Plane plotter and Airnav

[DaveG]

Will your solution work with existing RadarBox hardware ?  Or is it too early to ask that question ?

I for one hope so!

[jannuh]

It's widely known that the way PP does MLAT is extremely unreliable. It was a clever of doing MLAT with the hardware the market offers nowadays. When we have our own MLAT solution is will be accurate and reliable otherwise we won't release it.

So, seen that...  it will even be more reliable and accurate as RB's dbase!

[DaveReid]

Will your solution work with existing RadarBox hardware ?  Or is it too early to ask that question ?

I for one hope so!

Well the only people who can answer that - AirNav - have yet to comment, but I'm sure they will agree that you simply can't do MLat without precise, synchronised timing data from the ground stations involved.

I understand from those who know about these things that the current RadarBox hardware/firmware can't provide this data.  While it may be possible to expose precise internal RadarBox timing data via a firmware upgrade, that still leaves the issue of synchronisation.

AirNav have disparaged the PlanePlotter method of doing this via a reference ADS-B aircraft, so clearly they aren't planning to do it that way, and as far as I can see the only other alternative is an architecture that involves all ground stations having access to an external source of synchronised time data.

I think we can rule out atomic clocks inside RadarBox, so that only leaves GPS time as a feasible solution (as with commercial MLat systems).

At the very least, then, I think we're looking at a GPS timer add-on for RadarBox, if not a completely new RadarBox.  If I'm wrong, doubtless AirNav will tell us in due course.

[AirNav Development]

>So, seen that...  it will even be more reliable and accurate as RB's dbase!

It's not the database but some problems with less than 1% of aircraft inside the aircraft table. Anyway the problem has already been corrected on the server which has now 44095 updated and 100% correct records (permanently adding new ones).

Regarding MLAT we prefer not to add any comment about it right now (the previous post already contains the information we wanted to share).

[DaveReid]

Regarding MLAT we prefer not to add any comment about it right now (the previous post already contains the information we wanted to share).

OK, thanks for the confirmation, good to see we're thinking along the same lines.

I guess it's way too early to ask what the likely cost of the MLat-enabled RadarBox is likely to be, or whether there will be an upgrade path from the current hardware ?

Failing that, can you say anything about the likely timescale ?

[AirNav Development]

Unfortunately we cannot release any more details now.

[DaveReid]

Unfortunately we cannot release any more details now.

Fair enough, guess I'll need to hang on to the old SBS for a while yet.

[DaveReid]

It's not the database but some problems with less than 1% of aircraft inside the aircraft table. Anyway the problem has already been corrected on the server which has now 44095 updated and 100% correct records (permanently adding new ones).

I noticed GLF5 N600JD on the network again today.  Up to now, it has been populating as a C650 (previous user of that reg, re-registered 3 years ago).

Having deleted it from my NavData.db3 to force it to refresh from the server, it now populates with the dreaded three dots instead. 

Looks like there's still work to be done here.

[AirNav Development]

The 3 dots mean that the RadarBox software was not able to convert the aircraft type into a 4 letter aircraft type code. This will be also be changed on a future software version (download the 4 letter code directly from the server).

[DaveReid]

The 3 dots mean that the RadarBox software was not able to convert the aircraft type into a 4 letter aircraft type code. This will be also be changed on a future software version (download the 4 letter code directly from the server).

I'm sure many users, myself included, are confused now.

You're saying that the data on the server is correct, but that there's still no guarantee users will see the correct aircraft type, or indeed any type at all, shown on the radar screen and the aircraft list.  If that's the case, what changes, if any, will we see ?

Incidentally, fewer than 30% of ICAO aircraft type codes are 4 letters.

[Jeremy]

'push and stirring again.
Take your politics off forum, please!
J.

[DaveReid]

'push and stirring again.
Take your politics off forum, please!

Thank you for your helpful contribution, Jeremy.

Could I suggest that, since you clearly don't understand the issue being discussed, you try following AirNav's latest advice:

However yes, a clean of your NavData database would force it to get fresh data from the server for all aircraft.

and then let us all know how you get on ?

N.B. I would not recommend that anyone else do this - having rashly done so myself, I'm currently looking at blank aircraft types on the radar screen and the aircraft list for around half of my network flights.

AirNav, can you please clarify what steps other than the above should users be taking at the moment, if any, in respect of downloading aircraft data from the server ?

[Runway 31]

You were looking for testers for your product Dave, seems like a good opportunity to try using it or Database explorer to update manually.

Click onto the blank flight and force the update.

[abrad41]

As I said In a previous thread

abrad41
Sr. Member

Posts: 476



      Re: New Server Database Populate Routine
« Reply #17 on: 13 April 2010, 14:26:29 » Quote Modify Remove 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote
The next stages will be to have a database which has a update/refresh proceadure and also allow the certain rows to be marked so they are not updated or refreshed, incase a customer is adding data manually that is not in our central database.

I think I shell be waiting until the above is complete before doing anything with my Navdata file, I have done a lot of manual updating of my database.

Even GAS don't have all the details of everything, I use a combination of GAS, Airframes etc etc to get all of my information.

Airnav - Can I just say (From the statment above), there is no way I am knocking what you are doing, you are moving things in the right direction - Thank you for that. I just find the combination of all the sites helps me.

Andy

Andy

[tarbat]

However yes, a clean of your NavData database would force it to get fresh data from the server for all aircraft.

N.B. I would not recommend that anyone else do this - having rashly done so myself, I'm currently looking at blank aircraft types on the radar screen and the aircraft list for around half of my network flights.

Dave, surely you took a backup before cleaning out your database, so you can simply restore the navdata.db3 database can't you?  There's no way I would delete details of the thousands of aircraft in my databases without taking a backup first.

But yes, the use of "..." in the AT field is regrettable, and I for one won't be cleaning out my database until that particular bug is fixed.  Airnav, can't you simply get the AT field from GAS?