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

Login with username, password and session length
 


Author Topic: AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.08 Beta - Released  (Read 128088 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Fenris

  • Guest
Re: AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.08 Beta - Released
« Reply #105 on: November 10, 2009, 08:30:01 PM »
I did switched back to old version of RB till the new one will be a bit better .....

The old version requires server access in just the same way as the beta does.

spikem

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.08 Beta - Released
« Reply #106 on: November 10, 2009, 09:37:50 PM »
Just downloaded 3.08 and installed on vista. Straight replacement of exe file. Runs fine with no errors for me. i may be one of the few but there we go.

Fenris

  • Guest
Re: AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.08 Beta - Released
« Reply #107 on: November 10, 2009, 09:47:32 PM »
Yes, me too. I suspect that the problem cases are to do with file location, permissions and possibly UAC.

Jollygreen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.08 Beta - Released
« Reply #108 on: November 10, 2009, 11:04:07 PM »
Since we now have a signed driver I decided to upgrade from 3.01 to 3.08. Downloaded the new driver and then downloaded the new 3.08 'exe'. Guess what, I also get the dreaded 'rb.dll not found' message.

Just got back from Brussels, it's late, I'm tired..... help

Nigel

Fenris

  • Guest
Re: AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.08 Beta - Released
« Reply #109 on: November 10, 2009, 11:17:08 PM »
Since we now have a signed driver I decided to upgrade from 3.01 to 3.08. Downloaded the new driver and then downloaded the new 3.08 'exe'. Guess what, I also get the dreaded 'rb.dll not found' message.

Where do you have RB installed? I assume you have 64 bit Vista or Windows 7.

What did you do with the 3.08 .exe file? It needs to be saved over the 3.07 exe, you may not have the permissions to do that.

Ensure that the program object is pointing to the correct place. It could be that Windows has moved the file to the virtual store and there is no rb.dll file in that directory.

Jollygreen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.08 Beta - Released
« Reply #110 on: November 10, 2009, 11:36:58 PM »
Brian

I never loaded 3.07. So do I have to install 3.07 first or do I just copy 3.08 exe into my 3.01 directory

Nigel

Fenris

  • Guest
Re: AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.08 Beta - Released
« Reply #111 on: November 10, 2009, 11:40:45 PM »
I believe that it should work in the 3.01 directory. AFAIK there is only the one changed file, the .exe.

Where do you have it installed? On what OS?

Jollygreen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.08 Beta - Released
« Reply #112 on: November 10, 2009, 11:56:32 PM »
Brian

I will try again tomorrow when I am more awake : -)


Nigel

Fenris

  • Guest
Re: AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.08 Beta - Released
« Reply #113 on: November 11, 2009, 12:05:27 AM »
OK, will try to be available if you still have problems.

BMcL26

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.08 Beta - Released
« Reply #114 on: November 11, 2009, 12:08:20 AM »
Just installed Windows 7 (Ultimate) 64bit tonight had to do a clean install and naturtally ANRB was one of the fist programmes I resinstalled v 3.08 beta,  Installed the 64 bit drivers and off we went been running for over an hour now without any problems.

YXUphoto

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
    • YXUphoto
Re: AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.08 Beta - Released
« Reply #115 on: November 11, 2009, 01:00:35 AM »
I have couple of issues.  I upgraded from the 2.01 to 3.06-07-08 beta version.  Since I use Vista, I installed outside of Program Files folder.  After installation I transferred my DB files over to the 3.0x Beta folder.  When I start ANRB.exe it finds the .DB3 files just fine, but tells me they are corrupt and it can't use them.
These files still work fine in the 2.01 installation.  Any ideas?  I have lots of codes that I have painfully added to the DB and wouldn't want to lose them.  The MyLog.db3 seems to function fine.

Second issue:  Is there a way to transfer my Alerts from 2.01 to 3.08?


DaveReid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1815
    • Heathrow last 100 ADS-B arrivals
Re: AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.08 Beta - Released
« Reply #116 on: November 11, 2009, 07:27:47 AM »
Second issue:  Is there a way to transfer my Alerts from 2.01 to 3.08?

If you're refering to the list of hex codes/registrations/Flight IDs/etc that you have set up as alerting parameters, then yes, it's s simple process to transfer these.

Just start up 2.01, then copy-and-paste the hex code list, etc into Notepad.  Shut down 2.01, start up 3.08, and paste the data back into the appropriate places.

Job done.
This post has been scanned for any traces of negativity, bias, sarcasm and general anti-social behaviour

tarbat

  • ShipTrax Beta Testers
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4219
    • Radarbox at Easter Ross
Re: AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.08 Beta - Released
« Reply #117 on: November 11, 2009, 08:48:55 AM »
Hi. I'm using ICAO LPFR.

I'll test when Airnavs METAR server is back up - it appears to be down at the moment.

Okay, tested and works okay with LPFR.

Aerotower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
Re: AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.08 Beta - Released
« Reply #118 on: November 11, 2009, 11:57:45 AM »
My database is being discarded by the database server. Appears only registration, aircraft type and the hex code. Anybody know what's going on?

P. S. I'm losing my database.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2009, 12:19:19 PM by Aerotower »

EK01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4849
Re: AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.08 Beta - Released
« Reply #119 on: November 11, 2009, 01:10:58 PM »
When I click on the mode S code in the interface (MY Flights or Network) in order to populate any missing fields, it appears to be working ok apart from not populating the aircraft types field. It just comes up as '...'. Obviously the silhouette field which is related to that is therefore also not populated.