OLC broken ?

On Mar 23, 7:14 am, ZL wrote:
wrote:
I tried to make my first OLC claim on Sunday and Monday for my 3/17/07
flight and I must say it's been a hassle. My claim was declared
"validation not successful". I used a GPS-NAV 20. On Sunday, I
converted the .cai file to .igc using AeroExplorer. I then prepared
the claim in SeeYou. I went to the OLC site and tried to upload by
"Prepared Claim". File was not uploaded. I then tried to upload the
claim through SeeYou. No upload. On Monday, I tried the OLC site
"Direct Claim" method and the .igc file uploaded ok but it was
invalid. I then converted the .cai file to .igc using the Cambridge
DOS program. Deleted the previously uploaded file and uploaded the
new .igc file again using "Direct Claim". Still invalid. The .cai file
passed vali-cam.exe with no problem. I emailed support by replying to
the email I received from the OLC Result Notifier but have not yet
heard anything.
Steve

The OLC requires some special handling for logs from legacy Cambridge
flight recorders (Model 10, 20, and 25). SeeYou (v3.6 or higher) does
that quite easily if you open the *.cai file directly. It will generate
the *.igc file with the *.cai file encoded and appended onto the end.
The prepared claim should definitely work, not sure if the bugs are out
of the direct claim from SeeYou method yet. But you must open the *.cai
file with SeeYou, not an *.igc file generated by AeroExplorer or the
Cambridge DOS program. The details for doing this manually without
SeeYou are found in item 10 on the Help page (Help button is at bottom
right of OLC page).

This is the same process for OLC 2.0 as last year.

Thanks for the info ZL. I didn't try opening the .cai file with SeeYou
but I did try the "prepared claim" on the OLC page with a file
prepared by SeeYou and the file didn't even start to upload. I also
noticed that there is a bit of a contradiction on the OLC page. If you
click on Claim Flight, it states under Direct Claim that this is the
most simple and safest way of flight claiming. If you click on
Information, it states that Method 2 the prepared claim is the safest
method.

I'll try what you suggested with SeeYou on my next flight.
Steve

On Mar 20, 5:53 am, "Doug Haluza" wrote:

You should always use the latest version of your software. As problems
are discovered, the vendors make updates, and there is no sense having
problems that are already solved. SeeYou is also testing a beta
version to deal with a strange data transmission issue with the new
OLC interface where "+" signs get corrupted in transmission, causing
validation to fail. This affects C302+ users, but could also randomly
affect anyone if there is a "+" sign in the digital signature.

SeeYou just released version 3.65 today, presumably with the fix for
the C302 OLC upload from the beta version. Be sure to download it if
you are a SeeYou user with current upgrade support. The web site shows
this as V3.62 on the download page, but will show v3.65 when you
install it.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

Doug Haluza wrote:
On Mar 20, 5:53 am, "Doug Haluza" wrote:
You should always use the latest version of your software. As problems
are discovered, the vendors make updates, and there is no sense having
problems that are already solved. SeeYou is also testing a beta
version to deal with a strange data transmission issue with the new
OLC interface where "+" signs get corrupted in transmission, causing
validation to fail. This affects C302+ users, but could also randomly
affect anyone if there is a "+" sign in the digital signature.

SeeYou just released version 3.65 today, presumably with the fix for
the C302 OLC upload from the beta version. Be sure to download it if
you are a SeeYou user with current upgrade support. The web site shows
this as V3.62 on the download page, but will show v3.65 when you
install it.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin




SeeYou still appears to be doing the OLC optimization different from the
OLC software. For purposes of the 1000 meter rule between the start and
end of the flight, OLC appears to take the height between the start and
end of the scored flight, while SeeYou appears to take it between
release from tow and the end of scored flight. Most of the time, this
doesn't matter.

