Network flights, why the big difference?

[EMA]

I have run two radarboxes side by side connected to separate PC's but the same cable network and the number of networks flights has not been that different. There is a small difference but I think that would be down to download sychronisation.

[Marpleman]

Incidentally, I may not be able to participate in this (or indeed any other) thread for much longer as I've had a helpful PM from AirNav Development in the last half hour telling me I'll be banned if I post any more database update information ...

Still, I'll have made somebody's day for them :-)

Sincerely hope it doesn't come to this Dave

I've found your info most helpful over the past months,and whilst not always agreeing with your opinion on some issues (but then what's a debate without different mind sets?), have enjoyed your humour and insight to many of the topics raised on here

I think we all need to chill a little, or we're in danger of loosing a lot of moderation and indeed variation on here

Regards

Rich

[AirNav Development]

3) The network flights change every second that passes as certain flights timeout on the server as they leave range or someone stop running there software. Hence you can easily see 100+ change in flights from one second to another. We can view the network stat live here and they change rapidly at times within a few seconds.

As I understand it, all other things being equal (timeouts, live or delayed network, etc) then every network user should see their network flights total fluctuating around roughly the same average value, particularly when compared over a longish period to eliminate short-term time phase differences.  Only if user A is picking up significantly more (or fewer) local flights than user B should their network totals diverge by a corresponding amount over a period.

Incidentally, I may not be able to participate in this (or indeed any other) thread for much longer as I've had a helpful PM from AirNav Development in the last half hour telling me I'll be banned if I post any more database update information ...

Still, I'll have made somebody's day for them :-)

No one will ban you from our forum if you strictly follow its rules (you are interested in a contract with AirNav Systems to supply us with aircraft data and we don't want you - or anyone - to use our forum with commercial intentions).

We've already sent you several PMs regarding this and from time to time you seem to ignore them.

If you follow these rules you will never be banned.

[abrad41]

Sincerely hope it doesn't come to this Dave

I've found your info most helpful over the past months,and whilst not always agreeing with your opinion on some issues (but then what's a debate without different mind sets?), have enjoyed your humour and insight to many of the topics raised on here

I think we all need to chill a little, or we're in danger of loosing a lot of moderation and indeed variation on here

Regards

Rich

I agree with Rich - Dave has been giving us some good information with his database updates. I may have had my differences with Dave, over the couple of years being a SBS and now Radarbox user, but he has been giving the forum a good service and help people where the database has let us down.

to use our forum with commercial intentions).

AirNav-You could be right, but he has been helping all of us with the information he has been giving

Andy

[Southwest]

If it's a question of settings would someone like to offer a best settings guide?  I'm prepared to try anything once.

As Dave has eluded to in reply 14, the difference between my network numbers and his shouldn't be as big as it is.  We both had roughly the same My Flights on our screens.

If anyone in the UK, who regularly achieves 1300 plus in the Network flights, would like to let me know their Radarbox settings I would be grateful.  Like I say, I'll try anything once.

[DaveReid]

No one will ban you from our forum if you strictly follow its rules (you are interested in a contract with AirNav Systems to supply us with aircraft data and we don't want you - or anyone - to use our forum with commercial intentions).

We've already sent you several PMs regarding this and from time to time you seem to ignore them.

If you follow these rules you will never be banned.

Now you're being economical with the truth.

Sure, I don't deny I have access to a resource that could fix all your database problems overnight, but that's a different issue.

Your PM threatening to ban me refers specifically to this thread: www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=4285.105 [Database update info] which consists of purely informational posts in which I (and a number of other users) provide data that sharers can apply to their own NavData databases to help ensure that the aircraft being shown on the screen are the ones they are actually picking up.

Not a commercial or banner in sight, just plain data - I'll leave readers to draw their own conclusion about why you are so anxious to suppress this kind of information.

Anyway, returning to the topic of this thread, I'm happy (while I'm still here!) to assist anyone who wants to do a bit more diagnosis on the network counts issue.  Following last night's experiment, I've developed the following methodology whereby two or more network users can compare results:

i)  turn OFF both local and network flights

ii)  all users set the same timeouts for network flights

iii)  wait 15 minutes to ensure that locally-buffered data is purged

iv)  turn ON network flights (but NOT MyFlights)

v)  wait 15 minutes to allow the number of Network Flights to stabilise

vi)  leave RadarBox running for a further 10 minutes, noting the Network Flights total every 15 seconds

vii)  calculate the average number of Network Flights from (vi)

Obviously the above steps should be caried out simultaneously by all participating users, and ought to iron out any local, short-term discrepancies in the totals.  Needless to say, it's only valid if everyone is on either the live or the delayed network - if there's a mix, then the comparison won't be valid.

