anything
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 16043 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Chris11

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #30 on: September 26, 2010, 10:33:47 AM »

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.

Rich

I assume this is in the same format as the route datestamp ie yyyymmddhhmss and is an additional filed in the aircraft table.

I think I will add the same to my database to cover where I add/correct data

abrad41

  • Guest
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #31 on: September 26, 2010, 10:35:46 AM »
romdouk

Quote
So's mine, as my database is updated at least once a week by the ADU SBS/Radarbox Utility. (PLEASE NOTE: I have no connection or pecuniary interest in ADU).
All my aircraft types are correct in most cases (No BKC3/BKC5 or the dreaded ...).
The Operators have standard format (United States Air Force / USA - Air Force etc).
The only unpopulated items I've had in the last 3 weeks are Mis-codes and ground applications.
Regards
Terry
 

So what procussions to do take to make sure that Airnav does not overwite your data

DaveReid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1815
    • Heathrow last 100 ADS-B arrivals
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #32 on: September 26, 2010, 10:55:13 AM »
We're limited to what we can achieve on this front as I'm sure you'll appreciate?

It certainly wasn't my intention to belittle the efforts of the updating team, by all accounts you're doing sterling work.

It's just so frustrating that AirNav seem happy to leave all of us (including you guys) with the impression (rightly or wrongly) that they still haven't got a clue how they are going to integrate your work with the day-to-day operation of RadarBox.
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: BAE 146
« Reply #33 on: September 26, 2010, 11:10:58 AM »
So what procussions to do take to make sure that Airnav does not overwite your data

What I do is run a couple of queries each week to look for problems:
1. WHERE
  (aircraft."AT" = "...") OR
  (aircraft."AT" IS NULL) OR
  (aircraft."AT" = "")

2. WHERE
  (aircraft.AC LIKE "untitl%") OR
  (aircraft.AN LIKE "untitl%")

I maintain a separate field called GA1, which I use to indicate aircraft where I have auto-populated data from GAS.

I have another field called CH, where I put the date that I populated the data from GAS.

Over the last few months this seems to be working well.

abrad41

  • Guest
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #34 on: September 26, 2010, 01:21:17 PM »
Sent you a PM Terry

cheers

Andy

Marpleman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 738
  • Proper aeroplanes!
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #35 on: September 26, 2010, 03:27:47 PM »
We're limited to what we can achieve on this front as I'm sure you'll appreciate?

It certainly wasn't my intention to belittle the efforts of the updating team, by all accounts you're doing sterling work.

It's just so frustrating that AirNav seem happy to leave all of us (including you guys) with the impression (rightly or wrongly) that they still haven't got a clue how they are going to integrate your work with the day-to-day operation of RadarBox.

No worries Dave

If nothing more, then hopefully this thread will at least have stirred enough up to produce some answers?

Rgds

Rich

AirNav Development

  • AirNav Systems
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2545
    • AirNav Systems
Re: BAE 146
« Reply #36 on: September 26, 2010, 11:43:37 PM »
One more time we underline that we are discussing all the possible solutions with the database updaters team.