I thought these had been fixed in the V3 beta?
If so, why am I seeing examples like the following:
<MODESMESSAGE>
<DATETIME>20091020081129</DATETIME>
<MODES>AA8882</MODES>
<CALLSIGN>UAL924</CALLSIGN>
<ALTITUDE>06795</ALTITUDE>
<VRATE>-960</VRATE>
<AIRSPEED>242.0</AIRSPEED>
<LATITUDE>51.4117</LATITUDE>
<LONGITUDE>-0.7840</LONGITUDE>
<SQUAWK>
242.0</SQUAWK>
</MODESMESSAGE>
<MODESMESSAGE>
<DATETIME>20091020081129</DATETIME>
<MODES>AA92FA</MODES>
<CALLSIGN>COA4</CALLSIGN>
<ALTITUDE>04770</ALTITUDE>
<VRATE>-704</VRATE>
<AIRSPEED>198.0</AIRSPEED>
<LATITUDE>51.4090</LATITUDE>
<LONGITUDE>-0.8696</LONGITUDE>
<SQUAWK>
198.0</SQUAWK>
</MODESMESSAGE>
Values should be 7741 for UAL924 and 7304 for COA4.
All mine are 000 with 3.07 Beta.
<MODESMESSAGE>
<DATETIME>20091020094653</DATETIME>
<MODES>A3D75C</MODES>
<CALLSIGN>AAL55</CALLSIGN>
<ALTITUDE>08025</ALTITUDE>
<GROUNDSPEED>334</GROUNDSPEED>
<TRACK>282</TRACK>
<VRATE>1024</VRATE>
<AIRSPEED>000</AIRSPEED>
<LATITUDE>53.4739</LATITUDE>
<LONGITUDE>-2.4591</LONGITUDE>
<SQUAWK>000</SQUAWK>
</MODESMESSAGE>
AAL55 was squawking 7415 as it left Manchester this morning.
Looks like an indexing error where the squawk field is actually filled with the airspeed value.
Probably best to post this is the 3.07 beta thread.
Quote from: Fenris on October 20, 2009, 10:00:26 AM
Looks like an indexing error where the squawk field is actually filled with the airspeed value.
Yes, I hadn't twigged that, but looking closer at my log it appears that aircraft sending airspeed (about 10% of my sample) have the TAS repeated in the squawk field, whereas aircraft that send GS rather than airspeed show "000" as the squawk.
How come that one got past
all the beta-testers ?
Quote from: DaveReid on October 20, 2009, 10:10:07 AMHow come that one got past all the beta-testers ?
It didn't.
Quote from: tarbat on October 20, 2009, 10:27:58 AM
Quote from: DaveReid on October 20, 2009, 10:10:07 AMHow come that one got past all the beta-testers ?
It didn't.
OK, I stand corrected - my question should have been how come it didn't make it onto the published outstanding bug list :-)
Quote from: DaveReid on October 20, 2009, 10:31:15 AM
Quote from: tarbat on October 20, 2009, 10:27:58 AM
Quote from: DaveReid on October 20, 2009, 10:10:07 AMHow come that one got past all the beta-testers ?
It didn't.
OK, I stand corrected - my question should have been how come it didn't make it onto the published outstanding bug list :-)
Because the bug list only gets updated when Airnav take the time to do it, whereas if they had a public bug tracker we would all be able to see the bugs, and probably search on open bugs.
We did have one, we promise for future versions it will be back.
Quote from: AirNav Support on October 20, 2009, 03:02:34 PMWe did have one, we promise for future versions it will be back.
Ah, that would explain why bug reports aren't being updated then!! For example, the alert on squawk bug.
Quote from: AirNav Support on October 20, 2009, 03:02:34 PM
We did have one, we promise for future versions it will be back.
Excellent, it will make everyone's life easier.
The squawk problem is now corrected for V3.08.