a lot of them that were provided with the info it was incorrect or incomplete. I started to update my Navdata myself but as you state while database explorer is sufficient for dealing with one or two records at a time for any more than that it is inadequate.
I then took the opportunity to become a database updater to allow me to update the database to ensure that I was able to be provided with the correct information and in doing so this also ensured that the other users of the box had the same information available to them. In doing so over the last 3 years the team as a whole and myself personally have invested a vast amount of time and energy investigating the various information sources, scouring the web, online national registers etc to put together a database that is fit for purpose even if a very small minority of detractors feel otherwise. Radarbox data contributes very little to the compilation of the database other than providing hex codes which are useless on their own. A small number of users also contribute their sightings of unknown aircraft for which I am very appreciative.
To get back to your question, I will give you my reason why I am happy that encryption is in place. The Navdata in its previous unencrypted form was available for anyone to download and use it as they pleased. While it was being used for Radarbox users that's fine and I am happy for it to be used for that purpose. However it was also available for download by anyone else who wanted it and was being used for various purposes out with personal use and Radarbox users. As I stated earlier the team as a whole and myself personally have invested heavily in our time and effort in building the database to its present form so I object very strongly to our efforts being poached by others for their financial gain or for users of other receivers who contribute nothing in return to us Radarbox users.
Subscribers to certain databases will find that without the information from the Airnav Navdata their updates will be rather lighter in future as will users of other receiver types who have been the recipients of the results of the teams labour.
Unfortunately all this has consequence for users of your utility who find that they can no longer manipulate their database easily but I would expect that if you and your friend found that the utility had been poached and someone was looking to make financial gain from it that you would do what you could to prevent that. Database explorer as you say is clunky and I believe consideration should be given to making it more user friendly. As you and others have been using the results of my labours for a couple of years your databases should be in good order and the capabilities of database explorer should normally be sufficient for general housekeeping. You stated that FAJS changing to FAOR took 10 minutes using the utility for your own personal use, it took me a lot less time than that to change it on the updater for all users once Chris advised me and it was available on the Navdata in time for the changeover date.
Alan
-
Afternoon Alan and AirNav Support,
Thank you for your detailed reply. At last we are getting somewhere and debating this issue. There are however, very differing opinions on this.
Radarbox data contributes very little to the compilation of the database other than providing hex codes which are useless on their own. A small number of users also contribute their sightings of unknown aircraft for which I am very appreciative.
This does explain quite a lot then because the overture from AirNav has always been that they are significantly dependent on feeders to update their database? That was why I asked the question about who owns the data? If you are saying Radarbox contributions are minimal then it changes the outlook on encryption.
As I stated earlier the team as a whole and myself personally have invested heavily in our time and effort in building the database to its present form so I object very strongly to our efforts being poached by others for their financial gain or for users of other receivers who contribute nothing in return to us Radarbox users.
I suppose this is and will be the crux of the issue for AirNav. The investment that you have made is congratulated as an immense effort has gone into the work that you and the team have done. But surely by the same token, I too as a single user have invested a lot of personal time and effort in developing my own database which is now only accessible through Radarbox.
… but I would expect that if you and your friend found that the utility had been poached and someone was looking to make financial gain from it that you would do what you could to prevent that.
As you and others have been using the results of my labours for a couple of years your databases should be in good order …
True, but then maybe I am too altruistic in my outlook. The programme we created was for the good of other users. Call me naïve but that is how I see it. AirNav on the other hand is a company and operate as such and so their outlook has to be different to mine.
You stated that FAJS changing to FAOR took 10 minutes using the utility for your own personal use, it took me a lot less time than that to change it on the updater for all users once Chris advised me and it was available on the Navdata in time for the changeover date.
Yes, but I would summise that your knowledge of databases and SQL is significantly greater than mine and therefore we had to develop a tool that would allow me to perform the tasks I was looking for for myself. Also you have direct access to the AirNav database and so can bulk edit and update at your own free will. Users do not have that luxury with V5.
Database explorer as you say is clunky and I believe consideration should be given to making it more user friendly.
I think that that would be a significant improvement in V5 and so I would request that AirNav Development provide some thoughts on this issue to the users as to how this could be developed.
