OLC participation and "red marks"

Have any of the Cambridge 10/20/25 users contacted
the OLC Group and asked for help? I don't have one
of these Cambridge FR's, but I have e-mailed OLC a
couple of times and they always helped me with 'user
headspace' problems.

I see a lot of notes here on RAS about the problem
and one of our club members has the same issue with
his older Cambridge. Just seems like the comments
should go to OLC directly.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

At 16:30 29 March 2006, Papa3 wrote:

Greg Arnold wrote:
Stewart Kissel wrote:
Link to thread with one pilots directions for submitting
with the older Cambridge loggers....if you poke around
the OLC site, they have their version of these directions
as well.

http://www.abqsoaring.org/viewThread.php?threadID=68

Good directions, but I think he is wrong that you
have to change the
file name if you need to do the process a second time.
It is true that
OLC wants to use the old uploaded file the second
time, but you can
force it to use the new file by clicking on the button
that allows you
to upload a new file.

I don't presently have a flight on OLC that I can
open, so I can't say
just how you do this, but I have done it several times
without any problem.

To Greg's point, the failure rate is still unacceptably
high, even when
following the directions. I know - I've tried to help
out several
people in my club with Cambridge loggers, and the success
rate is only
about 50%. The folks in my club (currently in first
place in the US
right now, I might add) , have actually begun to revolt.
They've
basically decided that the OLC is 'unstable' and are
not willing to
invest more computer time trying to get scored. Though
that might not
be a fair statement, it is an understandable perception.
Given that,
we can expect participation to drop off.

Whether or not we want to blame Cambridge, the OLC,
SeeYou, or anyone
else, the problem with the validation of G Records
for Cambridge
loggers is a real issue that isn't going away right
now. I think we
ought to reconsider whether this Validation is worth
the price (ie.
turning off prospective participants). My suggestion
is that we ask
OLC to disable Validation until someone comes up with
a script that
successfully handles all of the steps required to create
an acceptable
output from a Cambridge Logger using a user-friendly
interface.
Asking the average glider pilot to manipulate files
using a DOS command
prompt is a recipe for failure (or at least good for
a laugh or two).


Erik Mann (P3)

p.s. If anyone want an example of the situation, take
a look at the
file from Ron Schwartz on 3/27 in the US. The source
.CAI file
passes Vali-Cam just fine. Ran CAI2IGC just fine.
Output .IGC file
shows the binary .CAI file appended to the IGC file.
File still shows
up on OLC as invalid, not to mention that the scoring
distance is also
wrong. Would appreciate anyone who can download the
file and see if
anything jumps out at you.