Airnav,
I have been busy with other stuff for some time and I have not been keeping up with the day to day on the forum, but from what I can see there have been no major updates or developments for some time now, and with all the updates you have been working on, or looking into, I think we are all overdue some much needed excitement, any chance you could update the overall progress?
CAM
Quote from: CAM on July 30, 2010, 07:24:46 PM
I have been busy with other stuff for some time and I have not been keeping up with the day to day on the forum, but from what I can see there have been no major updates or developments for some time now, and with all the updates you have been working on, or looking into, I think we are all overdue some much needed excitement, any chance you could update the overall progress?
According to AirNav, No-one is working on the next version, in between bug-fixes :-)
http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=5281.msg52990#msg52990
There seems to be a lot of bug reports.
Only 1 has a progress status.
I find this quite disappointing.
Dave you maybe sarcastic in your posts but many people on this forum do not have English as there first language and take your posts seriously. Their are people working on the new version.
As mentioned before a new version is being worked on as well we are looking into developing MLAT. Once we have information to release you will be the first to know on the forum.
RobinB,
While there are bug reports, there are no criticals. Out of the 8 on the page, 2 are either in advance stage or awaiting customer to approve it.
http://www.airnavsystems.com/bugs/
Airnav,
Well done for reminding us all that not all forum users are native English speakers. To this end it might be useful if correct English is exercised in your posts.
For example, your last post contains the following grammatical errors:-
"not have English as there first language" = "not have English as their first language".
"There is people working" = "There are people working"
"While there is bug reports" = "While there are bug reports"
"2 are either in advance stage or awaiting customer to approve it" = "2 are either in advance stage or awaiting (a) customer(s) to approve them"
I'm not having a moan, but your posts are often littered with grammatical errors. You are correct to highlight the fact that posters should consider non-native English speakers will be reading but surely it would be wise to ensure your posts are correct to start with !
By the way, Lucas has been found out, so looks like you were right there.
Cheers
Thanks we have amended the post.
Quote from: AirNav Support on July 30, 2010, 10:37:11 PM
Dave you maybe sarcastic in your posts but many people on this forum do not have English as there first language and take your posts seriously. Their are people working on the new version.
As mentioned before a new version is being worked on as well we are looking into developing MLAT. Once we have information to release you will be the first to know on the forum.
RobinB,
While there are bug reports, there are no criticals. Out of the 8 on the page, 2 are either in advance stage or awaiting customer to approve it.
http://www.airnavsystems.com/bugs/
And this the ammendad vershun ? I hav know furtha koment. Sigh
Quote from: eggplant on July 30, 2010, 11:27:00 PM
Quote from: AirNav Support on July 30, 2010, 10:37:11 PM
Dave you maybe sarcastic in your posts but many people on this forum do not have English as there first language and take your posts seriously. Their are people working on the new version.
As mentioned before a new version is being worked on as well we are looking into developing MLAT. Once we have information to release you will be the first to know on the forum.
RobinB,
While there are bug reports, there are no criticals. Out of the 8 on the page, 2 are either in advance stage or awaiting customer to approve it.
http://www.airnavsystems.com/bugs/
And this the ammendad vershun ? I hav know furtha koment. Sigh
Children please behave.
S.F.
no comment...
Quote from: AirNav Support on July 30, 2010, 10:37:11 PMDave you maybe sarcastic in your posts but many people on this forum do not have English as there first language and take your posts seriously. Their are people working on the new version.
As mentioned before a new version is being worked on as well we are looking into developing MLAT. Once we have information to release you will be the first to know on the forum.
Fair enough.
My point was simply that you're making life difficult for yourself by having a bug list which
appears to show that "No-one" is working on any of them.
Use a little imagination, if you'd rather not show the name of the individual that a bug is assigned to, then at least give some indication that someone is looking at it.
QuoteWhile there are bug reports, there are no criticals. Out of the 8 on the page, 2 are either in advance stage or awaiting customer to approve it.
http://www.airnavsystems.com/bugs/
The 8 bugs listed only include one of the 4 which, from the perspective of a developer of professional Mode S/ADS-B applications, I would consider to be showstoppers. Since the other three don't appear, I would infer that no-one (as opposed to "No-one") is working on them.
