RELEASED - AirNav RadarBox 2009 - 3.01 Beta

[RodBearden]

True enough, Tom

I use a 22" screen, but I would have thought that 1024px would be wide enough - are you using large fonts rather than standard fonts?

Rod

[slipdog]

Hi,
Quoted by Freqhopping, i had about 50 less alerts than normal!
Something wrong with my set up or something, i get none at all, i have 10 flights set which i know fly out every day out of EGNX, also have wilcard set for A380's but nothing, my rig has been running 24hrs since the new beta and not a single alert has come thru. Weird.

[Fenris]

Regarding some users reporting that they don't receive some alerts: we believe it is caused by the fact that only 1 alert will be sent per mode-s hex code.

For example if a user has alerts setup on flight number (SIA123) and aircraft type (B744) and he receives a Singapore B744 doing flight SIA123 he will only receive one alert.

What is your opinion as experienced users: should we change this behavior so that, in this case, 2 alerts are sent?

It seems to me that, if two separate alert entries apply to a single hex code, that the alert itself should indicate that fact, so it should either indicate:

"Alert for B744 and SIA123" or it should indicate "2 alert conditions met".

Would that be suitable? It would give the user feedback that their alert entries are working correctly.

Having seen some other posts, it does seem that there is a deeper problem than just this multiple alert entries -> single alert happening. I can appreciate that it isn't easy to diagnose.

[AirNav Development]

So it has nothing to do with the 1 or 2 conditions met...in conclusion we need to know:
1- If every user reports this problem;
2- (difficult/challenging one): if anyone can find a way of reproducing it.

[freqhopping]

Fed Ex and UPS flights are starting to show up tonight.  My milair log for the day seems to be lacking though compared to the logs of others in my area.

[viking9]

True enough, Tom

I use a 22" screen, but I would have thought that 1024px would be wide enough - are you using large fonts rather than standard fonts?

Rod

I use standard fonts, Rod. I'm a retired IT professional so there's little I don't know about Windoze etc. As 1024 x 768 is a standard I would have thought they would have fixed it. It was brought up by others on here. It's not as if there is not enough room at that screen size.

Tom

Tom

[Allocator]

True enough, Tom

I use a 22" screen, but I would have thought that 1024px would be wide enough - are you using large fonts rather than standard fonts?

Rod

I use standard fonts, Rod. I'm a retired IT professional so there's little I don't know about Windoze etc. As 1024 x 768 is a standard I would have thought they would have fixed it. It was brought up by others on here. It's not as if there is not enough room at that screen size.

Tom

Tom

Works OK for me at 1240 x 768.

[perezoso]

Horizontal monitor space is very much at a premium, even with higher resolutions.  Ways to display more data in less horizontal space would be great, such as:

1. Allow the "status" field to be displayed as an abbreviation, with two or three characters per status, such as "LVL" or "LV" for "leveled", "DEP" or "DP" for "departure", etc.

2. Using taller columns, so two rows of data ca be displayed per plane.  This would make the display longer; but I would much rather scroll vertically than horizontally.

One thing I would not do is make the graphics (flags, logos, etc) any smaller.

Just my belated opinion...

[Andy Frost]

I am still missing a label on the Pole Hill VOR. Although previous discussions on this put this down to an intelligent removal of labels to avoid clutter on the map the Pole Hill VOR remains separate from anything on my map and there appears to be room to label it (see attached views, normal and zoomed).

[AirNav Development]

Regarding port 30003: we have had users very interested in this feature that posted dozens of messages to the forum requesting it to be working just as SBS-1. We need a final confirmation from these users, especially DaveReid (who posted very helpful messages) that everything is working as expected with it.

[viking9]

Works OK for me at 1240 x 768.

1240 x 768 is not a standard !!

[Allocator]

Works OK for me at 1240 x 768.

1240 x 768 is not a standard !!

Ha!!! a typing error - I meant 1024 x 768 as per the screen shot :-)

[viking9]

Allocator,

I can see you have a much newer laptop than I as you can go much higher than 1024 x 768. Mine is just two years old and I don't fancy shelling out on a new one just to get a better graphics card.

[Allocator]

No, not new - maybe 2 or 3 years old - a Gateway MX6640b Pentium 1.6GHz with 2 Gb RAM with an 80Gb HD from Staples.  Don't think that you can buy them any more - obsolete - lol

Yes, my laptop usually runs at 1280 x 800, but I did think that by running it at 1024 x 768 I could simulate your display, but obviously not.

[freqhopping]

As usual I lost internet connectivity due to ANRB running.  The only way to restore connectivity is to close it.  Well today upon closing it there was an error of some sort and it was apparently a crash close because upon restarting it everything that had been logged for the day was gone.