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

Login with username, password and session length
 


Author Topic: Improving RadarBox Automatic Database Population  (Read 24987 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

tarbat

  • ShipTrax Beta Testers
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4219
    • Radarbox at Easter Ross
Re: Improving RadarBox Automatic Database Population
« Reply #15 on: February 26, 2011, 02:27:00 PM »
Just a heads-up for the next version, but 42 aircraft in this new database still have invalid ICAO Type codes (field AT), and there are around 611 aircraft types without silhouettes available.

Note that if end-users make use of IanK's silhouettes, then there are only 281 silhouettes missing for this new database:

E45X, CRES, LAE1, GLF6, S108, GOLF, R722, C188, CP23, JCOM, PP2, DR1, DR22, FLIZ, GA20, GY20, SA30, YK55, DG60, G103, PNR2, RV3, UF13, XA85, CT4, DC3T, PK15, SF28, CASS, FB1A, HB23, MC10, MXS, NIPR, P8, PAT4, R721, SE5A, SRAI, UHEL, V322, BE77, C162, CH30, D31, IFUR, MG21, PK20, PKAN, SF2, SKYR, SONX, SU95, VTOR, WACC, B207, CORS, CP13, CRER, DC3S, DFLY, E230, EAGX, FA01, FA62, L181, M22, PITA, PT80, RF3, RV12, S1, SBOY, SU29, TAYA, VALI, VP2, XA42, , BE80, BE88, BL11, C06T, CA25, CB1, CH20, CJ1, CP32, DH2T, DWD2, EVIC, F156, F60, FINC, FLSS, G73, GP3, HDJT, HUML, IS28, J2, JT2, KZ7, L11, L18, LK19, LYSA, M28, MS31, MS73, N120, P2, PK21, PK23, QIC2, RC3, RENE, RJ03, RLU1, RS12, RYST, SA02, SAKO, SIDE, SKIM, SNS7, SPST, STOR, TAYD, VJ22, WA41, WFOC, -, A019, A22L, AA5B, AS31, AUJ4, B25B, B422, B757, BIPL, BLKS, BN2, BU81, C153, C190, C365, C430, C526, CA61, CA65, CA7T, CH65, CH75, CHR4, CL4T, CLA, COOT, CORO, CP20, CP21, DA50, DC83, DC92, DIMP, DSA1, E2CB, EC47, ECH0, ELST, EP9, FALC, FL55, FLE2, FNKB, FW44, G140, G202, G2GL, G46, GAUN, GM17, GP4, GSIS, H40, HI27, HM38, ISPT, JAJ5, JD2, KIS2, KL35, KNTW, KR1, KRAG, KZ2, L11E, L159, L37, LAK4, LC42, LNK4, M2HK, M2OT, MAGN, MC45, MD3, MG29, MIMU, MJ5, MJ7, MONA, MR35, MUS2, MY13, N3, N3N, NDIC, NORS, P36, P68T, P80, PA26, PEGZ, PETR, PK11, PK18, PNR4, PO2, PO60, PT22, PT70, PTMS, QR01, QUIC, RA14, RAF2, RAV5, RC70, S200, S210, S51D, S78, SA10, SAH1, SASY, SAVG, SCAM, SE5R, SEAW, SF23, SF27, SHEK, SKYC, SPHA, SRAS, ST30, TA20, TAIL, TBEE, TBM, TCAT, TEXA, TF19, TF21, TFK2, TMUS, TNAV, TRF1, TRIM, UL10, UT75, VIPJ, VIX, VTUR, WA42, WACO, WAIX, WOPU, YK53

ACW367

  • Guest
Re: Improving RadarBox Automatic Database Population
« Reply #16 on: February 27, 2011, 12:46:36 PM »
Airnav

Can you now confirm what your plans are for ensuring all required silhouettes and models, which are not included in the current 3.13 and 4.03 releases (as they also were not for the 2.0 release), are to be added and included over the coming '5 amazing releases'.

Regards
ACW367

AirNav Development

  • AirNav Systems
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2545
    • AirNav Systems
Re: Improving RadarBox Automatic Database Population
« Reply #17 on: February 28, 2011, 01:13:56 AM »
Any volunteers to develop the missing silhouettes? ACW367/Tarbat: are you able to help us with this task?

Regarding missing models: documentation is available for such development so, just like FS users do, why not developing such models too? It would bring a lot more value to the community.

ACW367

  • Guest
Re: Improving RadarBox Automatic Database Population
« Reply #18 on: February 28, 2011, 02:16:05 AM »
Any volunteers to develop the missing silhouettes? ACW367/Tarbat: are you able to help us with this task?