As for not being "critical", granted those bugs may not stop you selling RadarBoxes to enthusiasts, but they certainly rule out RB from consideration for several projects I'm involved with.
Quote from: DaveReid on July 31, 2010, 06:12:52 AMThe 8 bugs listed only include one of the 4 which, from the perspective of a developer of professional Mode S/ADS-B applications, I would consider to be showstoppers.
Dave, would now be an appropriate time to list the 4 showstoppers in one place, and so encourage Airnav to include the missing ones in their bug-tracking system.
Quote from: tarbat on July 31, 2010, 07:08:04 AM
Dave, would now be an appropriate time to list the 4 showstoppers in one place, and so encourage Airnav to include the missing ones in their bug-tracking system.
Again, you mean ? :-)
http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=5227.msg52627#msg52627
Quote from: DaveReid on July 31, 2010, 07:37:20 AMAgain, you mean ? :-)
Yes, I did mean again. I know it's unacceptable that Airnav don't appear to have documented the bugs, but if you really want these bugs fixed I thought now would be a good opportunity to document the 4 showstoppers, other than just
Spurious Position bug / Hex Code Confusion bug / Flight Merging bug / Equatorial Black Hole bug.
I, for one, would like clarity on what these bugs are and whether Airnav also consider them to be bugs that need an urgent fix.
Quote from: tarbat on July 31, 2010, 08:35:53 AM
Yes, I did mean again. I know it's unacceptable that Airnav don't appear to have documented the bugs, but if you really want these bugs fixed I thought now would be a good opportunity to document the 4 showstoppers, other than just Spurious Position bug / Hex Code Confusion bug / Flight Merging bug / Equatorial Black Hole bug.
OK, here's a brief summary:
Spurious Position bug - RadarBox displays aircraft on the map which are known not to have ADS-B, usually at 0° longitude and arbitrary latitudes
Hex Code Confusion bug - callsigns, squawks, altitudes, etc are shown against the wrong aircraft, usually with a hex code one or two bits different from another in the list
Flight Merging bug - flights are shown with impossibly long start/end times, because RadarBox fails to distinguish a subsequent flight with a different callsign
Equatorial Black Hole bug - aircraft disappear from the map in the zone between 2°N and 2°S
There are, of course, much more comprehensive descriptions of both the bugs and, in some cases, results of various troubleshooting tests, in the respective threads.
QuoteI, for one, would like clarity on what these bugs are and whether Airnav also consider them to be bugs that need an urgent fix.
I'll second that.
Thanks Dave. Let's see if these get added to the bug-tracking system.
Quote from: DaveReid on July 31, 2010, 10:04:15 AM
Quote from: tarbat on July 31, 2010, 08:35:53 AM
Yes, I did mean again. I know it's unacceptable that Airnav don't appear to have documented the bugs, but if you really want these bugs fixed I thought now would be a good opportunity to document the 4 showstoppers, other than just Spurious Position bug / Hex Code Confusion bug / Flight Merging bug / Equatorial Black Hole bug.
OK, here's a brief summary:
Spurious Position bug - RadarBox displays aircraft on the map which are known not to have ADS-B, usually at 0° longitude and arbitrary latitudes
Hex Code Confusion bug - callsigns, squawks, altitudes, etc are shown against the wrong aircraft, usually with a hex code one or two bits different from another in the list
Flight Merging bug - flights are shown with impossibly long start/end times, because RadarBox fails to distinguish a subsequent flight with a different callsign
Equatorial Black Hole bug - aircraft disappear from the map in the zone between 2°N and 2°S
There are, of course, much more comprehensive descriptions of both the bugs and, in some cases, results of various troubleshooting tests, in the respective threads.
QuoteI, for one, would like clarity on what these bugs are and whether Airnav also consider them to be bugs that need an urgent fix.
I'll second that.
Oh, boy! that's unbelievable, so many faults/bugs?.
S.F.
