CAI Model 20 to OLC?

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

Yeah, I know I should "buy a new logger". But, I fly old sailplanes. :-) Anyone had success uploading a file from a Model 20 and getting a valid score? I am 0 for 3. The first two, I wrote off to too few satellites a couple of times during the flight. Didn't have that issue today, but still a big red V.

I am using the same conversion program I used last year, and it says it is making a valid file. It worked fine last year, but doesn't now. Maybe they would like me better if I gave them money? And, please, no "Use Skylines" comments.

Suggestions welcome.

Steve Leonard

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 7:59:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Leonard wrote:
> And, please, no "Use Skylines" comments.

How about cloustreet.aero ;-)

5Z

[[email protected]]

Meant to say crosscountry.aero - cloudstreet is the flight planning / logbook software.

On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 8:27:05 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 7:59:52 PM UTC-7, Steve Leonard wrote:
> > And, please, no "Use Skylines" comments.
>
> How about cloustreet.aero ;-)
>
> 5Z

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 8:45:41 PM UTC-7, wrote:

Steve - you fly gliders that require Kodak Instamatic cameras and a Winter barograph.

Glad that someone is taking care of soaring history.

9B

[Tim Newport-Peace[_4_]]

At 02:59 09 July 2017, Steve Leonard wrote:
>Yeah, I know I should "buy a new logger". But, I fly old sailplanes.
:-)
>=
> Anyone had success uploading a file from a Model 20 and getting a valid
>sc=
>ore? I am 0 for 3. The first two, I wrote off to too few satellites a
>cou=
>ple of times during the flight. Didn't have that issue today, but still
a
>=
>big red V.
>
>I am using the same conversion program I used last year, and it says it
is
>=
>making a valid file. It worked fine last year, but doesn't now. Maybe
>the=
>y would like me better if I gave them money? And, please, no "Use
>Skylines=
>" comments.
>
>Suggestions welcome.
>
>Steve Leonard
>
Have you checked the signature of the .CAI file with VALI-CAM.EXE?
If the sig is invalid then your Big Red V is valid.

[kinsell]

On 07/08/2017 08:59 PM, Steve Leonard wrote:
> Yeah, I know I should "buy a new logger". But, I fly old sailplanes. :-) Anyone had success uploading a file from a Model 20 and getting a valid score? I am 0 for 3. The first two, I wrote off to too few satellites a couple of times during the flight. Didn't have that issue today, but still a big red V.
>
> I am using the same conversion program I used last year, and it says it is making a valid file. It worked fine last year, but doesn't now. Maybe they would like me better if I gave them money? And, please, no "Use Skylines" comments.
>
> Suggestions welcome.
>
> Steve Leonard
>
You know, for ten bucks you can get IGCDROID for Android tablets and
phones that produce files good enough for OLC. Put a phone in your
front pants pocket, it will work fine. Of course, anyone still using a
model 20 probably sports a flip phone (or crank phone), so that might
not work.

The old Cambridge units never produced valid igc files, never should
have been approved loggers, and OLC should just stop accepting them to
put you out of your misery. They've wasted extraordinary amounts of
people's time over the years, and continue to do so even today. But
only if you let them.

-Dave

[[email protected]]

Steve- Buy a Nano and stick it in your shirt pocket. Works with every antique you climb into. OLC gave up trying to cater to the Legacy Cambridge loggers years ago. For the same reason we changed from the telegraph and smoke signals.

[JS]

On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 1:15:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
> At 02:59 09 July 2017, Steve Leonard wrote:
> >Yeah, I know I should "buy a new logger". But, I fly old sailplanes.
> :-)
> >=
> > Anyone had success uploading a file from a Model 20 and getting a valid
> >sc=
> >ore? I am 0 for 3. The first two, I wrote off to too few satellites a
> >cou=
> >ple of times during the flight. Didn't have that issue today, but still
> a
> >=
> >big red V.
> >
> >I am using the same conversion program I used last year, and it says it
> is
> >=
> >making a valid file. It worked fine last year, but doesn't now. Maybe
> >the=
> >y would like me better if I gave them money? And, please, no "Use
> >Skylines=
> >" comments.
> >
> >Suggestions welcome.
> >
> >Steve Leonard
> >
> Have you checked the signature of the .CAI file with VALI-CAM.EXE?
> If the sig is invalid then your Big Red V is valid.

