MLAT

[Henning]

The RadarBox Support says that when we bought the RadarBox we've got what they promised. But that's not true. It's true that MLAT is an addon. But for all the bugs it's simply not true! For example I've posted the bug that the altitudes in the 3D view are incorrect. All aircraft are flying too high because the altitude in feet is interpreted as meter.
OK, it was not promised that the 3D view is working correctly. But when I buy a RadarBox 3D, I assume that the 3D view is working properly! And it's quite a long time ago that I've posted that bug.
I'm really really disappointed about the way Airnav fixes (or doesn't fix) the bugs. If I had known that before I think I bought a comparable product elsewhere although the RadarBox software is quite nice.
For Airnav it would be so easy to have satisfied customers! I can't understand why they seem to ignore that. I business nothing is more important than having satiesfied customers who tell other people how good the product is. That's invaluable.

[Netcop]

I am personally also waiting for new Radarbox 5ХХ and am also disappointed that we probably won't see a new release until the end of this summer. But in Arnav’s answers here I have found a very constructive point for me personally. MLAT isn't a first priority and work on a new release will start (or have already started) with bugs fixing and implementing more useful new features in the software.  Sure it’s not the right place for new features suggestions, but more powerful statistic features in a new version are much more important for me.  

Let’s stop some kind of hysteric concerning the timeline for new software and other issues. Airnav obviously isn’t Microsoft and probably doesn’t have enough resources to move a few projects simultaneously. Nothing is wrong with it.  

I’ve been working with Radarbox software/hardware for almost two years and during the last seven months in 24/7 mode. I see bugs, these bugs sometimes seem very unpleasant and even irritating, but not enough for me to say that I want any other software. Even my 3.13 has tank like stability and as for some network server problems – I am not an ATC controller, it’s a hobby for me and from my point of view we don’t have any serious problems with the network now.

As for the 3D version “10% of the 3D models expected” – when you downloaded 4.03 demo you have a chance of doing a careful inspection of the content of GE_Models directory. If number of models and liveries isn’t enough for you, just don’t buy this upgrade or this version of software. Nobody promised to us to create additional models and liveries. If you want to create additional liveries yourself please contact Airnav. I had a very pleasant experience from cooperation with Airnav Support when I was creating some more liveries for Russian airlines.  

So, why do we see so much pressure on Airnav concerning new version of software?  Probably because customers understand that only Airnav may give us something that we’re looking  for as a new generation amateur plug-and-play ADS-B platform.  Whether Airnav competitors like it or not, it seems to be true.

As for continuous requests about MLAT development, I have simple questions to authors of these requests. Are you ready to pay additional money for this feature, as for 3D? Or, how many customers are ready to pay for new hardware if the only difference comparing with current one will be MLAT support?  

MLAT has found its place in the real ATC world because this technology in its professional (!) implementation, besides other things, provides even higher levels of accuracy than conventional SSR.  Personally I don’t need some MLAT portion in my Radarbox software that will provide accuracy let’s say around 10 miles and will require any manual operations in the interface to see every single non-positional aircraft.

I prefer to see the full picture of non-ADS-B traffic in automatic mode, as I see ADS-B traffic now, but I clearly understand that this approach is very difficult to implement for hobby market if we take in consideration that manufacturer must keep prices for hardware/software and support the network on amateur level.

As for current almost free MLAT and other technologies implementations in the other software, we need to understand one fact – these implementations aren’t real solutions even for amateur customers, but just basic technology demonstrators mainly for UK residents.

As far as I understand Airnav works on some compromise MLAT (or other) solution for Radarbox. It’s a completely different thing from technological, financial and timeline points of view.

Airnav, you know, in the former Soviet Union we have such thing as “word of communist”.  If a man gives this word (to do something) and falls to provide, this will entail very bad implications in his career:-) Sure Airnav staff doesn’t have “red books”, but anyway can you , Airnav, give us, your customers, “word of communist” that we’ll see a new Radarbox software release before November  7 (Great Revolution Holiday in the former Soviet Union :-)

Regards,
Nick

Р.S  And a few words about the market leadership and innovations. Once Airnav announced that ShipTrax project is near to completion, we could all see that competitors also decided to follow this way.

[bratters]

Good balanced post Netcop with many valid points.

A couple of things I would say:

"So, why do we see so much pressure on Airnav concerning new version of software? "
These boxes are £400 each plus maybe £100 for an aerial so hardly surprising that people expect the bugs to be sorted and the update system to be fully functional.  Not so much hysteria, more irritation at the seemingly endless delays.

"Airnav obviously isn’t Microsoft and probably doesn’t have enough resources to move a few projects simultaneously."
That is very true.  There is an English saying: If you can't ride two horses at once, you shouldn't be in the circus.  That is also very true.

"Are you ready to pay additional money for this feature, as for 3D? Or, how many customers are ready to pay for new hardware if the only difference comparing with current one will be MLAT support?"

Yes. If I were satisfied that my Radarbox was a sound solid unit, working properly and regularly updated I would be happy to consider buying into the latest developments. We all want to keep right up to date with the latest technology.
Look at TV - surround sound, high definition, 3D - all recent innovations and selling on the back of a well established product. Same theory.

