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

Login with username, password and session length
 


Author Topic: BAE 146  (Read 16044 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Marpleman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 738
  • Proper aeroplanes!
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #15 on: September 25, 2010, 08:07:56 PM »
Just to confirm - yes we are, and yes we will!!!

Don't particularly like the middle para though ! (other than the bit about doing an "excellent job" :-))

Rich

tarbat

  • ShipTrax Beta Testers
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4219
    • Radarbox at Easter Ross
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #16 on: September 25, 2010, 09:11:53 PM »
They are doing an excellent job: thanks to them RadarBox is still the only Virtual Radar with included database updates (both aircraft and callsign) integrated into the provided software for free.

The one flaw in this statement is that the databases are way out of date, and Airnav are sitting on thousands of updates to these databases, and appear to be unwilling to say what plans they have for releasing that data.

It would only take a few hours to create a solution to force update to our local databases, and fix the "..." problem.  But we see no progress.  The ratio of database team effort to Airnav effort appears to be 100:1 (or more!!).

My nagging doubt is that Airnav will not release a new navdata database, because they fear that doing so will lose them a competitve edge over the competition.

Airnav, what is the plan of action here, and timescales?
« Last Edit: September 25, 2010, 09:13:51 PM by tarbat »

DaveG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 543
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #17 on: September 25, 2010, 09:20:24 PM »
Tarbat,  just so I understand why do you say this:

My nagging doubt is that Airnav will not release a new navdata database, because they fear that doing so will lose them a competitve edge over the competition.

Cheers
Dave
Cornwall, UK

AirNav Development

  • AirNav Systems
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2545
    • AirNav Systems
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #18 on: September 25, 2010, 09:31:17 PM »
Again we are discussing with the database updaters the best way of approaching this.

tarbat

  • ShipTrax Beta Testers
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4219
    • Radarbox at Easter Ross
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #19 on: September 25, 2010, 09:38:06 PM »
Dave, I fear that Airnav may think that by releasing a fully up-to-date navdata database, that could then be used by owners of competing products to populate a basestation.sqb for use with those products.  If, instead, they only provide the updates via. the Radarbox software, then they retain a perceived competitive advantage.

Of course, I may be totally wrong on this.  But I just can't understand why Airnav won't tell us what their plans/timescales are to make the data available.  I would have thought that when they recruited the database updating team, they had a plan in place to distribute their hard work.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2010, 09:40:06 PM by tarbat »

DaveG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 543
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #20 on: September 25, 2010, 09:50:18 PM »
Okay I see where your coming from, but could that not have also been true when the product was first released?

For me as part of my updating, I used a empty Navdata file to see what updates etc were coming down, doing this has removed all the old data and most of the stuff I get now is what we have already updated.  Understand for most people this is not an options as they would lose any stuff their interested in, all I did was backup my original navdata in case I wanted to access it.  (including deleting after saving the images)

Dave
Cornwall, UK

AirNav Development

  • AirNav Systems
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2545
    • AirNav Systems
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #21 on: September 25, 2010, 09:50:18 PM »
>Dave, I fear that Airnav may think that by releasing a fully up-to-date navdata database, that could then be used by owners of competing products to populate a basestation.sqb for use with those products.

Chris, you are totally wrong on this. We can't tell you any plans/timescales as we are still discussing this with the Updaters team. The hard work done by the database updaters team is being stored on the database servers and properly propagated to the client applications (except on some cases as discussed above).

tarbat

  • ShipTrax Beta Testers
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4219
    • Radarbox at Easter Ross
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #22 on: September 25, 2010, 10:12:11 PM »
The hard work done by the database updaters team is being stored on the database servers and properly propagated to the client applications (except on some cases as discussed above).

No, it's NOT being propagated to the client applications if that client application (eg Radarbox) already has out-of-date or incorrect data stored in it's database.

But, if you're saying you can't tell us the plans/timescales until you've agreed this with the Updaters team, then fine - I trust the updaters team to look after the best interests of Radarbox users.  But the impression I was getting is that there is no plan/timescale.

In the meantime, I've:
1. Deleted my aircrafts table.
2. Re-populated the 12,000 aircraft in MyLog from GAS.
3. Added a CH date/timestamp field to my aircraft table.
4. Have a process in place to regularly re-populate potentially out-of-date or incorrect data.

So, my database is fixed.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2010, 10:14:49 PM by tarbat »

CoastGuardJon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1178
  • Mullion Cove, Kernow --- sw Cornwall UK.
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #23 on: September 25, 2010, 10:23:28 PM »
Hi all, I just wish I was computer savvy enough to use the db upgrade that you've put together  - I haven't a clue - any info would be gratefully received.   Is it as simple as opening up the ANRB folder, delete a "db" file and paste in the update?   Sorry to ask something as basic as this, I am struggling!    I suppose I can always delete and try it - I'm not worried about losing history files, but have already once b*ggered it up, had the hassle of re-formatting HDDs, then re-installing (got rid of a load of cr*p in doing so though - a few anxious hours re-loading and a lot of Acer stuff still missing) Win 7 O/S and loads of other stuff - computer does run a heck of a lot faster though.
ANRB :  AOR AR8000 : Icom R-7000 : Icom IC-R9000 : JRC NRD-545 : OptoElectronics Digital Scout and OptoLinx Interface; Realistic Pro-2005 : UBC 800XLT - listed in alphabetical order, not cost, preference, performance or entertainment value!

