OLC and Cambridge 10/20/25 support ending

On Dec 3, 11:59*am, "Roy Clark, \"B6\"" wrote:

As a Cambridge 20 user, I lament the end of OLC support. *However, I
do not want to replace my Cambridge 20 - L-NAV - PDA with Glide
Navigator II installation.

What does "end of OLC support" mean? Now or in the near future? I
show at http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/OLC-recorder.pdf that the
CAI20 is approved.

This seems odd that OLC doesn't like the CAI20 because the IGC
approved list shows the CAI20 as approved for "Badges (all)" which is
defined as,

"Badges (all) - This applies to types of Recorders that do not fulfil
the Specification in some areas at the time of approval. However, it
has been decided that they may be given an approval that excludes
World Record flights but includes all IGC/FAI Badges and Distance
Diplomas."

So the CAI20 isn't quite as good as an EW Microrecoder, LX Nano or a
CAI 302 (each is approved for "All Flights") but you aren't trying for
a world record so what gives with OLC?

Stupid question - Are you sure you are submitting the correct IGC file
and not a GNII log file? All I have ever done in the past is manually
download the CAI IGC file to my PC (actually done via GNII) and then
manually upload to OLC (direct claim). See
http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0...eldung_eng.pdf for
details.

Good luck.

- John

On Dec 6, 3:20*pm, JohnDeRosa wrote:
On Dec 3, 11:59*am, "Roy Clark, \"B6\"" wrote:

As a Cambridge 20 user, I lament the end of OLC support. *However, I
do not want to replace my Cambridge 20 - L-NAV - PDA with Glide
Navigator II installation.

What does "end of OLC support" mean? *Now or in the near future? * I
show athttp://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/OLC-recorder.pdfthat the
CAI20 is approved.

This seems odd that OLC doesn't like the CAI20 because the IGC
approved list shows the CAI20 as approved for "Badges (all)" which is
defined as,

"Badges (all) - This applies to types of Recorders that do not fulfil
the Specification in some areas at the time of approval. However, it
has been decided that they may be given an approval that excludes
World Record flights but includes all IGC/FAI Badges and Distance
Diplomas."

So the CAI20 isn't quite as good as an EW Microrecoder, LX Nano or a
CAI 302 (each is approved for "All Flights") but you aren't trying for
a world record so what gives with OLC?

Stupid question - Are you sure you are submitting the correct IGC file
and not a GNII log file? *All I have ever done in the past is manually
download the CAI IGC file to my PC (actually done via GNII) and then
manually upload to OLC (direct claim). *Seehttp://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/Direktmeldung_eng.pdffor
details.

Good luck.

- John
http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0...l?month=112011

about half way down, a very short entry.

On Dec 6, 3:40*pm, Tony wrote:
On Dec 6, 3:20*pm, JohnDeRosa wrote:



On Dec 3, 11:59*am, "Roy Clark, \"B6\"" wrote:

As a Cambridge 20 user, I lament the end of OLC support. *However, I
do not want to replace my Cambridge 20 - L-NAV - PDA with Glide
Navigator II installation.

What does "end of OLC support" mean? *Now or in the near future? * I
show athttp://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/OLC-recorder.pdfthatthe
CAI20 is approved.

This seems odd that OLC doesn't like the CAI20 because the IGC
approved list shows the CAI20 as approved for "Badges (all)" which is
defined as,

"Badges (all) - This applies to types of Recorders that do not fulfil
the Specification in some areas at the time of approval. However, it
has been decided that they may be given an approval that excludes
World Record flights but includes all IGC/FAI Badges and Distance
Diplomas."

So the CAI20 isn't quite as good as an EW Microrecoder, LX Nano or a
CAI 302 (each is approved for "All Flights") but you aren't trying for
a world record so what gives with OLC?

Stupid question - Are you sure you are submitting the correct IGC file
and not a GNII log file? *All I have ever done in the past is manually
download the CAI IGC file to my PC (actually done via GNII) and then
manually upload to OLC (direct claim). *Seehttp://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/Direktmeldung_eng.pdffor
details.

Good luck.

- John

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

about half way down, a very short entry.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yep, they just don't want to continue supporting/maintaining that
code. Maybe they lost the source code for that validation routine. You
wouldn't think it would be that big a deal for a software developer to
update it (assuming they have the source). There's something not right
about this whole thing, and they're not saying anything other than "we
give up".

They quote the following...

Tuesday, 08. November
The OLC's support to GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will cease on Dezember
31st
The validation procedure of GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 is out of date
since a long time and administring it further is not sustainable. In
efforts to find a solution with representatives from the manufacturer
we could not come to a feasible conclusion. Therefore participation at
the OLC with GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will be only possible until
the end of 2011.
We appologize for any inconvenience and hope for your
understanding ...

Sounds like it's not just an OLC issue. It would require some legacy
support from the current mfg's representatives, and it doesn't seem
like either side was willing to reach an agreement. Don't know what
the issues were, but the soaring community seems to be a very capable
group. Perhaps there is an alternative that could be spearheaded by
the current users.

-Kevin

On Dec 6, 4:07*pm, Westbender wrote:
On Dec 6, 3:40*pm, Tony wrote:



On Dec 6, 3:20*pm, JohnDeRosa wrote:

On Dec 3, 11:59*am, "Roy Clark, \"B6\"" wrote:

As a Cambridge 20 user, I lament the end of OLC support. *However, I
do not want to replace my Cambridge 20 - L-NAV - PDA with Glide
Navigator II installation.

What does "end of OLC support" mean? *Now or in the near future? * I
show athttp://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/OLC-recorder.pdfthatthe
CAI20 is approved.