And a valid post on RAS?
Jim

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 3:15:06 AM UTC-5, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
> At 02:59 09 July 2017, Steve Leonard wrote:
> >
> >Suggestions welcome.
> >
> >Steve Leonard
> >
> Have you checked the signature of the .CAI file with VALI-CAM.EXE?
> If the sig is invalid then your Big Red V is valid.

Thank you for the suggestion, Tim. I will check tonight, but all seems fine. Seal is good, date is current, passes security check during conversion.

Time to go to the gliderport. Flying is more important right now. Tonight, a different story. :-)

Steve

[Dan Marotta]

Hi Steve,

I'll happily send you my camera and mount and Replogle barograph to use,
though you'll have to get the barograph calibrated (if you can find
someone to do it). :-D

Dan

On 7/9/2017 10:47 AM, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 3:15:06 AM UTC-5, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
>> At 02:59 09 July 2017, Steve Leonard wrote:
>>> Suggestions welcome.
>>>
>>> Steve Leonard
>>>
>> Have you checked the signature of the .CAI file with VALI-CAM.EXE?
>> If the sig is invalid then your Big Red V is valid.
> Thank you for the suggestion, Tim. I will check tonight, but all seems fine. Seal is good, date is current, passes security check during conversion.
>
> Time to go to the gliderport. Flying is more important right now. Tonight, a different story. :-)
>
> Steve

--
Dan, 5J

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

You can mount the cameras but you will not be able to buy film. The film industry went the same way as the coal industry years ago. But hey after the news out of the G19 plus 1 maybe the film industry will come back along with pay phones and coal.


On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 10:36:25 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> I'll happily send you my camera and mount and Replogle barograph to use,
> though you'll have to get the barograph calibrated (if you can find
> someone to do it). :-D
>
> Dan
>

[[email protected]]

If you still get the OLC "points", who cares about the big red V?

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 10:59:52 PM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:
> Yeah, I know I should "buy a new logger". But, I fly old sailplanes. :-) Anyone had success uploading a file from a Model 20 and getting a valid score? I am 0 for 3. The first two, I wrote off to too few satellites a couple of times during the flight. Didn't have that issue today, but still a big red V.
>
> I am using the same conversion program I used last year, and it says it is making a valid file. It worked fine last year, but doesn't now. Maybe they would like me better if I gave them money? And, please, no "Use Skylines" comments.
>
> Suggestions welcome.
>
> Steve Leonard

If flying 30 plus year old gliders is no big deal then why the sarcasm over 20 year old instruments? Also it seems especially when it comes to badges that we have tighter security the our state department. Why can't any IGC file be OK....are we really afraid that people will cheat the system? I guess with all that prize money people will do anything.

Accept all IGC files and let pilots be on their honor.

Dennis

DC

[Tim Newport-Peace[_4_]]

At 14:09 12 July 2017, wrote:
>On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 10:59:52 PM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:
>> Yeah, I know I should "buy a new logger". But, I fly old sailplanes.
>:-=
>) Anyone had success uploading a file from a Model 20 and getting a
valid
>=
>score? I am 0 for 3. The first two, I wrote off to too few satellites a
>c=
>ouple of times during the flight. Didn't have that issue today, but
still
>=
>a big red V.
>>=20
>> I am using the same conversion program I used last year, and it says it
>i=
>s making a valid file. It worked fine last year, but doesn't now. Maybe
>t=
>hey would like me better if I gave them money? And, please, no "Use
>Skylin=
>es" comments.
>>=20
>> Suggestions welcome.
>>=20
>> Steve Leonard
>
>If flying 30 plus year old gliders is no big deal then why the sarcasm
>over=
> 20 year old instruments? Also it seems especially when it comes to
badges
>=
>that we have tighter security the our state department. Why can't any IGC
>f=
>ile be OK....are we really afraid that people will cheat the system? I
>gues=
>s with all that prize money people will do anything.=20
>
>Accept all IGC files and let pilots be on their honor.
>
>Dennis
>
The Cambridge M10 (from which came the M20) was only secure in the .CAI
file, the .IGC file was not secure, something Dave Ellis promised to fix,
but never did. The M10 was the first, later recorders all had secure .IGC
files.

