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

Login with username, password and session length
 


Author Topic: Your experience upgrading to 5.00.044  (Read 77555 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Runway 31

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32018
Re: Your experience upgrading to 5.00.044
« Reply #210 on: October 26, 2013, 12:35:36 PM »
Hi Ingo,

Following receipt of your reply I have tried the search function on the aircraft table and I have looked up 10 aircraft taken at random from the network display and all have been found.  I have not pressed the show all button

Similarly opening up mylog opens at todays flights as it always has done.

Alan
« Last Edit: October 26, 2013, 01:05:33 PM by Runway 31 »

tarbat

  • ShipTrax Beta Testers
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4219
    • Radarbox at Easter Ross
Re: Your experience upgrading to 5.00.044
« Reply #211 on: October 26, 2013, 12:37:50 PM »
Ingo, when I tested the fix for 3D altitude the values looked correct to me, so I'm surprised you're still seeing problems.  I've looked back through my testing log, and once the programmer made the changes I observed:
Quote
Chris : 9 Sep 2013 : Tested thoroughly, and this now appears to be working correctly. Checking the object altitudes in Google Earth via. the GE port shows aircraft flying at the correct altitude in 3D space. For example, ICE503 showing as flying at 39025ft in MyFlights, and the object in Google Earth has an altitude of 11895m.
You can see I even went to the trouble of checking the actual values being passes to the GE Plugin.  Can you capture an example of the wrong altitude in 3D and post a screenshot.  I can't test in 3D at the moment.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2013, 01:05:48 PM by tarbat »

neroon79

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4657
Re: Your experience upgrading to 5.00.044
« Reply #212 on: October 26, 2013, 01:04:54 PM »
Hi Alan,

I did the search again, and now it works. But when I posted the mishap it was reproduceable. Don't know what has caused it. These are the worst mistakes/errors that can happen: Comming and goinig without identifying the original cause.

Hi tarbat:

I enabled pilots view and was reading the alt in myflights list. As the airframe was flying over my house, the vision doesn't look right (much too high) so I noted the alt in ft re-calculated it to metres and went to GE. The area visible in Radarbox seems to be about ten times to high. Will wait until next EDDV arrival an taking some screenshots to proof.

Ingo
Greetings from northern Germany, Ingo
11.75nm ESE of EDDV

SW: ANRB v5.00.072/6.01.001 on WIN10 64Bit Pro&Home
HW:
Ant.: DPD Productions ADS-B Vertical Outdoor Base Antenna
AMP: Kuhne electr. KU LNA 1090 A TM
Cable: 25m of ECOFLEX 15+
NB: Asus P53E 24/7 op.
PC: 28"4K + 24" Monitor
AirSpy mini @RPi3

tarbat

  • ShipTrax Beta Testers
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4219
    • Radarbox at Easter Ross
Re: Your experience upgrading to 5.00.044
« Reply #213 on: October 26, 2013, 01:11:28 PM »
Ingo, if you're familiar with Google Earth, you can test this for yourself, by setting up a NETWORK LINK in GE containing:
        http://localhost:7895/AircraftHW.kmz

You can then see the actual altitudes being assigned to each aircraft in GE 3D space.  Maybe what you're observing is a FOV vs ZOOM effect?
« Last Edit: October 26, 2013, 01:17:32 PM by tarbat »

neroon79

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4657
Re: Your experience upgrading to 5.00.044
« Reply #214 on: October 26, 2013, 01:44:25 PM »
I think this a little more then a FOV versus ZOOM effect...

The area seen by GE plugin (PIC1 GE Plugin RB sw) and in GE itself (PIC3-4 in GE at same hight and aprox. same tilt angle) aren't even close to match up for the hight of 3385ft (1031m).

Maybe there is some kind of difference in handling of data and/or view calculation / display between the GE plug-in used in ANRB and GE itself.

Ingo
Greetings from northern Germany, Ingo
11.75nm ESE of EDDV

SW: ANRB v5.00.072/6.01.001 on WIN10 64Bit Pro&Home
HW:
Ant.: DPD Productions ADS-B Vertical Outdoor Base Antenna
AMP: Kuhne electr. KU LNA 1090 A TM
Cable: 25m of ECOFLEX 15+
NB: Asus P53E 24/7 op.
PC: 28"4K + 24" Monitor
AirSpy mini @RPi3

neroon79

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4657
Re: Your experience upgrading to 5.00.044
« Reply #215 on: October 26, 2013, 01:51:08 PM »
Addition:

Although I must admit, that it is already much better then in V4.03.

With GE plugin in RB software it's a little bit like looking through a wide angle lens.