This seems odd that OLC doesn't like the CAI20 because the IGC
approved list shows the CAI20 as approved for "Badges (all)" which is
defined as,

"Badges (all) - This applies to types of Recorders that do not fulfil
the Specification in some areas at the time of approval. However, it
has been decided that they may be given an approval that excludes
World Record flights but includes all IGC/FAI Badges and Distance
Diplomas."

So the CAI20 isn't quite as good as an EW Microrecoder, LX Nano or a
CAI 302 (each is approved for "All Flights") but you aren't trying for
a world record so what gives with OLC?

Stupid question - Are you sure you are submitting the correct IGC file
and not a GNII log file? *All I have ever done in the past is manually
download the CAI IGC file to my PC (actually done via GNII) and then
manually upload to OLC (direct claim). *Seehttp://www.onlinecontest..org/olc-2.0/Direktmeldung_eng.pdffor
details.

Good luck.

- John

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

about half way down, a very short entry.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yep, they just don't want to continue supporting/maintaining that
code. Maybe they lost the source code for that validation routine. You
wouldn't think it would be that big a deal for a software developer to
update it (assuming they have the source). There's something not right
about this whole thing, and they're not saying anything other than "we
give up".

I see ILEC, FLARM, LX Navigation, LXNAV, and Naviter listed on the
right side of the homepage, but not Cambridge...

On Tuesday, December 6, 2011 6:29:31 PM UTC-5, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
...Nor can I see them releasing the code into the soaring community as this
would lead to the IGC Approval for these models being rescinded as
releasing the code also releases the security algorithm.

No, the algorithm and public keys are *already* public,
just disassemble the (existing public IGC DLL for example)
routine.

The only issue is: nobody wants to do the work to support
these old things...

Hope that clears it up,
Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"

On Dec 6, 4:14*pm, KevinFinke wrote:
They quote the following...

Tuesday, 08. November
The OLC's support to GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will cease on Dezember
31st
The validation procedure of GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 is out of date
since a long time and administring it further is not sustainable. In
efforts to find a solution with representatives from the manufacturer
we could not come to a feasible conclusion. Therefore participation at
the OLC with GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will be only possible until
the end of 2011.
We appologize for any inconvenience and hope for your
understanding ...

Sounds like it's not just an OLC issue. It would require some legacy
support from the current mfg's representatives, and it doesn't seem
like either side was willing to reach an agreement. Don't know what
the issues were, but the soaring community seems to be a very capable
group. Perhaps there is an alternative that could be spearheaded by
the current users.

-Kevin

What they mean by "legacy support" is to have "the manufacturer" come
up with a way to produce "authentic" igc files so they can validate
them just like any other.

Tim Newport-Peace ] wrote:
I can't see anyone from the Cambridge side spending any effort in
producing new code for a product that is no longer in production, even
if they had the source code and ability to do this.

And that's why manufacturers should always publish their algorithms
and public keys: to allow people to write new validation software when
their product has gone out of production and the old validation
programs will never be adapted to new operating systems.

Now if there only was one single good example among logger
manufacturers, we could put our money where our (long-term) interest
is ..

That some private key may have leaked does not seem to be related,
according to the wording on the OLC web site. I guess the OLC has
switched to Windows-x64 on their servers, and that Windows version is
unable to run DOS validation programs ... Hey, logger manufacturers,
providing a proprietary WIN32 DLL is not a solution, it's just the
next iteration of the same old problem!

Max

On Wednesday, December 7, 2011 2:08:59 AM UTC-5, Max Kellermann wrote:
... Hey, logger manufacturers,
providing a proprietary WIN32 DLL is not a solution, it's just the
next iteration of the same old problem!

No, it is complying with the IGC requirements, and supporting
thousands of users via scoring programs, log viewing programs,
etc.

Dave Nadler wrote:
On Wednesday, December 7, 2011 2:08:59 AM UTC-5, Max Kellermann wrote:
... Hey, logger manufacturers,
providing a proprietary WIN32 DLL is not a solution, it's just the
next iteration of the same old problem!

No, it is complying with the IGC requirements, and supporting
thousands of users via scoring programs, log viewing programs,
etc.

What you say may be correct from your point of view, but it has
nothing to do with the argument of my post. You're missing the point.

Today, a WIN32 DLL may be what users need and what IGC requires. In
the 90ies, a DOS program was what users needed and what IGC required,
and that is considered deprecated today, so much deprecated that the
OLC bans a logger that has only a DOS program.

Today's technology will be deprecated tomorrow. Most Windows users
have a 64 bit operating system, and having to support 32 bit DLLs will
constrict technological progress. Windows 8 will run on ARM CPUs, and
that CPU cannot run x32 code. Neither will that DLL be usable on a
Mac, on Linux, on your PDA, on your mobile phone or on your tablet.
The computer world is changing rapidly nowadays. Providing just a
proprietary WIN32 DLL is ignorance, and your anecdotical "thousands of
users" do not matter a lot for that principle, as this is a general
technical problem, not a popularity contest.

If you need a practical example: my logger is a CAI302, and after
landing, XCSoar downloads the IGC file from it. I want XCSoar to
validate the IGC file, but I cannot, because my Streak does not run
Windows and does not have a Intel x32 CPU. I suppose there are
"thousands of users" who would probably like to do some same.

My point (which you missed) was: publish the algorithm and the
(so-called) public keys, and that problem suddenly vanishes.

Then IGC standard (requiring a DOS program or a WIN32 DLL, or whatever
the next revision of the standard may require) is irrelevant for my
post. It's sad that the IGC standard is so short-sighted, and I would
like to see it changed.

On the other hand, logger manufacturers are probably interested in
having an expiration date for their products, so they can sell new
ones.

Max