Thank you,
-
Bell 407,
The feeders feed data in as much as they provide the information to show where it should be shown on the screen. The Navdata translates that hex code and provides the information that we see.
The utility was maybe created for others but I dont think you would say the same if it was lining someones pocket.
I dont have any SQL knowledge but have direct access to the database and any entries I make are available for all users including your good self. Just for info, I cannot get an unencrypted database for my own use but then as my main concern is to see the info on my screen I don't keep it to myself but enter it in the database where it is available for all Radarbox users.
As you state Airnav are a company, a small one at that and the crux of the matter is that Airnav have got to look after their interests first and foremost. I hope that a solution can be found with I believe the best answer being a more friendly interface for database explorer which allows easier manipulation of the data but still gives the security required by Airnav.
Alan
-
Thanks for the opportunity to debate the issue. Had hoped for more comments from other users. But maybe they will still be forthcoming.
All the best with V5.
Thank you,
-
Hi Bell 407,
Thank you and Support, Tarbat and Alan for this interesting discussion. i tryed earlier this week to bring this subject in discussion but that was no succes. I presume my English is not so good that I can debate like you do.
However, as far I can follow this discussion I total agree with Bell 407 until sofar and find it verry, verry pity that NavData is encrypted within the launce of the new Beta-version.
-
Нi All,
Firstly, I want to express my absolute support to Bell 407 in his aspiration to keep Navdata unencrypted.
But if AirNav stays on position to encrypt the database, then my position is as follows. We have been waiting for this upgrade for several years (by the way, why is it called 5.х? it’s really just 4.4). I believe that most RadarBox long time users would agree with me that we are ready to wait a bit longer to give AirNav time to develop and implement in software a more appropriate interface to work with the database. As well as a tool for smooth migration of current users’ photobases to the new version (it’s a separate story).
I also insist that AirNav must continue to support their 3.13/4.03 users in their system in an "old way" even if the new v5 will be officially released. Bulk database upgrades will be not be available for these users for sure, but I believe that most of creators of their own databases will not be interested in this kind of upgrade anyway.
Thank you,
-
Can I throw this into the mix gents?
I use Aerodata as my main spotting software repository.
With their database, it is not possible to download the data in its entirity or in part, for other people/organisations to benefit from, but it is possible to add information to records and add unused empty fields for individual users unique benefit.
To my best understanding, this isn't a million miles away from the options with v5?
It's not unusual therefore for database providers to guard their work?
-
Yes, I totaly agree but it does not help, I am afraid.
They will not come back on their desission.
Maybe after 10 years from now when they reconsider the situation about RadarBox 5..........................
and rolout a "new" version 6.. based on 4.03 like 5 now
-
It really is good to see the debate continuing.
-
To my best understanding, this isn't a million miles away from the options with v5?
It's not unusual therefore for database providers to guard their work?
Yes, it’s nothing wrong if database providers to guard their work. But I presume that Aerodata established these rules from the very beginning, but not after several years of collecting the users base as AirNav. In this case Aerodata’s approach is “million miles away” from AirNav’s
P.S. Tried to post using the Quote button but that is not working. Support, рlease check
-
Netcop,
The 'quote' button hasn't worked for months !
Not sure where it is on the 'too be fixed list'.
-
If the failure of the "quote" function is not already on the beta buglist, please add now!!!!
It's an absolute pain on a forum not to be able to quote!!
-
The quote issue is not written by our code. The forum code is written by a company called Simple Machines SMF and its a bug in the version of the forum we are using. We will be upgrading the forum soon which will resolve this issue.
-
Not good to use us to build a database then encrypt it.
-
A reaction from out my hart. Top Chris!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Chris,
To state why use us to build a database and then encrypt it couldnt be further from the truth. While I am very appreciative of users like yourself who kindly take the time to send details of unknowns, as I stated above these are minimal and the vast majority have been provided by updaters like myself sitting for hours on end scouring the internet, national registers etc to add to the database. From your own country of South Africa I would imagine over 99.5% of the database entries came from my graft in searching for this info.
Alan
-
Terry,
Some of it is as some tie ups came from the database that I pay for same as yourself and the database you use and subscribe to. I wouldnt imagine the contects of it are available for anyone just to grab and use out with the application, as the producers of the database are protective of its contents, whats the difference with Airnav doing the same?
