Registration

[hofs]

Today i have seen the mode s 3F8517  Reg 10 23. It should be a A 310 from Germany but the database tells me its a Mikoyan - Gurivich from Hungaryan airforce.
If i change the reg in the data base as it should be 10+23  and delete the old data everything is oke .
But assoon as network refreshes ,  the old message come's back.
If i look at airframe.org the data is correct and even in GAS the data is correct but why does radarbox give the wrong info.
Above is only one example of today . I also have seen mode S 3F9930 reg 50 48  and a lot more.
I think the problem is that radarbox has a problem with the + sign
How to solve this problem
Fred
 

[Allocator]

This is because RadarBox uses airliners.net to look up the picture based on the registration - and the airliners.net search just doesn't like 10 23 or 10+23.

This is what I do to overcome it:

- I manually edit my NavData.db3 to put 10+23 in the registration field

- I search for the correct aircraft using airliners.net to find the right A310

- I right click on one of the airliners.net thumbnails and save it to my /Photo directory as 10+23.jpg

- I do the same with a second thumbnail and save it to the /Photo directory as 10+23,2.jpg

All I'm doing is doing manually what RB would do during the auto-populate if it could find the right aircraft for the registration during the airliners.net lookup.

There are only a few aircraft with this lookup problem, so I just follow this procedure when it happens.

[DaveReid]

I think the problem is that radarbox has a problem with the + sign

It's more fundamental than that, it potentially affects any aircraft that has a non-ICAO or non-unique registration.

RadarBox, even though it knows the actual type from having looked up the Mode S code in the AirNav database, doesn't check the details that are returned from airliners.net to make sure that they apply to the same aircraft.

The good news is that there's a fix in the offing, shouldn't be long now.

[hofs]

Then we have to wait until they have finnished their work

[Fenris]

The good news is that there's a fix in the offing, shouldn't be long now.

Soon soon? For 3.xx final?

[DaveReid]

The good news is that there's a fix in the offing, shouldn't be long now.

Soon soon? For 3.xx final?

No, I mean "soon" in the sense that getting the aircraft details/photos sorted out will be top of AirNav's list after V3 is released (assuming ANRB 3D development doesn't get in the way).

[tarbat]

No, I mean "soon" in the sense that getting the aircraft details/photos sorted out will be top of AirNav's list after V3 is released (assuming ANRB 3D development doesn't get in the way).

Or ShipTrax development!  Dave, you keep saying that getting the aircraft details/photos sorted out will be top of AirNav's list - just how sure are you of this?

[DaveReid]

Dave, you keep saying that getting the aircraft details/photos sorted out will be top of AirNav's list - just how sure are you of this?

I'm only reiterating what AirNav have told me privately over the past few months.  If this issue has now slipped down the priority list then I've certainly not been made aware of it.

AirNav ?

[jgrloit]

AS I recall the required changes have been specified in 'other' strings within this forum.
All that is required is to implement the changes!!!!

[DaveReid]

AS I recall the required changes have been specified in 'other' strings within this forum.
All that is required is to implement the changes!!!!

No-one's about to argue with you there.