anything
AirNav RadarBox
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
 


Author Topic: RELEASED - AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.01 Beta  (Read 157965 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RodBearden

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9110
    • Rod's RadarBox Downloads
Re: RELEASED - AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.01 Beta
« Reply #135 on: July 27, 2009, 10:22:27 PM »
True enough, Tom

I use a 22" screen, but I would have thought that 1024px would be wide enough - are you using large fonts rather than standard fonts?

Rod
Rod

slipdog

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: RELEASED - AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.01 Beta
« Reply #136 on: July 27, 2009, 10:33:03 PM »
Hi,
Quoted by Freqhopping, i had about 50 less alerts than normal!
Something wrong with my set up or something, i get none at all, i have 10 flights set which i know fly out every day out of EGNX, also have wilcard set for A380's but nothing, my rig has been running 24hrs since the new beta and not a single alert has come thru. Weird.

Fenris

  • Guest
Re: RELEASED - AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.01 Beta
« Reply #137 on: July 27, 2009, 10:39:27 PM »
Regarding some users reporting that they don't receive some alerts: we believe it is caused by the fact that only 1 alert will be sent per mode-s hex code.

For example if a user has alerts setup on flight number (SIA123) and aircraft type (B744) and he receives a Singapore B744 doing flight SIA123 he will only receive one alert.

What is your opinion as experienced users: should we change this behavior so that, in this case, 2 alerts are sent?

It seems to me that, if two separate alert entries apply to a single hex code, that the alert itself should indicate that fact, so it should either indicate:

"Alert for B744 and SIA123" or it should indicate "2 alert conditions met".

Would that be suitable? It would give the user feedback that their alert entries are working correctly.

Having seen some other posts, it does seem that there is a deeper problem than just this multiple alert entries -> single alert happening. I can appreciate that it isn't easy to diagnose.

AirNav Development

  • AirNav Systems
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2545
    • AirNav Systems
Re: RELEASED - AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.01 Beta
« Reply #138 on: July 27, 2009, 11:18:29 PM »
So it has nothing to do with the 1 or 2 conditions met...in conclusion we need to know:
1- If every user reports this problem;
2- (difficult/challenging one): if anyone can find a way of reproducing it.

freqhopping

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
Re: RELEASED - AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.01 Beta
« Reply #139 on: July 28, 2009, 02:40:48 AM »
Fed Ex and UPS flights are starting to show up tonight.  My milair log for the day seems to be lacking though compared to the logs of others in my area.

viking9

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 823
    • Aircraft Photography
Re: RELEASED - AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.01 Beta
« Reply #140 on: July 28, 2009, 10:26:48 AM »
True enough, Tom

I use a 22" screen, but I would have thought that 1024px would be wide enough - are you using large fonts rather than standard fonts?

Rod

I use standard fonts, Rod. I'm a retired IT professional so there's little I don't know about Windoze etc. As 1024 x 768 is a standard I would have thought they would have fixed it. It was brought up by others on here. It's not as if there is not enough room at that screen size.

Tom

Tom
Tom
Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk UK
15 miles SE of EGUN
32 miles SE of MAM > DIKAS track
http://www.viking9.co.uk

Allocator

  • RadarBox24.com Beta Testers
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3568
Re: RELEASED - AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.01 Beta
« Reply #141 on: July 28, 2009, 11:22:43 AM »
True enough, Tom

I use a 22" screen, but I would have thought that 1024px would be wide enough - are you using large fonts rather than standard fonts?

Rod

I use standard fonts, Rod. I'm a retired IT professional so there's little I don't know about Windoze etc. As 1024 x 768 is a standard I would have thought they would have fixed it. It was brought up by others on here. It's not as if there is not enough room at that screen size.

Tom

Tom

Works OK for me at 1240 x 768.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2009, 11:30:12 AM by Allocator »

perezoso

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 61
Re: RELEASED - AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.01 Beta
« Reply #142 on: July 28, 2009, 12:56:08 PM »
Horizontal monitor space is very much at a premium, even with higher resolutions.  Ways to display more data in less horizontal space would be great, such as:

1. Allow the "status" field to be displayed as an abbreviation, with two or three characters per status, such as "LVL" or "LV" for "leveled", "DEP" or "DP" for "departure", etc.

2. Using taller columns, so two rows of data ca be displayed per plane.  This would make the display longer; but I would much rather scroll vertically than horizontally.

One thing I would not do is make the graphics (flags, logos, etc) any smaller.

Just my belated opinion...

Andy Frost

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
    • SquawkBox
Re: RELEASED - AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.01 Beta
« Reply #143 on: July 28, 2009, 12:59:58 PM »
I am still missing a label on the Pole Hill VOR. Although previous discussions on this put this down to an intelligent removal of labels to avoid clutter on the map the Pole Hill VOR remains separate from anything on my map and there appears to be room to label it (see attached views, normal and zoomed).

AirNav Development

  • AirNav Systems
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2545
    • AirNav Systems
Re: RELEASED - AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.01 Beta
« Reply #144 on: July 28, 2009, 06:26:19 PM »
Regarding port 30003: we have had users very interested in this feature that posted dozens of messages to the forum requesting it to be working just as SBS-1. We need a final confirmation from these users, especially DaveReid (who posted very helpful messages) that everything is working as expected with it.

viking9

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 823
    • Aircraft Photography
Re: RELEASED - AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.01 Beta
« Reply #145 on: July 28, 2009, 06:41:19 PM »
Works OK for me at 1240 x 768.

1240 x 768 is not a standard !!

Tom
Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk UK
15 miles SE of EGUN
32 miles SE of MAM > DIKAS track
http://www.viking9.co.uk

Allocator

  • RadarBox24.com Beta Testers
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3568
Re: RELEASED - AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.01 Beta
« Reply #146 on: July 28, 2009, 06:53:12 PM »
Works OK for me at 1240 x 768.

1240 x 768 is not a standard !!



Ha!!! a typing error - I meant 1024 x 768 as per the screen shot :-)
« Last Edit: July 28, 2009, 06:55:49 PM by Allocator »

viking9

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 823
    • Aircraft Photography
Re: RELEASED - AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.01 Beta
« Reply #147 on: July 28, 2009, 08:18:51 PM »
Allocator,

I can see you have a much newer laptop than I as you can go much higher than 1024 x 768. Mine is just two years old and I don't fancy shelling out on a new one just to get a better graphics card.
Tom
Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk UK
15 miles SE of EGUN
32 miles SE of MAM > DIKAS track
http://www.viking9.co.uk

Allocator

  • RadarBox24.com Beta Testers
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3568
Re: RELEASED - AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.01 Beta
« Reply #148 on: July 28, 2009, 08:26:43 PM »
No, not new - maybe 2 or 3 years old - a Gateway MX6640b Pentium 1.6GHz with 2 Gb RAM with an 80Gb HD from Staples.  Don't think that you can buy them any more - obsolete - lol

Yes, my laptop usually runs at 1280 x 800, but I did think that by running it at 1024 x 768 I could simulate your display, but obviously not.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2009, 08:31:27 PM by Allocator »

freqhopping

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
Re: RELEASED - AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.01 Beta
« Reply #149 on: July 28, 2009, 09:03:42 PM »
As usual I lost internet connectivity due to ANRB running.  The only way to restore connectivity is to close it.  Well today upon closing it there was an error of some sort and it was apparently a crash close because upon restarting it everything that had been logged for the day was gone.