Overall Netcop we agree; it's a good product that just needs sorting out a bit.
November 7th - revolution day - is an excellent choice of target date.    :)

[CoastGuardJon]

As for continuous requests about MLAT development, I have simple questions to authors of these requests. Are you ready to pay additional money for this feature, as for 3D? Or, how many customers are ready to pay for new hardware if the only difference comparing with current one will be MLAT support?  

I, for one, would just like some honest answers - is MLat even possible with the original RB, some say "no", ANSupport and Dev. seem to say "maybe", but then say we can't say more because of commercial/competitor interest.   If it's not possible with original RB, just say so, then we'll know that we have to go to PlanePlotter - which I haven't done to date, because I haven't got a clue how to use it, and am not very computer literate and struggle with technicalities.   Most of us want MLat to be able to follow, or identify military traffic, which for most operational uses won't use full ADS-B even if so equipped, for very obvious reasons.   All I ask is for some honest and definitive answers...................and yes, I would pay extra for MLat, rather than the Real-Time which I find is a waste of money, if a plane is more than 100nm fom me, what odds does a 5 minute delay make?

[Runway 31]

There isnt anything difficult about using planeplotter, Jon, its more or less download and install as RB cannot be used to feed planeplotter.  You have to tell planeplotter you want to Mlat but thats about it.   There is a small annual cost of around £13 to get the benefit of Mlat.

I would imaging that Mlat would offer sugnificant opportunities for Airnav in being able to offer it to commercial customers to track non ADSB equipped aircraftit giving them a bigger customer pool.  Also Mlat isnt the be all and end all as there has to be sufficient boxes to triangulate the aircraft position accurately. Even although you may be sufficient similarly capable users in your vacinity to enable it to work.  Planeplotter is good but there are plenty of holes in the set up which can only be filled by more users feeding the raw data.  I dont know how often I have been watching an aircraft and it suddenly jumps a 100 miles or so from the current position.

Taking the TV analogy used by Bratters, having the latest and most up to date technology doesnt always offer a significant advantage over what you already have.  I have an HD ready TV and sat box but dont see any great advantage to temp me to pay the hefty monthly fee to get it and the same goes for 3D.  I still get a very good experience using the TV without HD and 3D so continue using it with no desire to upgrade. I would imagine that it will be the same with radarbox especially if there are additional costs.

I wonder id useers have been taken up by the hype of the next version and may be underawed by what it will become.  The majority of users wouldnt be able to identify many of the bugs of the current version and dont use anywhere near the full capabilities of the system as they will be like me in just wanting to know what is above them in the sky by seeing it on screen.

I am more than happy waiting to see what comes along and see what advantages the next version will offer to make a good system even better.  I would rather wait until it is ready than rush things and make a complete mess of it. nothing would be more off putting for current and possible new users.  

Complaining about the lack of progress wont make it happen any faster and my main comment to Airnav would be to be a bit more conservative conservative with the hype and ensure they can produce what they say before opening their mouth.

Alan

[tarbat]

I wonder id useers have been taken up by the hype of the next version and may be underawed by what it will become.  The majority of users wouldnt be able to identify many of the bugs of the current version and dont use anywhere near the full capabilities of the system as they will be like me in just wanting to know what is above them in the sky by seeing it on screen.

Agreed.  Users may be excited about the prospect of MLAT, Beamfinder, etc., but the novelty of the hit-and-miss nature of multilateration can soon make it less appealing.  I've used MLAT for a year, and have decided not to renew my subscription to PP MLAT this time around.  Too many  aircraft jumping around, zig-zagging from east to west coast, making it pure guesswork where the aircraft is.  Sure, if you live in the heavily populated areas of the UK, MLAT may be useful.

Complaining about the lack of progress wont make it happen any faster and my main comment to Airnav would be to be a bit more conservative conservative with the hype and ensure they can produce what they say before opening their mouth.

Agreed.  Less hype from Airnav would be appreciated, so that they're not then having to constantly defend against non-delivery of over-hyped features.  Just fix the bugs as a first priority.  And don't be so frightened of the competition from PP MLAT.

[cool_1]

As for the 3D version “10% of the 3D models expected” – when you downloaded 4.03 demo you have a chance of doing a careful inspection of the content of GE_Models directory. If number of models and liveries isn’t enough for you, just don’t buy this upgrade or this version of software. Nobody promised to us to create additional models and liveries. If you want to create additional liveries yourself please contact Airnav. I had a very pleasant experience from cooperation with Airnav Support when I was creating some more liveries for Russian airlines.   

Netcop,

Although I agree that a 3D Demo is to 'try it first, so that you can see it before purchase ' , it should also be MADE CLEAR if Im going to have to actually finish a large percentage of all the 3D artwork myself after purchasing.   Why should I have to go through all the folders and see whats in and whats out....

If you are buying a car,  you might like to try out a demonstrator car for a test run.  But when you finally order the new model with alloy wheels, you dont expect the new car to be delivered without any tyres on the alloy wheels.  You expect them to be on there so you can use it properly.