We Learn.

But to assume that all pilots are honourable has been proved to be wrong,
and we only know about the people who have been caught.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 9:45:12 AM UTC-5, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
> >
> The Cambridge M10 (from which came the M20) was only secure in the .CAI
> file, the .IGC file was not secure, something Dave Ellis promised to fix,
> but never did. The M10 was the first, later recorders all had secure .IGC
> files.
>
> We Learn.
>
> But to assume that all pilots are honourable has been proved to be wrong,
> and we only know about the people who have been caught.

Didn't get to fly Sunday, and haven't gotten to checking your suggestion yet, Tim. As I recall, and I am sure you can correct me if I am wrong, the CAI Model 10/20/25 were all secure in .cai, but the creation of the .igc was not. However, they were done BEFORE the standard had been established. Dave Ellis said he would remedy the situation, but moved on the to 302, where he did remedy the situation regarding the .igc format, but did not go back and "fix" the issue for the 10/20/25. Sort of like why Schempp-Hirth didn't go back and do a gross weight increase on the N3 when they had the N4 out. Why go back and improve something you aren't making any longer? Support it, yes. But make it better?

To my eye, this whole thing came about as those running the OLC set out to "punish" CAI for not doing as they said they would and making a secure conversion for files from the 10/20/25. Work-arounds were developed and used, and then it came down to a different workaround and a FEE to be paid to OLC.. As I recall, ClearNav stepped up and developed a final workaround, and paid the FEE to OLC so the legacy loggers could continue to be used.

And my question was and still is, "Has anyone recently been able to upload and get a valid flight using a CAI 10/20/25 logger and the ClearNav provided conversion program?" Trying to figure out if it is a problem on my end, or on OLC end. If it is on their end, I think I am done. If it is on my end, I need to figure out what I am doing wrong or what is wrong with the loggers I am using (3 flights, two different loggers used).

As far as "trust", they accept files from an app on a phone as valid, but not from a logger that is still acceptable for getting badges and records up to some level in the USA. And as Dennis said, "We ain't getting no girls, prize money or anything like that from OLC points." I upload to push myself and others in USA Region 10.

Maybe I can check things later, but there are hotter things I am dealing with right now.

Thanks,

Steve

[Dan Marotta]

On 7/12/2017 8:09 AM, wrote:
> <snip> I guess with all that prize money people will do anything.
>
> Accept all IGC files and let pilots be on their honor.
>
> Dennis
>
> DC
It's not so much the money as it is the chicks/groupies...
--
Dan, 5J

[JS]

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 8:17:47 AM UTC-7, Steve Leonard wrote:
>
> Maybe I can check things later, but there are hotter things I am dealing with right now.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve

Dealing with the fame and fortune of OLC participation?
The paparazzi?
And anyone with that many aircraft must be dodging hordes of women!

Foolish: The rules like only having 48 hours to submit, replace or even add comments, and if the logger is not gold standard you don't get OLC League credit.
Counterproductive: No smiley next to our names (and others) any more.
Jim