However, it does matter under the right conditions. I had a flight
about a month ago (February 16) where the OLC score (direct upload) was
more than 20 points less than the SeeYou optimization. And today, the
OLC score (direct upload) was slightly higher than the SeeYou optimization.

Neither software appears to be consistent with the OLC rules:

The minimal finish altitude is 1000 metre below the start altitude.
The start altitude the lowest altitude after the begin of free flight
and before reaching the start point.
The start time is the time at which the start altitude is reached.
The finish altitude is the highest altitude after reaching the finish
point and before end of free flight.
The finish time is the time at which the finish altitude is reached
after the finish point is reached.

Where the OLC and SeeYou programs differ, I believe the "more correct"
score will be whichever is the higher. But it appears that both
softwares can give a score that is lower than what the OLC rules require
-- this will happen if the 1000 meter rule affects the result, and if
there is a point after release from tow and prior to start that is lower
than both tow release and start height (or if there is a point after
finish that is above the finish height).

On Saturday, I flew for a little over 4 hours. A short time after
releasing the rope (maybe 10-15 minutes) I looked at my iPAQ


http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0...Id=-2034543116

On Mar 23, 7:01 pm, Greg Arnold wrote:
Doug Haluza wrote:
On Mar 20, 5:53 am, "Doug Haluza" wrote:
You should always use the latest version of your software. As problems
are discovered, the vendors make updates, and there is no sense having
problems that are already solved. SeeYou is also testing a beta
version to deal with a strange data transmission issue with the new
OLC interface where "+" signs get corrupted in transmission, causing
validation to fail. This affects C302+ users, but could also randomly
affect anyone if there is a "+" sign in the digital signature.

SeeYou just released version 3.65 today, presumably with the fix for
the C302 OLC upload from the beta version. Be sure to download it if
you are a SeeYou user with current upgrade support. The web site shows
this as V3.62 on the download page, but will show v3.65 when you
install it.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

SeeYou still appears to be doing the OLC optimization different from the
OLC software. For purposes of the 1000 meter rule between the start and
end of the flight, OLC appears to take the height between the start and
end of the scored flight, while SeeYou appears to take it between
release from tow and the end of scored flight. Most of the time, this
doesn't matter.

However, it does matter under the right conditions. I had a flight
about a month ago (February 16) where the OLC score (direct upload) was
more than 20 points less than the SeeYou optimization. And today, the
OLC score (direct upload) was slightly higher than the SeeYou optimization.

Neither software appears to be consistent with the OLC rules:

The minimal finish altitude is 1000 metre below the start altitude.
The start altitude the lowest altitude after the begin of free flight
and before reaching the start point.
The start time is the time at which the start altitude is reached.
The finish altitude is the highest altitude after reaching the finish
point and before end of free flight.
The finish time is the time at which the finish altitude is reached
after the finish point is reached.

Where the OLC and SeeYou programs differ, I believe the "more correct"
score will be whichever is the higher. But it appears that both
softwares can give a score that is lower than what the OLC rules require
-- this will happen if the 1000 meter rule affects the result, and if
there is a point after release from tow and prior to start that is lower
than both tow release and start height (or if there is a point after
finish that is above the finish height).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Below is a link to my flight on Saturday. I flew for over 4 hours,
but my OLC scorable time was around 14 minutes. I'm pretty sure I
know what caused it (me messing with the iPAQ) to cut off, but I don't
have any software to analyze what it did to the .igc file in the
Cambridge 302A datalogger. The entire 4 hour flight is shown, just
not scored. My flight on Sunday had no issues, so I know it's not an
OLC issue, it's an operator/user interface problem.
Also, where can I find a "legend" for the graph that appears below
the flight trace? I see some bits of yellow here and there.

http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0...Id=-2034543116

Thanks for any help!