[Southwest]

Hi Dave

Started a bit of a can of worms here, didn't I?

I'd like to try out your method, just let me know if you are free tonight and I'll give you a call and see what happens.  If you are up for this, please remind me what your timeouts are?

All the best

Tony

[Jeremy]

Actually, this has all been discussed before about a year ago. There is a layer where a/c disappear between being seen on the network and direct. That 'layer' is different for each individual depending on the height and visibility of their aerial.  There is bound to be clash of data at some point as one system takes over from the other.
J.

[Southwest]

Actually, this has all been discussed before about a year ago. There is a layer where a/c disappear between being seen on the network and direct. That 'layer' is different for each individual depending on the height and visibility of their aerial.  There is bound to be clash of data at some point as one system takes over from the other.
J.

I would have thought the network flights came via software and not the aerial which is why I can't understand the huge differences.

[DaveReid]

Actually, this has all been discussed before about a year ago. There is a layer where a/c disappear between being seen on the network and direct. That 'layer' is different for each individual depending on the height and visibility of their aerial.  There is bound to be clash of data at some point as one system takes over from the other.

You are perfectly correct - that's why the experiment only makes sense if you have local/hardware flights switched off, so that everything on your screen is coming from the network.

[DaveReid]

I'd like to try out your method, just let me know if you are free tonight and I'll give you a call and see what happens.  If you are up for this, please remind me what your timeouts are?

Sorry, I'm not around the next few evenings, but I was planning a trial this afternoon (purely totals) and anyone else who wants to participate is more than welcome.

The plan is:

1545BST/1445UTC turn off hardware flights, turn on network flights

1600BST/1500UTC note the number of network flights, and again at 15-second intervals for the next 5 minutes (i.e. 21 readings in total)

I'll happily collate and publish the results from my own box and (anonymously) from anyone else who cares to participate (PM me the counts).

Please specify if you're on the live or delayed network, and set your network timeouts to 30/30 seconds to ensure an apples-for-apples comparison.

[tarbat]

You are perfectly correct - that's why the experiment only makes sense if you have local/hardware flights switched off, so that everything on your screen is coming from the network.

Unticking "Process Hardware Flights" doesn't necessarily stop Radarbox processing hardware flights, it just stops them being displayed in the MyFlights tab.  They may still interact with aircraft received on the network.

When testing the network aircraft process, it's much better to unplug the antenna to prevent reception of any hardware aircraft.

[Southwest]

I'd like to try out your method, just let me know if you are free tonight and I'll give you a call and see what happens.  If you are up for this, please remind me what your timeouts are?

Sorry, I'm not around the next few evenings, but I was planning a trial this afternoon (purely totals) and anyone else who wants to participate is more than welcome.

The plan is:

1545BST/1445UTC turn off hardware flights, turn on network flights

1600BST/1500UTC note the number of network flights, and again at 15-second intervals for the next 5 minutes (i.e. 21 readings in total)

I'll happily collate and publish the results from my own box and (anonymously) from anyone else who cares to participate (PM me the counts).

Please specify if you're on the live or delayed network, and set your network timeouts to 30/30 seconds to ensure an apples-for-apples comparison.

Never mind, I hope a few 'boxers' take up the challenge.  I await the results with great interest.

[DaveReid]

Unticking "Process Hardware Flights" doesn't necessarily stop Radarbox processing hardware flights, it just stops them being displayed in the MyFlights tab.  They may still interact with aircraft received on the network.

When testing the network aircraft process, it's much better to unplug the antenna to prevent reception of any hardware aircraft.

Point taken - thanks for the tip.

[DaveReid]

Sorry, I'm not around the next few evenings, but I was planning a trial this afternoon (purely totals) and anyone else who wants to participate is more than welcome.

The plan is:

1545BST/1445UTC turn off hardware flights, turn on network flights

1600BST/1500UTC note the number of network flights, and again at 15-second intervals for the next 5 minutes (i.e. 21 readings in total)

I'll happily collate and publish the results from my own box and (anonymously) from anyone else who cares to participate (PM me the counts).

Please specify if you're on the live or delayed network, and set your network timeouts to 30/30 seconds to ensure an apples-for-apples comparison.

Well as many will have observed, the network was down at the time I'd earmarked for the experiment, so it didn't happen.  Depending on my movements tomorrow and/or Friday, I'll try to schedule a substitute session.

Interestingly, my network count has just plummeted from 1010 to 503 in the space of a second !