Alan
-
Whats double standards about that. The double standards is where it is suggested it is OK for somethings and then where it doesnt suit its not.
Alan
-
What do you think about AirNav creating a standalone application to edit navdata.db3 using SQL?
The application would be available only for RB users (i.e. using the same data to log in into it as in ANRB.exe).
-
It sounds good Liviu only thing is these things leak out and we would soon be back the way we were.
I would like to see something which could allow the data to be unencrypted within the application allowing it to be worked on and then saved back encrypted. I dont know whether that would be possible though.
Alan
-
I would like to see something which could allow the data to be unencrypted within the application allowing it to be worked on and then saved back encrypted.
That is the way ANRB.exe works now (I suppose).
Allowing to run the application using a login with user/password like ANRB does, would ensure the database could not be used for other purposes.
-
The debate is progressing really well and some valid comments all round. Please let's keep it going.
I suppose it would be interesting to see what users would prefer if presented with only one of two options: (1) A software update or (2) Access to the database?
Another consideration: What if a group of V4 users got together and started developing their own Master Database for use by other users? How would that impact on the current discussion?
-
While a very small number of Radarbox users are interested in manipulation of the database in this manner, as can be seen by the numbers commenting, it must be remembered that the main focus of Airnav in this is the protection of the database contents and having taken the decision I doubt if there will be any change of heart on their part.
-
The Airnav database is there to be used to provide the information on screen that users are picking up with their Radarbox.
The information contained within it is freely available from any number of sources with no copyright restrictions for example national registers, publicly accesible websites etc, various forums etc, all it takes is the time and effort to comb through all these and find it. I even send data picked up in such a way to my database provider and they never ask me where or how I obtained the information. Where did your database provider get the info bet they got it from the same places we all get it so i wouldnt worry. There are plenty of databases out there and one thing they have in common is that their contents are locked down so that it can only be used within the application, I can see no difference to what we are discussing here.
I can see no good reason why the Airnav Radarbox database should be available for others to then go on and sell that info to their subscribers and can see no reason why it should be available for conversion to provide a database for other receiver types. Let them build their own database same as we have done, let them put in the time and effort we have done.
Alan
-
Can I add to what Alan says .The database is used for us to identify what we are seeing on our screens . I use another database for all my spotting requirements as i cannot take my laptop everywhere . I only use my radarbox for what i can see . I dont need to know what is elsewhere . If i cant see it I cant count it . That is my personal view
Ben
-
Ok while we like to see this issue debated and ideas put forward to please both sides we will NOT stand for certain people trying to push their agenda and turning this thread into a platform for them. Please post in a civilised fashion.
By that we mean no personal insults/no trying to post on this thread to encourage it appear at the top of list/no trying to incite tensions.
Lets keep this discussion to find a way to keep both sides happy.
-
Ok while we like to see this issue debated and ideas put forward to please both sides we will NOT stand for certain people trying to push their agenda and turning this thread into a platform for them. Please post in a civilised fashion.
By that we mean no personal insults/no trying to post on this thread to encourage it appear at the top of list/no trying to incite tensions.
Lets keep this discussion to find a way to keep both sides happy.
I'm not sure who this was intended for but quite frankly I think this debate has been conducted in a very civilized manner. It could so easily have descended into a slanging match as other topics have done before but I think the importance of the encryption issue has seen it conducted professionally and with cordial respect.
But moving on, it is becoming clear that it will be very difficult for AirNav to offer both options (i.e. data base encryption and database access) within one package. So maybe therein lies the solution which could be to separate this out into two distinct versions of V5 as described below:
V5A
Upgrade with encryption and supplied with the current full database. All database update functionality provided within the software.
V5B
Upgrade without encryption and supplied with a blank database. All update functionality removed from within the software.
In this way users will have a clear-cut and definite choice as to how they would like to run their RadarBox. But more importantly ALL users of RadarBox can upgrade to V5 as that surely is also the ultimate goal for AirNav?
Some users may be happy to opt for the upgrade which gives them updates as provided by AirNav. Furthermore, AirNav gets to keep its database encrypted and protect its information as proprietary.