Below is a link to my flight on Saturday. I flew for over 4 hours,
but my OLC scorable time was around 14 minutes. I'm pretty sure I
know what caused it (me messing with the iPAQ) to cut off, but I don't
have any software to analyze what it did to the .igc file in the
Cambridge 302A datalogger. The entire 4 hour flight is shown, just
not scored. My flight on Sunday had no issues, so I know it's not an
OLC issue, it's an operator/user interface problem.
Also, where can I find a "legend" for the graph that appears below
the flight trace? I see some bits of yellow here and there.

http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0...Id=-2034543116

Thanks for any help!


You did the direct upload to OLC? The OLC software guessed wrong about
the end of your flight. You need to click Edit Flight, then change the
ending time on the screen that comes up.

Below is a link to my flight on Saturday. I flew for over 4 hours,
but my OLC scorable time was around 14 minutes. I'm pretty sure I
know what caused it (me messing with the iPAQ) to cut off, but I don't
have any software to analyze what it did to the .igc file in the
Cambridge 302A datalogger. The entire 4 hour flight is shown, just
not scored. My flight on Sunday had no issues, so I know it's not an
OLC issue, it's an operator/user interface problem.
Also, where can I find a "legend" for the graph that appears below
the flight trace? I see some bits of yellow here and there.

http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0...Id=-2034543116

Thanks for any help!


The green is the terrain, and the yellow is the noise recorded by the
ENL sensor.

On Mar 26, 9:52 am, Greg Arnold wrote:
Below is a link to my flight on Saturday. I flew for over 4 hours,
but my OLC scorable time was around 14 minutes. I'm pretty sure I
know what caused it (me messing with the iPAQ) to cut off, but I don't
have any software to analyze what it did to the .igc file in the
Cambridge 302A datalogger. The entire 4 hour flight is shown, just
not scored. My flight on Sunday had no issues, so I know it's not an
OLC issue, it's an operator/user interface problem.
Also, where can I find a "legend" for the graph that appears below
the flight trace? I see some bits of yellow here and there.

http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0....html?flightId...

Thanks for any help!

You did the direct upload to OLC? The OLC software guessed wrong about
the end of your flight. You need to click Edit Flight, then change the
ending time on the screen that comes up.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That was it!! I knew it cut my flight off, I DIDN'T know I could
change it so easily! Thanks.
Also, thanks for the info about the yellow on the graph.

Tom,

IMHO, I think there are many misconceptions about how the OLC is
funded. If they get the same amount of stipend per year from all the
advertizers on their site as they get from one software developer that
I know of. 1600 Euro per/year!

Then 30400 Euro = $40597 per should be more than enought to support
their labor and a hosting site. I really doubt that hosting is that
expensive.

It is my opinion that the developer should get busy and provide the
proper testing so the system works.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com




Anyhow, IMO, the new OLC is looking better and better each week I
check. Remember, this is free software, so we get what we pay for it
(yes, I know there are NACs and advertisers, but these cover hosting
costs, not labor). The developers can't afford to do big time
testing, so we get to "help" by documenting problems and sharing
workarounds until they're fixed.


-Tom

There is even more income for the Segelflugszene Ltd. which is operating
the OLC:

The German Aero Club has to pay a fee per competitor which is of the
order of 2.50 Euro per competitor, and there are roughly 5000
competitors for which the German Aero Club has to pay.

Richard schrieb:
Tom,

IMHO, I think there are many misconceptions about how the OLC is
funded. If they get the same amount of stipend per year from all the
advertizers on their site as they get from one software developer that
I know of. 1600 Euro per/year!

Then 30400 Euro = $40597 per should be more than enought to support
their labor and a hosting site. I really doubt that hosting is that
expensive.

It is my opinion that the developer should get busy and provide the
proper testing so the system works.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com



Anyhow, IMO, the new OLC is looking better and better each week I
check. Remember, this is free software, so we get what we pay for it
(yes, I know there are NACs and advertisers, but these cover hosting
costs, not labor). The developers can't afford to do big time
testing, so we get to "help" by documenting problems and sharing
workarounds until they're fixed.


-Tom