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

Login with username, password and session length
 


Author Topic: Too technical?  (Read 7937 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

bratters

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
Too technical?
« on: November 07, 2013, 10:10:18 AM »
I haven't downloaded the Beta for  practical reasons  - not having a clear grasp of computing it seems a sensible option to stay away from betas and await finished products.

After ploughing through the pages of semi-technical exchanges and the volumes of help and advice being requested and given,  it does seem to me that the original RadarBox concept of a simple "plug it in and away you go" box has gone right out of the window.

I was thinking of giving a box to a young relative this Christmas however this thing has become too complex for the "everyman" user. The pursuit of a simple hobby now seems to require a substantial knowledge of - and perhaps more importantly an interest in - the computing field.  It may not have been intended that way but the past few years have been anything but straightforward and I doubt things will change in the next few.

Whilst many are happy to embrace this concept, there are many others who do not wish to spend their time tinkering and adjusting and generally messing about. It all reminds me of ham radio. There was great satisfaction to be gained from building, tweaking and testing. But times have moved on. Pick up your mobile, switch it on and away you go.

No more cats whiskers and moving of TV aerials -  DIY and complexity are no longer in vogue and the public want things that work out of the box. It's black box technology and it's the name of game.

Another thread poses the question "Why Radarbox" and when the alternative is simply watching an internet site, that is a very relevant question for many.

My message (if there is a message) is that if you want to sell Radar boxes in any quantity, you will need to go back to the basic "armchair" principle. It must work straight out of the box and it must stay that way.

If on the other hand you want an enthusiast-only minority product, the unit price will have to reflect that which could have serious implications for the future.





 


AirNav Support

  • AirNav Systems
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4127
Re: Too technical?
« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2013, 10:34:54 AM »
bratters,

Having to handle all the support queries I can assure you that if you have basic understanding of computers you are able to get RadarBox running and enjoy it without having to go through many steps and headaches.

The majority of our users do this and actually never venture onto the forum and are happy with the basic default settings. However and this the big however once you step out of the basic world and want to add your own pictures/configure the database to your liking/setup picture uploading etc.. you will obviously need to have some background in computers to do this.

The new beta is is no more complicated than the older software, just the new functions and bugs are being discussed techincally which may make it seem daunting.

At the end of the day RadarBox can be used as plug and play device but it also has a entensive feature list to enjoy once you want to configure it to your exact liking.
Contact Customer/Technical support via:
http://www.airnavsystems.com/contact.html
[email protected]

Runway 31

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33841
Re: Too technical?
« Reply #2 on: November 07, 2013, 11:12:24 AM »
In a short space of time we shall move away from the beta versions with upgrades from the existing versions and into a fully fledged version same as before with a simple installer which will make life easier for the non-technical minded.

Alan

CoastGuardJon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1178
  • Mullion Cove, Kernow --- sw Cornwall UK.
Re: Too technical?
« Reply #3 on: November 07, 2013, 05:34:38 PM »
Hi AN, Alan and bratters, I'm the same as you John, but managed to download and install the 5.044 version and got it to run eventually, but went through several deletions of the ANRB software including Registry settings (I try to stay as far away as possible from Registry!!!) in the process.   I haven't got the beta updates since 5.044 to download and install properly so again will wait until the full updated version comes out.   Again the plug and play aspect was why I went for ANRB as opposed to SBS1.    When I install a new full version, it doesn't matter losing MyLogs and past records as I only use the RB to see what's going on at that particular time.   The 5 minute delay makes no difference to me (other than following a/c coming into my own detection area) but I get 12 months of that for the same money as 6 months real-time.   For me it's the simplicity and non-technical of RB which keeps me on board.
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!

bratters

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
Re: Too technical?
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2013, 11:18:13 AM »
Hi Jon - we share much the same in requirements from our boxes. Like you I am more interested in what is going on around me rather than the collection of data, statistics and records. The Network has no interest.  With my own aerial I cover from Schippol to Dublin and from Glasgow to France and that "patch" is more than enough.

I have 1 major airport, 1 civilian airfield, a parachuting school and a gliding school within virtual eyeball range. I'm also close-ish to, and on the flightpath of, the RR Spitfire engine base at Hucknall and there are numerous RAF stations that lie within say a 50 mile radius. Not to mention balloons (popular round here)  micros, civilian choppers, a variety of overhead airways et al..

That lot keeps me and my Zeiss 10x50s happy - given clear skies!  Back in 2007(?) what I needed most was a guaranteed flow of accurate and current data about the aircraft I could see, when and where they were coming from and where they were going, all presented in a simple clear style.  Hence RB - the perfect answer.

Since then things have moved on. Accurate data flow has proved difficult at times in the intervening years and the DIY element has grown. However the most significant development for my type of use - Mlat - has thus far eluded Airnav.

Using Airband we have always been able to track those  "missing" flights but using Mlat we can now see them - and that's where I want to be.





Judwin45

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
Re: Too technical?
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2013, 02:30:43 PM »
I to am happy with the simpler aspects of RB.

 In my earlier spotting days, if I was lucky, I would get to Heathrow or Gatwick maybe once a year, the rest of the time I could only look in envy at the overflights.

Than I 'discovered' RB and that opened  a whole new aspect to my spotting which rekindled the hobby.

I could now 'identify' airways traffic to the west routing BCN/BHD, to the north I could see the east/west traffic through BCN and on a really good day southbound aircraft just to the west of the IoW.