Other users will have to start from scratch with a blank database but will be happy to build up their own database of information as they can access it, edit it and populate it with data they source themselves. AirNav may even consider a nominal charge for V5B but make V5A free.
Thank you,
-
It may be an interesting possiblity Bell407. I will make the suggestion to Airnav to see if it is feasible to provide a version with a blank unecrypted database with no server access to update for the 2 or 3 users with that preference.
Alan
-
Thanks Alan. It certainly would be good to see AirNav's approach to what has been presented above.
I do somehow think that there may be more than 2 or 3 users interested in this option. I tried to see if I could post a Poll but no where on my interface can I find that option to do so. That being said, I do think more users would have interacted with a Poll topic as many do not feel comfortable posting their views on an open forum. A poll would have allowed them to express an opinion simply by selecting an option 1, 2, 3 or 4 etc.
Looking forward to feedback from AirNav as the debate is certainly allowing us to explore other options to encryption.
Thank you,
-
My feeling from comments on here is that users of the utility are not really interested in compling their own database but would rather manipulate ours thats why I suggested 2 or 3. It would be interesting to find out how many users of the utilty actually own a Radarbox.
Alan
-
My feeling from comments on here is that users of the utility are not really interested in compiling their own database but would rather manipulate ours that's why I suggested 2 or 3.
OK, understood and a fair point.
-
Quote from Alan "Let them build their own database same as we have done, let them put in the time and effort we have done."
Remember the database has been built by US. just have the look at the length of the various Update topic to see how much data has been supplied by users.l
-
While I am very appreciative of any assistance we get from users Chris, how many of those were just hex codes Chris. Out of the 208,000 aircraft records and all the route records how many had all the data provided by users, a very small number out of the total so to suggest that the database has been built by users couldnt be further from the truth.
Take your own country of South Africa, apart from the ones provided by your self the vast majority came from my efforts and most of them are never seen on screen by anyone outwith the country. A couple of hours ago I added a Phenom which was delivered in the middle of last month never heard about it from within SA and the same with the helicopters added last night. During the period covered by your decision not to provide any further info for the database, a large number of SA registered aircraft were added again without any assistance.
Are you really saying that we should make the contents of our database available to the users of other boxes and database producers. Why shouldnt these companies do as I said and build their own and if necessary get their subscribers and users to help them instead of poaching our efforts. The database is there to show the details of the aircraft picked up by Radarboxes, nothing else.
Alan
-
Agree entirely Alan.
I think we need to realise also, that most other spotting based software providers actually charge for the privilege of receiving database updates.
Admittedly, the Radarbox database is not as expansive ad other software db's, but generally, if you don't subscribe for updates, then any additions , deletions or edits are completely down to the user.
There's also little difference in how their data is sourced, as the majority of commercial software providers have very healthy communities made up of enthusiasts, willing to provide information, whilst still being prepared to pay for the privilege of having it returned in a format applicable to use with the software.
God forbid we start getting charged for the updates, but from a business perspective this would make perfect sense.
I do believe that you could only "get away" with this if the database was considerably more complete. This may have been more realistic if AirNav had embraced the issue of their hopelessly inept database several years ago. At the time, the task of the updaters in moving things forward was all but disowned by AirNav.
Sometimes, software users have to just move on with what the software providers decide to do.
-
My feeling from comments on here is that users of the utility are not really interested in compling their own database but would rather manipulate ours thats why I suggested 2 or 3. It would be interesting to find out how many users of the utilty actually own a Radarbox.
I use the utility and I have a radarbox.
I hope that Airnav considers the Bell 407s proposal about have a version with blank unencrypted database.
-
I own a RDB and manipulate the DB to extract MIL hex codes to use in another alerting utility for my own use.
So no encryption for Navada use is of interest however a blank db is of no interest to me.
How about considering a licensing/partner program where partner apps can get access to the decryption algorithm. OK would probably mean a charge for the third party app but I'm sure RDB users that need the utility would be happy to buy the app. People seem to have no problem buying apps on their phone or tablet
Graham
-
I hope that Airnav considers the Bell 407s proposal about have a version with blank unencrypted database.
When you say a blank database, I presume you mean with all tables empty (actype, aircraft, airlines, airports, routes).