Regarding missing models: documentation is available for such development so, just like FS users do, why not developing such models too? It would bring a lot more value to the community.

No doing quite enough already!!

Marpleman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 738
  • Proper aeroplanes!
Re: Improving RadarBox Automatic Database Population
« Reply #19 on: February 28, 2011, 11:51:44 AM »
Any volunteers to develop the missing silhouettes? ACW367/Tarbat: are you able to help us with this task?

Regarding missing models: documentation is available for such development so, just like FS users do, why not developing such models too? It would bring a lot more value to the community.

Unbelievable!!!

Maybe the forum members could look at fixing bugs, re-writing software as well whilst they are keeping the database going?

Surely there's a minimum standard that needs to remain "in house" here?

In a desparate way, I can understand the aircraft database, although it still remains highly controversial as we've all witnessed, but silhouettes and 3D models is pushing the boundary way too far in my opinion.

AirNav Support

  • AirNav Systems
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4127
Re: Improving RadarBox Automatic Database Population
« Reply #20 on: February 28, 2011, 12:13:30 PM »
Marpleman,

The silhouettes itself were never created by us and something that users requested for which other members and people in the community had made them and allowed them to be included in the last release.

AirNav never created any of them this is why we are asking as last time they were provided by kind individuals who were creating them for the benefit of the community.
Contact Customer/Technical support via:
http://www.airnavsystems.com/contact.html
[email protected]

AirNav Development

  • AirNav Systems
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2545
    • AirNav Systems
Re: Improving RadarBox Automatic Database Population
« Reply #21 on: February 28, 2011, 12:52:02 PM »
Marpleman, silhouettes, airline logos, outlines have always been developed by our users and we helped them adding these features to the main software improving, as an example the airline logo identification routine several times as per our users request. There are things that are much better done by end users taking in account that we will do anything possible to accommodate users requests for these features.

There are hundreds of examples of this on the tech community: 99.9% of browser addons are developed by end users. Themes are usually developed by end users, etc, etc.

This has nothing to with software development, database integration, server optimization: those are things that are and will ever be done by us.

Marpleman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 738
  • Proper aeroplanes!
Re: Improving RadarBox Automatic Database Population
« Reply #22 on: February 28, 2011, 02:29:30 PM »
Dev/Support

I totally understand where you're coming from with those comments, but as the database/logo's/silhouettes/flags, and whilst I'm at it, routes, come out of the "tin" so to speak, it reflects badly on the product, if there are holes in the standing data available as part of version downloads, or on the software cd.

The aircraft database and routes could be treated as an exception to this, due to the frequency in which they change,  however everything else is pretty static?

One of the reasons I chose RadarBox was the fact that the user could simply load the cd and not have to go trawling off to find other add ons - this being a highly attractive marketing point at the time.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, this is no longer the case guys!

We have to lump it, in as far as new aircraft being picked up without a silhouette, and if Rod ever hangs up his hat, god forbid where we'd be with  airline/operator logos?

Does the current download off the website incorporate the new navdata file yet?

If not, then surely it should, as it reflects the current situation available to users.

These ase just my opinions obviously!




« Last Edit: February 28, 2011, 03:20:55 PM by Marpleman »

DaveG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 543
Re: Improving RadarBox Automatic Database Population
« Reply #23 on: February 28, 2011, 03:03:33 PM »
Airnav, correct me if I'm wrong.  But do you not sell the product with silhouettes and 3D models, and the program was designed to display them.  If the answer to both of these is yes then it should be Airnav providing the goods to the paying customer. 

I'm all for third parties helping improve and enhance products but you (Airnav) are very quick to put-down or distance yourself from third party products.

When you try to put everything into a product and exclude third parties your never going to keep everything up to date, and if you can't do not even try as that is what people will expect.


Cornwall, UK

bratters

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
Re: Improving RadarBox Automatic Database Population
« Reply #24 on: February 28, 2011, 03:18:18 PM »

One of the reasons I chose RadarBox was the fact that the user could simply load the cd and not have to go trawling off to find other add ons - this being a highly attractive marketing point at the time.

Me too. Being a computer numpty, I wanted "plug 'n play" simplicity.
 
I can still mess around with aerials and bits of wiring thanks to earlier radio experience, but when it comes to PCs - forget it. Nor do I particularly want to learn PC use beyond my immediate needs.