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 11:17:47 AM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 9:45:12 AM UTC-5, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
> > >
> > The Cambridge M10 (from which came the M20) was only secure in the .CAI
> > file, the .IGC file was not secure, something Dave Ellis promised to fix,
> > but never did. The M10 was the first, later recorders all had secure .IGC
> > files.
> >
> > We Learn.
> >
> > But to assume that all pilots are honourable has been proved to be wrong,
> > and we only know about the people who have been caught.
>
> Didn't get to fly Sunday, and haven't gotten to checking your suggestion yet, Tim. As I recall, and I am sure you can correct me if I am wrong, the CAI Model 10/20/25 were all secure in .cai, but the creation of the .igc was not. However, they were done BEFORE the standard had been established. Dave Ellis said he would remedy the situation, but moved on the to 302, where he did remedy the situation regarding the .igc format, but did not go back and "fix" the issue for the 10/20/25. Sort of like why Schempp-Hirth didn't go back and do a gross weight increase on the N3 when they had the N4 out. Why go back and improve something you aren't making any longer? Support it, yes. But make it better?
>
> To my eye, this whole thing came about as those running the OLC set out to "punish" CAI for not doing as they said they would and making a secure conversion for files from the 10/20/25. Work-arounds were developed and used, and then it came down to a different workaround and a FEE to be paid to OLC. As I recall, ClearNav stepped up and developed a final workaround, and paid the FEE to OLC so the legacy loggers could continue to be used.
>
> And my question was and still is, "Has anyone recently been able to upload and get a valid flight using a CAI 10/20/25 logger and the ClearNav provided conversion program?" Trying to figure out if it is a problem on my end, or on OLC end. If it is on their end, I think I am done. If it is on my end, I need to figure out what I am doing wrong or what is wrong with the loggers I am using (3 flights, two different loggers used).
>
> As far as "trust", they accept files from an app on a phone as valid, but not from a logger that is still acceptable for getting badges and records up to some level in the USA. And as Dennis said, "We ain't getting no girls, prize money or anything like that from OLC points." I upload to push myself and others in USA Region 10.
>
> Maybe I can check things later, but there are hotter things I am dealing with right now.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve

Steve after first reading your post I posted my last flight using the Model 20 and the cai conversion program successfully. I normally upload the IGC file from my Oudie unless i want to use it for a badge. Then I would need to use the cai converted file. And yes ...lets make this as easy and cheap to users as possible... if someone cheats well they have to live with it.

Dennis

DC

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 11:42:00 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> Steve after first reading your post I posted my last flight using the Model 20 and the cai conversion program successfully. I normally upload the IGC file from my Oudie unless i want to use it for a badge. Then I would need to use the cai converted file. And yes ...lets make this as easy and cheap to users as possible... if someone cheats well they have to live with it.
>
> Dennis
>
> DC

Thank you, Dennis. Sounds like the problem is somewhere on my end. Going to have to dig in and find it.

As far as "cheating" on OLC goes, remember the guy who was submitting logs made via Condor? Those were "OK", but Cambridge files are no good. :-)

Steve Leonard

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

I have a few flights I have made in my mind, too bad I can't submit those, they were epic! :)
>
> As far as "cheating" on OLC goes, remember the guy who was submitting logs made via Condor? Those were "OK", but Cambridge files are no good. :-)
>
> Steve Leonard

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 11:17:47 AM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:
>
>
> ClearNav stepped up and developed a final workaround, and paid the FEE to OLC so the legacy loggers could continue to be used.

You're welcome...

[AS]

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 11:57:26 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> On 7/12/2017 8:09 AM, wrote:
> > <snip> I guess with all that prize money people will do anything.
> >
> > Accept all IGC files and let pilots be on their honor.
> >
> > Dennis
> >
> > DC
> It's not so much the money as it is the chicks/groupies...
> --
> Dan, 5J

..... as it is the chicks/groupies...
If I could only keep them from touching the canopy! ;-)

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 12:07:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 11:17:47 AM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:
> >
> >
> > ClearNav stepped up and developed a final workaround, and paid the FEE to OLC so the legacy loggers could continue to be used.
>
> You're welcome...

And since I didn't actually say it then, THANK YOU VERY MUCH! Now, I need to give you a bunch of business replacing batteries in my old Model 20s and 25s. Hopefully help you recover some of that cost.

Steve Leonard

[LOV2AV8]

My frustration has come from not being able to use my SN10 file that gets gps from CAI Model 20 for League scores. Only good enough for Nationals but not OLC league. Have the nice USB adapter to download the flight from the SN10. Will a google search find the clearnav work around?

[LOV2AV8]

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 12:39:50 PM UTC-7, LOV2AV8 wrote:
> My frustration has come from not being able to use my SN10 file that gets gps from CAI Model 20 for League scores. Only good enough for Nationals but not OLC league. Have the nice USB adapter to download the flight from the SN10. Will a google search find the clearnav work around?