Quote from: DaveReid on July 31, 2010, 10:04:15 AM
Quote from: tarbat on July 31, 2010, 08:35:53 AM
Yes, I did mean again. I know it's unacceptable that Airnav don't appear to have documented the bugs, but if you really want these bugs fixed I thought now would be a good opportunity to document the 4 showstoppers, other than just Spurious Position bug / Hex Code Confusion bug / Flight Merging bug / Equatorial Black Hole bug.
OK, here's a brief summary:
Spurious Position bug - RadarBox displays aircraft on the map which are known not to have ADS-B, usually at 0° longitude and arbitrary latitudes
Hex Code Confusion bug - callsigns, squawks, altitudes, etc are shown against the wrong aircraft, usually with a hex code one or two bits different from another in the list
Flight Merging bug - flights are shown with impossibly long start/end times, because RadarBox fails to distinguish a subsequent flight with a different callsign
Equatorial Black Hole bug - aircraft disappear from the map in the zone between 2°N and 2°S
There are, of course, much more comprehensive descriptions of both the bugs and, in some cases, results of various troubleshooting tests, in the respective threads.
QuoteI, for one, would like clarity on what these bugs are and whether Airnav also consider them to be bugs that need an urgent fix.
I'll second that.
Here is the fifth showstopper, that we updaters have been regularly reporting to Airnav.
Spurious ICAO code/Picture update bug: Correct ICAO codes and photo links that are being input into the Updaters database are not being passed to users. User still get spurious ICAO codes from an unknown origin, that are not found in either the Updater Database or the users Navdata.DB3 ACtype list.
Quote from: ACW367 on July 31, 2010, 11:30:07 AMHere is the fifth showstopper, that we updaters have been regularly reporting to Airnav.
Spurious ICAO code/Picture update bug: Correct ICAO codes and photo links that are being input into the Updaters database are not being passed to users. User still get spurious ICAO codes from an unknown origin, that are not found in either the Updater Database or the users Navdata.DB3 ACtype list.
Isn't that already covered by
FS#10 - Better handling of Aircraft Lookups. Listed as currently 30% complete.
Quote from: ACW367 on July 31, 2010, 11:30:07 AMHere is the fifth showstopper, that we updaters have been regularly reporting to Airnav.
Spurious ICAO code/Picture update bug: Correct ICAO codes and photo links that are being input into the Updaters database are not being passed to users. User still get spurious ICAO codes from an unknown origin, that are not found in either the Updater Database or the users Navdata.DB3 ACtype list.
Yes, the only reason I didn't include this in my list is that I don't anticipate the NavData update architecture being used for professional applications.
But looking at it purely from the enthusiast user's point of view, I share your frustration.
Regarding the bugs you have mentioned:
Flight Merging bug - Already under the aircraft extended sessions in the bug page
Hex Code Confusion bug - At present we find this to be due to corruption or noise being picked up and hence its very difficult to stop this.
Spurious Position bug & Equatorial Black Hole bug are being looked at and being looked at from the firmware team. We will add these and apologies for missing them.
Also just to reiterate a new version is being worked on and we are listening and taking notes to be passed on for the bugs and suggestions. If you feel you think something is not being looked at please contact us.
Lastly the bug page is just purely a view for customers to check before they post a bug report, please do not look at it for every detail, details of which version or who is working on it will not be on it.
It would be nice to see some sort of timescale for these fixes.
Looks like most are were generated back last december.
So hopefully an update is imminent ?
Quote from: tarbat on July 31, 2010, 12:34:12 PM
Quote from: ACW367 on July 31, 2010, 11:30:07 AMHere is the fifth showstopper, that we updaters have been regularly reporting to Airnav.
Spurious ICAO code/Picture update bug: Correct ICAO codes and photo links that are being input into the Updaters database are not being passed to users. User still get spurious ICAO codes from an unknown origin, that are not found in either the Updater Database or the users Navdata.DB3 ACtype list.
Isn't that already covered by FS#10 - Better handling of Aircraft Lookups. Listed as currently 30% complete.
No you will note that the FS10 bug was created in 2009. Our team only formed in May 2010. I believe the 33% completion is actually related to the creation of the team. This FS10 bug is currently related to the tieing up of Mode S codes and better identification of owner/operator, which is currently our manual task. The corruption of data we are manually inputting prior to it reaching users, is therefore a new bug.