RadarBox Software Update

[ACW367]

Tarbat - with your number 4 on the list, you have:
The Hex Code Confusion Bug - Data (callsigns, altitudes, squawks, etc) being assigned to the wrong aircraft.

Airnav have strongly stated this cannot be fixed.  Therefore I think this should be instead called:
The Hex Code Confusion Design Limitation. 

All we can hope for in the future is that in the supporting Airnav literature and tutorials fully explain the nature of this limitation, so that users can understand that not every aircraft they see in myflights is actually airborne in reality.   

[tarbat]

Tarbat - with your number 4 on the list, you have:
The Hex Code Confusion Bug - Data (callsigns, altitudes, squawks, etc) being assigned to the wrong aircraft.

Airnav have strongly stated this cannot be fixed.  Therefore I think this should be instead called:
The Hex Code Confusion Design Limitation. 

Whereas I (and others) believe it can be fixed.  A user configurable setting in Preferences that sets the number of identical messages that must be received with the same Hex Code and Data (callsign, altitude, squawk) combination before the data is presumed to be correct.  That would stop the occasional corrupted message being presumed correct.  On the downside, it would reduce the display of this data on the edge of your reception range, hence the need for it to be user configurable.

It's what Kinetic did (without the user configurability bit) on the SBS-1.

And attached is the list in PDF for those without Excel (sorry!).

[bearcat]

Just a question on your list regarding the "Users Affected". How can you be sure that only "Very Few" users are affected by a bug as  not everyone will appreciate there is a bug or in fact reports it, but just tollerates it?

On the subject of Hex Code Confusion, with 40 aircraft in the list, I have seen 2 aircraft eg EZY & BAW, showing the same F/N but a diffferent route, which suggests a software problem.

Bearcat

[tarbat]

Just a question on your list regarding the "Users Affected". How can you be sure that only "Very Few" users are affected by a bug as  not everyone will appreciate there is a bug or in fact reports it, but just tollerates it?

We're trying to identify which bugs have the most impact on end-users.  For example, the equatorial black hole bug is a bug that exists in ALL users' systems, but most users would never notice the bug.  Whereas the mangled ICAO type bug is probably noticed by everyone.  It's a designation I've used in my previous job as a UAT co-ordinator.

On the subject of Hex Code Confusion, with 40 aircraft in the list, I have seen 2 aircraft eg EZY & BAW, showing the same F/N but a diffferent route, which suggests a software problem.

Can you post a screenshot with an example of this.  Or a link to a previous discussion about it.  Thanks.

[bearcat]

I guess I'm being a bit cynical in thinking that the grading will reflect on the resolve to sort these bugs.

On the subject of the route issue I'm not sure if I have a screenshot, I'll have a look later and post it if I have one, as it's something I've just tolerated.

[bearcat]

Tried to upload a jpeg screenshot (76Kb) but getting a security error when uploading

"Your attachment has failed security checks and cannot be uploaded. Please consult the forum administrator."

[tarbat]

Tried to upload a jpeg screenshot (76Kb) but getting a security error when uploading

"Your attachment has failed security checks and cannot be uploaded. Please consult the forum administrator."

Can you upload the screenshot to your flickr account?

[bearcat]

Didn't think about that. It's there now

Bearcat

[Marpleman]

Rich
Us updaters have the tools we need, what is falling down is the information we are creating is corrupted in the way it is presented to users either as it passes through the server, or is interpreted from the updater created information held in Navdata.

Regards
ACW367

That's what I was tryimg to say! Just didn't come across right - you know me!!

Not the correct thread, but I can't believe how much improvement has been generated by the updaters over the past 12 months, and I also applaud AirNav for the ongoing releases of the database files(which I notice, there's just been another).

The icing on the cake would be to resolve those issues that lead to the corruption ACW refers to.

Regards

Rich

[tarbat]

Updated list in Impact/Severity order.

[chewycanes]

Hi Tarbat

Excellent table which clarifies the bugs and give us something concrete to check against in the next software issue.

I see though from your latest list you have included MLAT and Beamfinder which are new features and wondererd if you were hoping to include in this list other items that were discussed earlier in the year identified in thread

http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=2885.msg61369#msg61369

Perhaps you could just add 021 Other features and just add the link above to cover them so they don't get forgotten.

Thanks
Brian







Thanks
Brian

[tarbat]

Perhaps you could just add 021 Other features and just add the link above to cover them so they don't get forgotten.

Done.

[Henning]

What about the bugs which are already noted on this Airnav-Site: http://www.airnavsystems.com/bugs/
I think that not all of these bugs appear on Tarbat's list.

There is at least one bug which is in their list but not on Tarbat's list. It's the bug which I posted some time ago. It's that the altitude of the aircraft in the 3D-view is not correct:
http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=5238.0

This bug keeps me from using the 3D-feature!

BTW that bug is really easy to fix. Only one conversion from feet to meter has to added to the software.

[pjm]

There is at least one bug which is in their list but not on Tarbat's list. It's the bug which I posted some time ago. It's that the altitude of the aircraft in the 3D-view is not correct

Airnav has already explained that it is working as designed, and was done to create a more realistic view.

Its not considered a bug, and it was discussed during the 3D beta testing. Likely if there is a fix it would be an option that you could set if you wanted the "correct" altitude.

You might find you would revert to the default that Airnav have set anyway, as you would not like the "correct" view.

[Henning]

Its not considered a bug

That's not true and Airnav has added this bug to their buglist as you can see under the link which I have posted. I hope that they're going to implement the proposed solution with a correct altitude and the option to adjust the shown altitudes by a user-defined factor like it is possible in Google Earth for the terrain.

You might find you would revert to the default that Airnav have set anyway, as you would not like the "correct" view.

It's okay if I as the user can decide what I like best. I don't want someone else to tell me what I like! And especially not if that what is said to be the best is a technically incorrect solution!