PS: I have 3 Nav20's. Two I paid for the fix when the last date issue hit. One in reserve.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

https://clearnav.net/main/cn-CAI-OLC.html

That is the link for the ClearNav .cai to .igc accepetable to OLC conversion.

Steve

[Papa3[_2_]]

Hey Steve,

I was stupid enough to take the lead in trying to manage the process of getting the Legacy CAI workaround through the OLC folks back in 2012. I've been roped into a couple of problems here and there over the last 5 years, but by-and-large the process seems to work for "most people most of the time". One thing that seems to crop up occasionally is Pilot Event Markers (PEVs) screwing things up. I've done some analysis, and I can't identify the root cause, but there seems to be a high correlation. So, check to see if your files have any PEVs; that could be a problem. Why there would be a PEV if you are just using the Model 20 as a passive logger (i.e. not connected to the 303 display) is a question in and of itself...

Erik Mann (P3)

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 5:19:04 PM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
> Hey Steve,
>
> I was stupid enough to take the lead in trying to manage the process of getting the Legacy CAI workaround through the OLC folks back in 2012. I've been roped into a couple of problems here and there over the last 5 years, but by-and-large the process seems to work for "most people most of the time". One thing that seems to crop up occasionally is Pilot Event Markers (PEVs) screwing things up. I've done some analysis, and I can't identify the root cause, but there seems to be a high correlation. So, check to see if your files have any PEVs; that could be a problem. Why there would be a PEV if you are just using the Model 20 as a passive logger (i.e. not connected to the 303 display) is a question in and of itself...
>
> Erik Mann (P3)

Thank you, Eric. My Model 20 is hooked to an L-Nav, and a GPS Nav Display. It is possible I might have hit "GO" and made a PEV. I have seen OLC throw out a flight for changing the declared task in flight, and for power interruptions that made the logger go through its startup screens sequence (poor solder joint somewhere in old wiring and some big turbulence). The first two I lost this year are likely due to several loss of GPS signal events. Poor location in the Ka-6, and too much UV barrier in the Poly spray, I guess. This one is more puzzling to me, as I looked through the trace and I am not seeing anything that says it would be bad.

Have tried to run VALI-CAM.exe, it seems to open a DOS window that immediately closes. But, using the ClearNav conversion tool, all files have shown good security and valid conversion to making the .igc file. Will see what happens on the next flight, I guess.

Steve Leonard

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 8:59:52 PM UTC-6, Steve Leonard wrote:
> Yeah, I know I should "buy a new logger". But, I fly old sailplanes. :-) Anyone had success uploading a file from a Model 20 and getting a valid score? I am 0 for 3. The first two, I wrote off to too few satellites a couple of times during the flight. Didn't have that issue today, but still a big red V.
>
> I am using the same conversion program I used last year, and it says it is making a valid file. It worked fine last year, but doesn't now. Maybe they would like me better if I gave them money? And, please, no "Use Skylines" comments.
>
> Suggestions welcome.
>
> Steve Leonard

Years ago, Just before the Cambridge date issue, I used to use "Cambridge Aero Explorer" to convert files and it worked every time. I still have a copy of this software but sold the glider and upgraded the current panel so I haven't tried it in 3 or 4 years. I can dig it up if needed.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 8:31:20 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 8:59:52 PM UTC-6, Steve Leonard wrote:
> > Yeah, I know I should "buy a new logger". But, I fly old sailplanes. :-) Anyone had success uploading a file from a Model 20 and getting a valid score? I am 0 for 3. The first two, I wrote off to too few satellites a couple of times during the flight. Didn't have that issue today, but still a big red V.
> >
> > I am using the same conversion program I used last year, and it says it is making a valid file. It worked fine last year, but doesn't now. Maybe they would like me better if I gave them money? And, please, no "Use Skylines" comments.
> >
> > Suggestions welcome.
> >
> > Steve Leonard
>
> Years ago, Just before the Cambridge date issue, I used to use "Cambridge Aero Explorer" to convert files and it worked every time. I still have a copy of this software but sold the glider and upgraded the current panel so I haven't tried it in 3 or 4 years. I can dig it up if needed.

