OLC participation and "red marks"

The cambridge logs that are not passing the OLC security check all have
a line at the top of the L record section of the file like

LCAMN CAI Utility DLL Vers: 1, 0, 1, 4

or

LCAMN CAI SeeYou conversion

The ones that pass straight away have the line

LCAMNCONV-CAM Version 2.0.2 IGC File Creation

SeeYou currently, and last years version, put an L record like the first
one in the .igc file. The old DOS utility puts the L record in there
that the OLC likes.

It looks like the OLC security check for 2006 expanded the portion of
the .igc file they are comparing to the binary .cai file (actually to
the binary file reconverted to an .igc file on the server using the
CONV-CAM utility) and are now kicking out files submitted with the wrong
L record describing how the .igc file was generated from the .cai file.
They appear to have been manually accepting files they notice have been
incorrectly kicked.

An easy fix until the OLC automated processing is corrected, that I
haven't tried yet, would be to use SeeYou to generate your .igc file
which will append the .cai binary file on the end, then go in with a
text editor and replace the

LCAMN CAI Utility DLL Vers: 1, 0, 1, 4

line with

LCAMNCONV-CAM Version 2.0.2 IGC File Creation

I'm sure someone could script this making it much simpler, but its still
easier than using the DOS command line.

Its genrally a no-no to edit your .igc file, but I think this will work.
Any other tampering with the .igc file will probably cause the file not
to pass the security check.

Ron's flight also appears to have the wrong end of flight time which
made the optimizer not work correctly. That can usually be edited
through the OLC web interface.

-Dave Leonard

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.

Dave,

Looks like you're on to something. Couple of points:

- I started with a "raw" .CAI file and tested two conversion cycles;
one using Conv-cam and one using he utility that comes from Cambridge.
- The files produced are different over and above just the LRecord you
describe. The CAI utility produces a record that's about 1kb larger
and it's clear that the L-Record format is different.
- When you run the CAI2IGC conversion the output is different as well.

- Just modifying the LRecord (comment record) probably isn't the
answer, even though it shouldn't corrupt the hashed GRecord validation
step.

Looking back at the instructions from the OLC, it seems pretty clear
that it's critical to follow the conversion sequence exactly as
described; ie. start with the raw CAI file only - run the Conv-cam
utility - then use the .IGC file output from that step as the input to
the CAI2IGC step. Where I think people are getting tripped up is that
they get both the .CAI file and the .IGC file when downloading using
GlideNavigtor/PocketNav. They use the .IGC file from this step as the
input to the CAI2IGC conversion.

There are now dozens of files out there on the OLC that are red
flagged, and I haven't yet heard back from the OLC guys after emailing
them; I'm sure they're reasonably busy right now!

Out of curiosity, I sampled the daily scores from Germany
for February and March, and no flight had this problem.
So do the Germans not use Cambridge loggers ? Or
are they all meticulous in following an acceptable
procedure ? Or is there something different between
the US and German OLC validation processes ?

Ian





At 15:12 30 March 2006, Papa3 wrote:
Dave,

Looks like you're on to something. Couple of points:

- I started with a 'raw' .CAI file and tested two
conversion cycles;
one using Conv-cam and one using he utility that comes
from Cambridge.
- The files produced are different over and above
just the LRecord you
describe. The CAI utility produces a record that's
about 1kb larger
and it's clear that the L-Record format is different.
- When you run the CAI2IGC conversion the output is
different as well.

- Just modifying the LRecord (comment record) probably
isn't the
answer, even though it shouldn't corrupt the hashed
GRecord validation
step.

Looking back at the instructions from the OLC, it seems
pretty clear
that it's critical to follow the conversion sequence
exactly as
described; ie. start with the raw CAI file only - run
the Conv-cam
utility - then use the .IGC file output from that step
as the input to
the CAI2IGC step. Where I think people are getting
tripped up is that
they get both the .CAI file and the .IGC file when
downloading using
GlideNavigtor/PocketNav. They use the .IGC file from
this step as the
input to the CAI2IGC conversion.

There are now dozens of files out there on the OLC
that are red
flagged, and I haven't yet heard back from the OLC
guys after emailing
them; I'm sure they're reasonably busy right now!

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.

Don't worry, the OLC people have been contacted directly on this issue.

wrote:
Don't worry, the OLC people have been contacted directly on this issue.

The OLC folks say that StrePla is working properly for OLC claims with
Cambridge 10/25 loggers. I use niether, so I cannot confirm this. Can
folks who use both let us know your experiences?

BTW, they have a 30 day free trial, so you can test it out yourself:

http://www.strepla.de/StrePla4/engli...load/index.htm