For several months now I have not clearly understood the work being undertaken by others beyond the fact that several forum members (and FDL) have been trying to update and supply data - data that I genuinely thought would come directly from Airnav as part of the original deal.

The pity of it is that my box still works very well and reliably, the display and information presentation is good and very much to my liking but the original high quality data stream has not been sustained.

Let's hope all these current discussions and exchanges of views will soon put things back on an even keel.






LSZS

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Re: Improving RadarBox Automatic Database Population
« Reply #25 on: February 28, 2011, 03:45:26 PM »


Created using this SQL:
SELECT DISTINCT 
  Aircraft.AircraftTypeSmall,
  COUNT(Aircraft.ModeS) AS Counter
FROM
 Aircraft
 LEFT OUTER JOIN GE_Models ON (Aircraft.AircraftTypeSmall=GE_Models."AT")
WHERE
  (GE_Models."AT" IS NULL) AND
  (Aircraft.ADSB = "Y")
GROUP BY
  Aircraft.AircraftTypeSmall
ORDER BY
  Counter DESC

OT: SQL Error: near "(": syntax error
I'm using sqllite maestro 9.10.0.4
Engadin Airport auf 1707m / 5600ft. Europas höchstgelegener Flughafen
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stefanobazzi/

tarbat

  • ShipTrax Beta Testers
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4219
    • Radarbox at Easter Ross
Re: Improving RadarBox Automatic Database Population
« Reply #26 on: February 28, 2011, 04:14:59 PM »
Any volunteers to develop the missing silhouettes? ACW367/Tarbat: are you able to help us with this task?

Sorry, I don't have the talent to make silhouettes (I've tried!).

Best approach would be to provide a new menu function in Radarbox v4.04 called "Import Silhouettes".  End users could then download IanK's full set of silhouettes, and the "Import Silhouettes" function would resize these to 68x16 and save them in the silhouettes folder.  Simple.

End users would then end up with around 1270 silhouettes covering the vast majority of ICAO types without having to distribute resized versions of IanK's silhouettes (which would breach his copyright).

On a similar note, a new menu function called "Import Routes" would also be a useful way of creating up-to-date route data, based on that freely available at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PP-logs-and-routes/files/ (48000+ routes).

bratters

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
Re: Improving RadarBox Automatic Database Population
« Reply #27 on: February 28, 2011, 04:34:27 PM »
Tarbat, you make things sound so simple and straightforward, but if that's the case why oh why doesn't it happen?

AirNav Support

  • AirNav Systems
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4127
Re: Improving RadarBox Automatic Database Population
« Reply #28 on: February 28, 2011, 04:49:45 PM »
Marpleman/ DaveG/ bratters

We have to be careful where we draw the line otherwise we will end in a position where we constantly updating everything and this cost will have to be past back to customers. Some of you will read this and get annoyed but you have to be realistic.

If we were to now decide we will create the Silhouettes in house this would be a cost to us especially since we never created them in the first place and the community etc.. provided them. If we do this then in the same area we should then be providing detailed views of all major airports that the community has helpfully provided. Again this would be a large cost to us. Furthermore customers would demand all the 3D models of all aircraft should be provided with all the liveries. Again that would be an enormous task and have a significant cost.

That's not to say we will just ignore them but we are trying to get the most used models etc.. and provide them but we cannot be expected to provide everything. In the example of Silhouettes and Airport views, this can be a community effort and has been in the past.

With respect to the Aircraft Database work is being done via the updater's who are doing a fantastic job and the server/client issues are being worked on and a more permanent link for updates  and we hope to have this resolved with the new software.

The routes use FlightStats to determine routes currently and we are using other means to gain better results. Again in this case we have done a good deal to get routes but the server/client issues need to be resolved but we cannot be expected to provide routes for all the world without some of the cost being past back.

Some of you mention add-ons but as shown recently many of these have now gone or now have charges. What we are doing is providing a lot of these services for free and absorbing the cost.
Contact Customer/Technical support via:
http://www.airnavsystems.com/contact.html
[email protected]

Runway 31

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33776
Re: Improving RadarBox Automatic Database Population
« Reply #29 on: February 28, 2011, 05:01:41 PM »
Tarbat,

When you mention 1270 silhouettes on Ian K's site, I take it this figure included the 100's of ones not yet available?

I dont see anything wrong with users themselves going to the site as has been done for years and getting them ourselves and re-sizing., do we really need a nanny state to do everything for us?

The ones not available are hardly going to reduce the pleasure of using the box as they are not very frequently seen, especially here in Scotland.

Alan