See You : "Task Not Finished"

[Uncle Fuzzy]

When I look at my flights in See You, it always tells me I haven't
completed the task. I don't know if it's because See You wants me to
fly cylinders, or of the ZERO entries in my Takeoff and Landing
Coordinates are the issue. Here's what shows in the declaration:

C0000000N00000000WTAKEOFF
C3803480N11705370W*TONOPAH
C3918500N11450510WEly AP
C3924400N11656600WAustin6
C3803480N11705370W*TONOPAH
C0000000N00000000WLANDING

In case anyone is bored and feeling like digging into it, this is the
flight:

http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?flightId=-1674917029

If the issue is the TAKEOFF and LANDING coordinates, I don't know how
to get them in the 302A declaration. Need help dispelling my
ignorance.

TIA

[Pam Kurstjens]

You are not required to declared your takeoff and landing points. The zeros
in the declaration code will not affect your flight claim nor will they
affect SeeYou.
The problem here is that SeeYou has awarded you an oputlanding before the
first turn point, and I cannot see why. There is a glitch in the SeeYou
analysis somewhere.
Clearly you completed the task.
When I analyse flight claims, I do not rely on what SeeYou tells me. It is
an aid, but not the final word. I use it to enable me to make a step by
step analysis of the flight.
If someone can say why SeeYou awarded an outlanding, and stopped recording
task time, while still recording all other parameters, I'd love to hear
it.
Pam Kurstjens
Data Analyst
Australia

At 22:44 10 November 2008, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
>When I look at my flights in See You, it always tells me I haven't
>completed the task. I don't know if it's because See You wants me to
>fly cylinders, or of the ZERO entries in my Takeoff and Landing
>Coordinates are the issue. Here's what shows in the declaration:
>
>C0000000N00000000WTAKEOFF
>C3803480N11705370W*TONOPAH
>C3918500N11450510WEly AP
>C3924400N11656600WAustin6
>C3803480N11705370W*TONOPAH
>C0000000N00000000WLANDING
>
>In case anyone is bored and feeling like digging into it, this is the
>flight:
>
>http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?flightId=-1674917029
>
>If the issue is the TAKEOFF and LANDING coordinates, I don't know how
>to get them in the 302A declaration. Need help dispelling my
>ignorance.
>
>TIA
>

[Uncle Fuzzy]

On Nov 10, 3:30*pm, Pam Kurstjens > wrote:
> You are not required to declared your takeoff and landing points. The zeros
> in the declaration code will not affect your flight claim nor will they
> affect SeeYou.
> The problem here is that SeeYou has awarded you an oputlanding before the
> first turn point, and I cannot see why. There is a glitch in the SeeYou
> analysis somewhere.
> Clearly you completed the task.
> When I analyse flight claims, I do not rely on what SeeYou tells me. It is
> an aid, but not the final word. I use it to enable me to make a step by
> step analysis of the flight.
> If someone can say why SeeYou awarded an outlanding, and stopped recording
> task time, while still recording all other parameters, I'd love to hear
> it.
> Pam Kurstjens
> Data Analyst
> Australia
>
> At 22:44 10 November 2008, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
>
>
>
> >When I look at my flights in See You, it always tells me I haven't
> >completed the task. *I don't know if it's because See You wants me to
> >fly cylinders, or of the ZERO entries in my Takeoff *and Landing
> >Coordinates are the issue. *Here's what shows in the declaration:
>
> >C0000000N00000000WTAKEOFF
> >C3803480N11705370W*TONOPAH
> >C3918500N11450510WEly AP
> >C3924400N11656600WAustin6
> >C3803480N11705370W*TONOPAH
> >C0000000N00000000WLANDING
>
> >In case anyone is bored and feeling like digging into it, this is the
> >flight:
>
> >http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?flightId...
>
> >If the issue is the TAKEOFF and LANDING coordinates, I don't know how
> >to get them in the 302A declaration. *Need help dispelling my
> >ignorance.
>
> >TIA- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Me too!

[Bernie[_4_]]

Go to / Edit / Optimize while viewing the flight.

This will open the window on the RHS showing the various distances
optimized.

Select OLC.

At the bottom of this window, click the 'Copy' button.

This will copy the selected optimized task to the flight, and the
stats etc. will now be corrected.

Regards, Bernie.
(See you at Narromine Pam!)

[Bernie[_4_]]

PS:

If you search on "photo landing" at http://www.naviter.si/forum/index.php
you will find more info on the actual reason, but I am not really any
the wiser after reading the answers from Andrej.