Ingo
« Last Edit: October 26, 2013, 01:54:57 PM by neroon79 »
Greetings from northern Germany, Ingo
11.75nm ESE of EDDV

SW: ANRB v5.00.072/6.01.001 on WIN10 64Bit Pro&Home
HW:
Ant.: DPD Productions ADS-B Vertical Outdoor Base Antenna
AMP: Kuhne electr. KU LNA 1090 A TM
Cable: 25m of ECOFLEX 15+
NB: Asus P53E 24/7 op.
PC: 28"4K + 24" Monitor
AirSpy mini @RPi3

tarbat

  • ShipTrax Beta Testers
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4219
    • Radarbox at Easter Ross
Re: Your experience upgrading to 5.00.044
« Reply #216 on: October 26, 2013, 01:55:38 PM »
Ingo, as I say, I can't test at the moment because I'm waiting for Airnav to re-enable my 3D access (it was turned off to test something else).  As soon as I've got 3D access back, I'll check this.  If you're able to setup the NETWORK LINK in GE I suggested you should be able to verify that the correct aircraft altitudes are being passed to the GE plugin.

neroon79

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4657
Re: Your experience upgrading to 5.00.044
« Reply #217 on: October 26, 2013, 02:05:29 PM »
Yes, I was able to check the altitudes in GE. An they are indeed correct (despite the usual rounding errors). And i temporaryly switched back to V4 on the other machine and used pilots view there too. Comparing the two, the view in/under V5 is indeed much better. But somehow the view is different to GE. 

And: Latidude, Longitude are shown correctly, but altitude is shown as  (see picture). I guess this counts as a real problem.
Greetings from northern Germany, Ingo
11.75nm ESE of EDDV

SW: ANRB v5.00.072/6.01.001 on WIN10 64Bit Pro&Home
HW:
Ant.: DPD Productions ADS-B Vertical Outdoor Base Antenna
AMP: Kuhne electr. KU LNA 1090 A TM
Cable: 25m of ECOFLEX 15+
NB: Asus P53E 24/7 op.
PC: 28"4K + 24" Monitor
AirSpy mini @RPi3

Runway 31

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32018
Re: Your experience upgrading to 5.00.044
« Reply #218 on: October 26, 2013, 02:06:10 PM »
Ingo,

3D was changed because a user complained that he didnt like the view we had been using previously and requested that it be changed to show the correct altitude.  http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=5238.0

Alan

neroon79

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4657
Re: Your experience upgrading to 5.00.044
« Reply #219 on: October 26, 2013, 02:20:45 PM »
I didn't like the previous view either and from my point of view it's already much better then in V4, but there is still a little missmatch between GE plugin view and GE. If using GE plugin in V5 it still seems, that the "view altitude" is a little to high and the field of view a little to big (like looking through a wide angle lens).

To be clear: It's complaining at a very high level of satisfaction. I'll be able to live with the current view, what wasn't the case with V4. But maybe it's possible to squeeze it a little bit more...

Ingo
Greetings from northern Germany, Ingo
11.75nm ESE of EDDV

SW: ANRB v5.00.072/6.01.001 on WIN10 64Bit Pro&Home
HW:
Ant.: DPD Productions ADS-B Vertical Outdoor Base Antenna
AMP: Kuhne electr. KU LNA 1090 A TM
Cable: 25m of ECOFLEX 15+
NB: Asus P53E 24/7 op.
PC: 28"4K + 24" Monitor
AirSpy mini @RPi3

tarbat

  • ShipTrax Beta Testers
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4219
    • Radarbox at Easter Ross
Re: Your experience upgrading to 5.00.044
« Reply #220 on: October 26, 2013, 02:47:44 PM »
When I chatted with the developer whilst we were fixing the previous bug (feet instead of metres) it was apparent that he was working within the limitations of the GE plugin, which has limited options (eg tilt angle restrictions, FOV, etc.).  I think we now have a 3D view that accurately puts the aircraft in 3D space, but has to work within the limitations of the GE plugin.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2013, 02:49:47 PM by tarbat »

Frank

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
Re: Your experience upgrading to 5.00.044
« Reply #221 on: October 27, 2013, 10:07:55 AM »
Hi Tarbat,

Sorry for the late response. The Dutch islands (Waddeneilanden) and most Zeeuwse Islands are not in the standard outline files supplied bij Airnav. As Rod Bearden (reply204) kindly has mentioned, you have to download  third party software to make them visible. This is not an Airnav 5.0 issue, it has been an issue all the time. These islands (for example the island of Texel with the local airport EHTX is floating around in the Northsea, the island is missing) were never there on the base map over the years. In fact around 15% of The Netherlands was never there on these maps. Odd, and a bit of a bother, or Airnav is way ahead of time... (I know I can make use of OpenStreetMap/Satellite layers, but this is not my issue....)

Frank

tarbat

  • ShipTrax Beta Testers
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4219
    • Radarbox at Easter Ross
Re: Your experience upgrading to 5.00.044
« Reply #222 on: October 27, 2013, 10:39:08 AM »
Frank, thanks for confirming this isn't a v5 issue.  Yes, the standard mapping is basic, but can be enhanced with downloaded outline files or OSM.

tarbat

  • ShipTrax Beta Testers
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4219
    • Radarbox at Easter Ross
Re: Your experience upgrading to 5.00.044
« Reply #223 on: October 28, 2013, 11:43:09 AM »
Finally got a break from beta testing, so thought I'd have a go at comparing 3D views in ANRB compared to Google Earth.  Look pretty similar to me, albeit with a small time delay between the two screenshots:



SIGINT1

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Your experience upgrading to 5.00.044
« Reply #224 on: October 29, 2013, 07:24:33 PM »
Just upgraded my HP Laptop to Windows 8.1 - Then upgraded from 4.3 to 5.044 - Had to use the windows advanced start up option to disable driver signature enforcement to load the 64 bit drivers but they loaded fine - applied the 5.047 patch and it upgraded and it appears to be running fine