I use this software myself and run the file thru a Cambridge converter program. I'm lucky to have a former Cambridge designer/engineer as a club member -:)

Dennis

DC

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 6:19:04 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
>
> I was stupid enough to take the lead in trying to manage the process of getting the Legacy CAI workaround through the OLC folks back in 2012.

And I was stupid enough to write the Cambridge converter program, and also the "Cambridge Aero Explorer".

Soaring software, its a gold mine!

Guy Byars

[JS]

On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 6:46:34 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 6:19:04 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> >
> > I was stupid enough to take the lead in trying to manage the process of getting the Legacy CAI workaround through the OLC folks back in 2012.
>
> And I was stupid enough to write the Cambridge converter program, and also the "Cambridge Aero Explorer".
>
> Soaring software, its a gold mine!
>
> Guy Byars

A gold mine, indeed.
Thanks for digging the hole anyway, Guy.
Without a Cambridge logger any more, still have Aero Explorer Plus on this laptop.
Jim

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 8:46:34 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 6:19:04 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> >
> > I was stupid enough to take the lead in trying to manage the process of getting the Legacy CAI workaround through the OLC folks back in 2012.
>
> And I was stupid enough to write the Cambridge converter program, and also the "Cambridge Aero Explorer".
>
> Soaring software, its a gold mine!
>
> Guy Byars

Thank you again, Guy! I still communicate with my 20/25 using a super ancient TI Extensa running Windows 98. Still has a real serial port, and a 3.5 inch floppy drive. Initial view of the flights is via the old Cambridge DOS program. Then I move to either an XP or Vista machine, and view on Aero Explorer Plus. To get the flight over there, I have a USB 3.5 inch floppy drive. And, yes. It all works just fine.

We need to see a flight in your SGS 1-20 recorded using a Model 10 logger and uploaded to OLC, Guy!

To all those that have done it, Thank You for lining that soaring software hole in the ground with your own gold. There are many out here that really do appreciate all you have done and continue to do.

Steve Leonard

[[email protected]]

On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 10:08:58 AM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 8:46:34 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 6:19:04 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> > >
> > > I was stupid enough to take the lead in trying to manage the process of getting the Legacy CAI workaround through the OLC folks back in 2012.
> >
> > And I was stupid enough to write the Cambridge converter program, and also the "Cambridge Aero Explorer".
> >
> > Soaring software, its a gold mine!
> >
> > Guy Byars
>
> Thank you again, Guy! I still communicate with my 20/25 using a super ancient TI Extensa running Windows 98. Still has a real serial port, and a 3..5 inch floppy drive. Initial view of the flights is via the old Cambridge DOS program. Then I move to either an XP or Vista machine, and view on Aero Explorer Plus. To get the flight over there, I have a USB 3.5 inch floppy drive. And, yes. It all works just fine.
>
> We need to see a flight in your SGS 1-20 recorded using a Model 10 logger and uploaded to OLC, Guy!
>

I actually still have my CAI Model 10 logger, though it requires a cash infusion to work again. I think I'll just keep it for static display in my museum.

The SGU 1-20 will never have a logger on board. The pellet vario and a paper map still work very well thank you. Though with a 2.01 handicap I could clean up in Sports Class.

[Dan Marotta]

This wouldn't be a Windows issue, would it? I find lots of formerly
useful programs don't work with Windows 8 or 10.

On 7/13/2017 5:33 PM, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 5:19:04 PM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
>> Hey Steve,
>>
>> I was stupid enough to take the lead in trying to manage the process of getting the Legacy CAI workaround through the OLC folks back in 2012. I've been roped into a couple of problems here and there over the last 5 years, but by-and-large the process seems to work for "most people most of the time". One thing that seems to crop up occasionally is Pilot Event Markers (PEVs) screwing things up. I've done some analysis, and I can't identify the root cause, but there seems to be a high correlation. So, check to see if your files have any PEVs; that could be a problem. Why there would be a PEV if you are just using the Model 20 as a passive logger (i.e. not connected to the 303 display) is a question in and of itself...
>>
>> Erik Mann (P3)
> Thank you, Eric. My Model 20 is hooked to an L-Nav, and a GPS Nav Display. It is possible I might have hit "GO" and made a PEV. I have seen OLC throw out a flight for changing the declared task in flight, and for power interruptions that made the logger go through its startup screens sequence (poor solder joint somewhere in old wiring and some big turbulence). The first two I lost this year are likely due to several loss of GPS signal events. Poor location in the Ka-6, and too much UV barrier in the Poly spray, I guess. This one is more puzzling to me, as I looked through the trace and I am not seeing anything that says it would be bad.
>
> Have tried to run VALI-CAM.exe, it seems to open a DOS window that immediately closes. But, using the ClearNav conversion tool, all files have shown good security and valid conversion to making the .igc file. Will see what happens on the next flight, I guess.
>
> Steve Leonard