Secondly, if you want to run with a blank database, and have autoupdate turned off, then surely you can operate like that at the moment. Keep an unencrypted version of your navdata, do all your manual updates on that unencrypted version. Take a copy before you start-up Radarbox. Next time you want to manually update the database, close Radarbox, update your unencrypted version, take a copy, and off you go again. And if anyone needs a blank, unencrypted database, I have one.
Personally, I would rather Airnav devote their precious development resource to bug-fixing and features that would appeal to the majority of users.
-
Hi GreekSpy2001 and Tarbat,
If AirNav were to go with the V5B option as proposed without encryption, they would obviously have to provide the software upgrade with a blank database. You would not receive their current 208,000 odd record database as that would be their proprietary information.
The blank daatabase would only be blank from the time you install the V5B upgrade. Thereafter, because encryption has been unenabled, you would be able to use 3rd party utilities to manipulate your daatabase and pull in your V4 NavData.db3 file. From then onwards your database would not be blank but would be populated with your previous version information.
Hope this clarifies the isssue?
Tarbat, I think going backwards and forwards and opening and closing versions of RadarBax could be problematic as at some stage someone will forget where they are in the process and accidently encryp their database.
Personally, I would rather Airnav devote their precious development resource to bug-fixing and features that would appeal to the majority of users.
Agreed but I suppose Horses for Courses as to what people want and desire from the software.
Thank you,
-
Tarbat, I think going backwards and forwards and opening and closing versions of RadarBax could be problematic as at some stage someone will forget where they are in the process and accidently encryp their database.
Yes, I can see your point, but it is at least a method that you can use now with v5. I've tested this approach, and it works. Why not give it a try? I guess if you did accidentally encrypt, you would still have the exported Excel files to fall back on. Or maybe implement something in the Navdata Editing Tool that takes a backup of the unencrypted database.
-
Keep an unencrypted version of your navdata, do all your manual updates on that unencrypted version. Take a copy before you start-up Radarbox. Next time you want to manually update the database, close Radarbox, update your unencrypted version, take a copy, and off you go again.
Hi Tarbat,
Not sure exactly how that benefits the user as you are never able to access your encrypted database once you run AirNav V5. Because surely each time RadarBox runs it adds information received from my box to my database locally on my PC so I am getting further and further away from my original starting point. Therefore I can never extract that information once it has run the first time?
-
Because surely each time RadarBox runs it adds information received from my box to my database locally on my PC so I am getting further and further away from my original starting point. Therefore I can never extract that information once it has run the first time?
Aircraft received on your receiver are added to the MyLog.db3 database, which is not encrypted.
SELECT
Aircraft.ModeS AS MS,
Aircraft.Registration AS AR,
Aircraft.AircraftTypeSmall AS AT,
Aircraft.AircraftTypeLong AS AN,
Aircraft.Airline AS AC
FROM
Aircraft
So, if you want to "merge" information received on your box with data from your other manual sources, you should be able to do that external to ANRB by extracting the aircraft data from MyLog and merging with your manual sources. I know this isn't a perfect solution, but I'm just trying to suggest workarounds that you can use now, rather than waiting for anything that Airnav may provide in the future. The design intention when the two databases (Navdata & MyLog) were originally conceived was that Navdata is static data provided by Airnav, and MyLog is the dynamic data from your receiver.
-
I own a RDB and manipulate the DB to extract MIL hex codes to use in another alerting utility for my own use.
If you're trying to extract MIL hex codes of aircraft you've received, can't you extract them from the MyLog database which isn't encrypted?
-
No trying to extract all Mil codes for my spotting purposes so interested in being alerted to those that I have not received before as well as those previously received. So the Mylog wouldn't provide the answer for me.
Graham
-
No trying to extract all Mil codes for my spotting purposes so interested in being alerted to those that I have not received before as well as those previously received
If your interest is primarily military, then you might want to look at using http://www.live-military-mode-s.eu/
Also you could try using one of the free databases to extract mil hexcodes, such as the basestation.sqb available at http://pp-sqb.mantma.co.uk/
-
Alan - I do not understand your statement "During the period covered by your decision not to provide any further info for the database, a large number of SA registered aircraft were added again without any assistance."