It would be good if Airnav were able to introduce MLAT but in the meantime I can use FR24, to show me the biz jets and the Dash 8's through GIBSO, but I still use RB to give me the registrations.

In short RB gives me what I want and I feel I have got my moneys worth.

One item for my wish list, if Airnav could add a con trail to all the overflights that would help me know end!!!

I am looking forward to the upgrade and I trust that when the full version is available that the instructions on how to action the upgrade will be straight forward and simple for the low tech person like me.

I have also appreciated the help from Alan in identifying the occasional unknowns. Thank you to all those who give time and energy to enhancing my hobby.

Regards

 
Keith
5 miles south of EGDY

Marpleman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 738
  • Proper aeroplanes!
Re: Too technical?
« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2013, 09:39:41 PM »
I have to side with Bratters on the issue that I too haven't yet gone for V5, however I'm grateful to all those who are taking on the shared role of developing the issues as users, but I'm not sure we really should be in such a situation.

I understand what a "beta" release is, but how much longer do we go with what on the face of it still appears to be flawed before it becomes a stable release in it's own right?

Hope Alan is right with his comment about the release of a stable version soon?

At the risk of being controversial (again!), to me V5 is basically a bug fix release, but not the mind-blowing product development we have been promised for the last several months?

Whilst I acknowledge that to many, these fixes are a major improvement, if I'm honest, they do little to really enhance my enjoyment of the product.
The continued effort of the updaters is of much more benefit to me as a spotter, and to them I'm extremely grateful.

Maybe the real product development is just around the corner?

I do get the feeling that the focus on V5 and its related beta's has taken the spotlight away from the unknown promises we were given.

Rich

Runway 31

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33841
Re: Too technical?
« Reply #7 on: November 08, 2013, 10:19:18 PM »
The beta release are very stable however they are released to have any further bugs to be found as sometime fixing something or where a feature request has been introduced and these can and do bring up a problem elsewhere.  This is espically true when they are used on the various different versions of Windows out there going back to XP and maybe even further and on different spec computers.  We beta testers can only test on our own machines and their installations but some issues escape us and are only brought to light as we have noted when they are tested further by users on their vasrying installations.

Version 5 was always intended as the bug fix that the users were asking for and I advised a long time ago that some users would be completely underwhelmed and at no time has anyone ever stated or promised that it would be a mind blowing development.

Sometimes it is hard to enhance something that is basically very good and does what it says on the tin.

Alan

tommyg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
Re: Too technical?
« Reply #8 on: November 09, 2013, 12:00:53 AM »
Jon and Bratters, I use my RB hype same as you, however having spent the past year on two new computer projects at work (and no way am I a computer expert, just a user) I understand the need to get more users involved in testing for bugs etc. I am happy to do this despite the frustrations that show in some of my posts at times, in the hope I can help improve the product. And yes without Alan, Tarbat & co, we would all be up the Swanee with a relatively useless piece of kit, so I will do my bit to support them.

Tommyg
Tommyg

Undertaker

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re: Too technical?
« Reply #9 on: November 09, 2013, 09:00:43 AM »
All

I have version 2.01 installed in my Windows 7 Laptop and I understand that the downloadable updates to the database no longer will be available. Not being Computer minded I have only recently been able to work out how to down load these updates without loosing them somewhere on the LT

I guess I can upgrade to a newer version [ie 5] but am too worried that it won't work and I will be left with a piece of scrap metal sitting on the table !

Yes I do think things do appear too technical, so is it not possible to continue with the downloadable updates for those still operating older versions ?

Tony

Marpleman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 738
  • Proper aeroplanes!
Re: Too technical?
« Reply #10 on: November 09, 2013, 09:07:47 AM »
Alan

I'm not necessarily talking about V5, but if you look back at posts on the threads challenging any development progress, time and time again we were told that major development was just around the corner. That's what I'm refering to.

The release of V5 is a great step forward, but it has only taken pressure of AirNav regarding real enhancements to their product in my opinion.

How's that old team of yours getting on these days pal?

Rich


CoastGuardJon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1178
  • Mullion Cove, Kernow --- sw Cornwall UK.
Re: Too technical?
« Reply #11 on: November 09, 2013, 12:40:32 PM »
Undertaker "I guess I can upgrade to a newer version [ie 5] but am too worried that it won't work and I will be left with a piece of scrap metal sitting on the table !"

Hi Tony, have no fears on that score, if I can download and install some software, believe me you can as wel!!
I had downloaded and installed v3.13? personally can't see any real point to the gimicky v4.03 3D version (can't even remember if that was no.), then v5.00.044, and eventually I've got v5.00.053 up and running.   You'll get plenty of help in here to get you through the process (I'll PM you my phone no. if that helps, to talk you through it).
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!

Runway 31

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33841
Re: Too technical?
« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2013, 12:46:23 PM »
Undertaker It should be easy to see where you have the original version installed to, just point any update to the same location.  You should point it to whichever location ANRB.exe is installed to.

Alan

Undertaker

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re: Too technical?
« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2013, 01:01:18 PM »
Thanks all

Have just downloaded and are using 5.00.53 [maybe not so anti-PC !] RB2 is not found whatever that is

Cheers for the help

Tony

Runway 31

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33841
Re: Too technical?
« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2013, 01:55:31 PM »
See you are a computer geek after all Tony!!  Well done glad to have you up and running.

Alan