DaveReid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1815
    • Heathrow last 100 ADS-B arrivals
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #24 on: September 26, 2010, 07:51:18 AM »
We're also aware of a "target" database that would be worth releasing, and at the moment, we're not there - or near for that matter - so maybe we need to gauge peoples opinions as to what is acceptable, before any new Navdata file is released?

It might help to look at it this way: 

A customer who goes out tomorrow and buys a brand new RadarBox, and plans to operate it without an Internet connection (which is a perfectly legitimate mode of use, Internet isn't listed as a requirement) will basically be getting a database that's more than 2 years out-of-date, and the updaters team might just as well not exist as far as he/she is concerned.

And the argument that "OK, our current database is cr*p, but at least we've got one whereas the competition hasn't" doesn't really hold water, does it ?

After we discuss some of the suggestions above with our Updaters team we will be back with more information.

One might have hoped that, at the same time the updaters team started work all those months ago, AirNav would have also started work on an architecture that would support the new database.

Instead, it would seem, months later, we haven't got past the "discussing suggestions" stage.
This post has been scanned for any traces of negativity, bias, sarcasm and general anti-social behaviour

Chris11

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #25 on: September 26, 2010, 07:57:47 AM »
To me it seems very clear that there can be no improvement until a date stamp field is added to aircraft table in the database. The software will have to be changed to check the network database to see if the datestamp on the network is later or not. There should be an ability for users to add a code into that field if they never want the data overwritten.

I think any user with a small amount of technical sense will realise if they are not connected to the internet their information will be dated the day they buy it. I am more concerned with the dated information for people who do connect to the internet

bratters

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #26 on: September 26, 2010, 08:03:43 AM »

They are doing an excellent job: thanks to them RadarBox is still the only Virtual Radar with included database updates (both aircraft and callsign) integrated into the provided software for free. As everyone knows, with RadarBox you don't have to rely on paid/external addons to something that is already included on the main application.


Well, it seems to me that here is the nub of the matter in black and white.

Having a system where "database updates (are) included integrated into the provided software for free" may well be the virtual radar Holy Grail however if that system fails then the user is in big trouble.

If things stop working, the customer finds himself locked into a system that, far from "have(ing) to rely on paid/external addons", actually prevents him from accessing the external data he now needs.

There's nothing new here as any PC user will testify. A system is valid for as long as it can be updated and maintained.  After that, it's junk.


DaveReid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1815
    • Heathrow last 100 ADS-B arrivals
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #27 on: September 26, 2010, 08:17:37 AM »
I think any user with a small amount of technical sense will realise if they are not connected to the internet their information will be dated the day they buy it.

Er, yes.

What might not be so obvious to a user, no matter how technically savvy they are, is that a product calling itself RadarBox 2010 still ships with a database that belonged in RadarBox 2008.
This post has been scanned for any traces of negativity, bias, sarcasm and general anti-social behaviour

Marpleman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 738
  • Proper aeroplanes!
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #28 on: September 26, 2010, 09:44:51 AM »
To me it seems very clear that there can be no improvement until a date stamp field is added to aircraft table in the database. The software will have to be changed to check the network database to see if the datestamp on the network is later or not. There should be an ability for users to add a code into that field if they never want the data overwritten.


Hi Chris

On the current server database, every record has a date stamp attached, and is automatically changed when one of the team amends/adds a record.

I don't know if this is to be included within any future NavData files though.

AirNav?

HTH

Rich

Marpleman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 738
  • Proper aeroplanes!
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #29 on: September 26, 2010, 09:54:39 AM »
We're also aware of a "target" database that would be worth releasing, and at the moment, we're not there - or near for that matter - so maybe we need to gauge peoples opinions as to what is acceptable, before any new Navdata file is released?

It might help to look at it this way: 

A customer who goes out tomorrow and buys a brand new RadarBox, and plans to operate it without an Internet connection (which is a perfectly legitimate mode of use, Internet isn't listed as a requirement) will basically be getting a database that's more than 2 years out-of-date, and the updaters team might just as well not exist as far as he/she is concerned.

And the argument that "OK, our current database is cr*p, but at least we've got one whereas the competition hasn't" doesn't really hold water, does it ?


I was actually commenting on the possibility of a methodology of continual weekly/monthly updates , following on from a release of a suitably sized initial "up to date" NavData file, rather than wait until we've covered all bases.


After we discuss some of the suggestions above with our Updaters team we will be back with more information.

One might have hoped that, at the same time the updaters team started work all those months ago, AirNav would have also started work on an architecture that would support the new database.

Instead, it would seem, months later, we haven't got past the "discussing suggestions" stage.

Of course we have, but this stage is a continual process as most people will realise - things don't just get set in stone on day one - they may do if only one person is involved, but as I've tried to explain, we're finding new ideas/suggestions as time evolves.

We've suggested - now it's over to AirNav to decide which suits their software approach the best?

We're limited to what we can achieve on this front as I'm sure you'll appreciate?