I still provide information when I see an unidentified aircraft on my network screen or in MyLog when I get home from work.
For ZS aircraft it is relatively simple as the CAA follows the sequence but for ZU a bit of detective work is needed. The CAA only publish register changes once a month but once that is done it is easy to get the detail from Avdex.
My contributions have been delayed due to work pressures and less time in front of the screen.
-
Thanks Chris, a number of months ago you or someone I took to be you stated that you would not be providing any assistance in protest at there being no updates to the software. As we have only recently started to hear from you again since the release of the V5 software I took that to be the case.
If I was mistaken in my assertion, I apologise and I fully appreciate how other pressures can eat into the time available. In any case I very pleased to hear from you again and welcome any information that you can provide which will assist the Radarbox users in SA.
Alan
-
Not me - I stopped posting non African aircraft detail as most of the time there were others with more detail than me
-
No worries Chris, glad to have you back anyway.
Alan
-
It may be an interesting possiblity Bell407. I will make the suggestion to Airnav to see if it is feasible to provide a version with a blank unecrypted database with no server access to update for the 2 or 3 users with that preference.
Afternoon Alan,
Any feedback from AirNav on this V5A and V5B issue?
Thank you,
-
Still working on the current version upgrade.
Alan
-
Bell407,
Answer from Airnav, due to the likelyhood of a very limited take up of a blank Navdata version with no update service it has been decided not to go ahead and to use the time more productively.
Alan
-
Glad I never shared my personal DB of over 466,000 records with Airnav.
-
Romdouk,
We are around and there is no silence from us. As you can see from this topic there have been very few customers who have actually been concerned by this. The topic is long yes but it’s the same users who are posting. The topic has been up for more than two weeks and has been pushed up the forum at various times and there still hasn't been lots of users mentioning this. We can also say no one has contacted support either to be concerned about this. Comparing this against the number of unique (individual RadarBox serial) installs of the beta the percentage is very small which does not warrant us working on this in the beta. There are other tasks which affect more users that are priority and much more important. (This does not mean we won't come back to doing this later on if we deem it appropriate)
However lets just make it clear, we do understand that a better way to access the database to update/delete/add is needed and this is being discussed. We are still however open to ideas to which will please those who want to use external tools with the database and also fit in with our concerns.
-
Romdouk,
The reason I answered is that I stated I would ask the question, which any user is free to do using the usual contact methods. As I asked the question I then provided the answer given to me.
Alan
-
We are deciding on a an acceptable way regarding the encryption routines: we believe the best solution would be to allow unencrypted files but in that case no updates will be available from the server (if user decides to download database data from the server then local database will be encrypted).
Regarding data sharing: it is not compulsory. If you decide not to share and you are not a network subscriber then no photos/flight/aircraft data will be downloaded from the server.
-
Re Romdouk's post -
Quote "AirNav are effectively changing the "Terms & Conditions" after the sale of the goods" ........that would seem to be the position.
If so, that would be in contravention of UK Sale of Goods legislation as the product would no longer be "as described". There being no time limitation in this circumstance, it would seem to be possible to return the box to the vendor.
However I would like to hear any contrary views or arguments.
-
Terms and conditions for various items, goods and services change all the time and are never set in stone for all time. For anyone who feels agrieved the remedy is in your own hands but remember the result may not be what you think is correct.
Alan
-
We are deciding on a an acceptable way regarding the encryption routines: we believe the best solution would be to allow unencrypted files but in that case no updates will be available from the server (if user decides to download database data from the server then local database will be encrypted).
AirNav Dev, any feedback on this issue that you are considering? Any further details about how this might work for users?
Thanks,
-
We are deciding on a an acceptable way regarding the encryption routines: we believe the best solution would be to allow unencrypted files but in that case no updates will be available from the server (if user decides to download database data from the server then local database will be encrypted).
Is there any feedback on this issue please?
Thanks,
-
While I dont have the definiative answer I would suggest that they are developing the fixes for the few remaining outstanding issues before looking at niche issues.
Alan
-
Once we have decided we will inform customers.
-
THANK YOU! LOUD AND CLEAR! WHAT IS "ONCE"? ANY IDEA ABOUT THE TIME YOU NEED TO MAKE A DECISION?