--
Dan, 5J

[Tim Newport-Peace[_5_]]

Not really. It is a DOS program that require a parameter of the filename,
and unless you open a DOS window first and then run it VALI-CAM <filename>,
it won't help you.

At 15:03 14 July 2017, Dan Marotta wrote:
>This wouldn't be a Windows issue, would it? I find lots of formerly
>useful programs don't work with Windows 8 or 10.
>
>On 7/13/2017 5:33 PM, Steve Leonard wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 5:19:04 PM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
>>> Hey Steve,
>>>
>>> I was stupid enough to take the lead in trying to manage the process
of
>getting the Legacy CAI workaround through the OLC folks back in 2012.
I've
>been roped into a couple of problems here and there over the last 5
years,
>but by-and-large the process seems to work for "most people most of the
>time". One thing that seems to crop up occasionally is Pilot Event
>Markers (PEVs) screwing things up. I've done some analysis, and I can't
>identify the root cause, but there seems to be a high correlation. So,
>check to see if your files have any PEVs; that could be a problem. Why
>there would be a PEV if you are just using the Model 20 as a passive
logger
>(i.e. not connected to the 303 display) is a question in and of itself...
>>>
>>> Erik Mann (P3)
>> Thank you, Eric. My Model 20 is hooked to an L-Nav, and a GPS Nav
>Display. It is possible I might have hit "GO" and made a PEV. I have
seen
>OLC throw out a flight for changing the declared task in flight, and for
>power interruptions that made the logger go through its startup screens
>sequence (poor solder joint somewhere in old wiring and some big
>turbulence). The first two I lost this year are likely due to several
loss
>of GPS signal events. Poor location in the Ka-6, and too much UV barrier
>in the Poly spray, I guess. This one is more puzzling to me, as I looked
>through the trace and I am not seeing anything that says it would be bad.
>>
>> Have tried to run VALI-CAM.exe, it seems to open a DOS window that
>immediately closes. But, using the ClearNav conversion tool, all files
>have shown good security and valid conversion to making the .igc file.
>Will see what happens on the next flight, I guess.
>>
>> Steve Leonard
>
>--
>Dan, 5J
>

[JS[_5_]]

On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 7:08:58 AM UTC-7, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 8:46:34 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 6:19:04 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> > >
> > > I was stupid enough to take the lead in trying to manage the process of getting the Legacy CAI workaround through the OLC folks back in 2012.
> >
> > And I was stupid enough to write the Cambridge converter program, and also the "Cambridge Aero Explorer".
> >
> > Soaring software, its a gold mine!
> >
> > Guy Byars
>
> Thank you again, Guy! I still communicate with my 20/25 using a super ancient TI Extensa running Windows 98. Still has a real serial port, and a 3..5 inch floppy drive. Initial view of the flights is via the old Cambridge DOS program. Then I move to either an XP or Vista machine, and view on Aero Explorer Plus. To get the flight over there, I have a USB 3.5 inch floppy drive. And, yes. It all works just fine.
>
> We need to see a flight in your SGS 1-20 recorded using a Model 10 logger and uploaded to OLC, Guy!
>
> To all those that have done it, Thank You for lining that soaring software hole in the ground with your own gold. There are many out here that really do appreciate all you have done and continue to do.
>
> Steve Leonard

Steve, Looks like you had problems with OLC on your 700k triangle yesterday..
If OLC accepts a trace from a cell phone they should accept anything. They wouldn't check if you claimed VJS was a Carbon Dragon.
At least they won't accept our donations. Silly buggers.
Jim