[Bernie[_4_]]

From http://www.naviter.si/forum/index.php?topic=1004.0

2. If you have a task in your IGC file, then you will get the
statistics according to that task as if you flew it in competition.
This includes the fact that the closest point to the next Waypoint
that was not reached will be the "landout", formerly known as Photo-
landing.

If you wish to have the statistics for the flown task (and get rid of
the Photolanding mark) do this:
.. Optimiize the flight (CTRL+L)
.. Choose one type of task, then press Copy button
.. Go to Statistics and enjoy the full stats over this newly assigned
task

Point 2 suggests that you turned short of the next waypoint on that
part of the flight, and got scored to that point.
As I don't have US waypoints in See You (I'm Australian) I can't check
but you probably can!
The optimize/copy process I described ignores your actual DECLARED
TP's and just uses arbitrary points along your flight path that fit
the selected criteria (ie, OLC, FAI, whatever)

See You thinks your task is a 571.0 Km triangle for some reason. (See
the light blue/mauve line on the map) and had FAI sector TP's. You
actually didn't go though the sector near the photo landing,
and then your course described a semi circle to the left, but I dont
think you ever got closer to the sector than the photo landing point.

So that agrees with the above: " the closest point to the next
Waypoint that was not reached". Perhaps your latest task didnt upload
properly, and a prior task with a very similar route to what you flew
was still declared? Tricky stuff.

Regards, Bernie.

[Bernie[_4_]]

Me again!

Actually I looked at your initial post and see that what you declared
IS the task See You knows about (571.0 Km triangle). I thought you
had more TP's for a while there.

But you clearly didn't go through the FAI sectors, you certainly went
beyond them substantially....... but thats not the same as through
them!

And if you zoom in, you'll see that you didn't get any closer to the
apex of the Ely AP sector than the photo landing point in your orbit
to the North East.

So See You is working as designed I'd say.......... and you either
have to try harder to get the sectors or just use the Edit/Optmize/
Copy process to get your distance.

Regards, Bernie.

[Uncle Fuzzy]

On Nov 10, 4:45*pm, Bernie > wrote:
> Me again!
>
> Actually I looked at your initial post and see that what you declared
> IS *the task See You knows about (571.0 Km triangle). I thought you
> had more TP's for a while there.
>
> But you clearly didn't go through the FAI sectors, you certainly went
> beyond them substantially....... *but thats not the same as through
> them!
>
> And if you zoom in, you'll see that you didn't get any closer to the
> apex of the Ely AP sector than the photo landing point in your orbit
> to the North East.
>
> So See You is working as designed I'd say.......... * and you either
> have to try harder to get the sectors or just use the Edit/Optmize/
> Copy process to get your distance.
>
> Regards, Bernie.

Okay. I'm obviously mistaken about the nature of the FAI Sector. I
had believed the legs were infinitely long, and haven't found a
reference in the FAI Sporting code that specifies any size for the
sector. Doesn't mean it's not there, just means I haven't found it
yet. If you have a reference, please post it. I didn't claim the
flight for anything but OLC, but would hate to be attempting a badge
fligth and find out only after the flight that I'd blown it!

Thanks
Jim

[Uncle Fuzzy]

On Nov 10, 5:41*pm, Uncle Fuzzy > wrote:
> On Nov 10, 4:45*pm, Bernie > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Me again!
>
> > Actually I looked at your initial post and see that what you declared
> > IS *the task See You knows about (571.0 Km triangle). I thought you
> > had more TP's for a while there.
>
> > But you clearly didn't go through the FAI sectors, you certainly went
> > beyond them substantially....... *but thats not the same as through
> > them!
>
> > And if you zoom in, you'll see that you didn't get any closer to the
> > apex of the Ely AP sector than the photo landing point in your orbit
> > to the North East.
>
> > So See You is working as designed I'd say.......... * and you either
> > have to try harder to get the sectors or just use the Edit/Optmize/
> > Copy process to get your distance.
>
> > Regards, Bernie.
>
> Okay. *I'm obviously mistaken about the nature of the FAI Sector. *I
> had believed the legs were infinitely long, and haven't found a
> reference in the FAI Sporting code that specifies any size for the
> sector. *Doesn't mean it's not there, just means I haven't found it
> yet. *If you have a reference, please post it. *I didn't claim the
> flight for anything but OLC, but would hate to be attempting a badge
> fligth and find out only after the flight that I'd blown it!
>
> Thanks
> Jim- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is an excerpt from the FAI Sporting code.

4.6 Choice of observation zone
There are two observation zone
shapes; the traditional sector OZ, and the new cylinder (or “beer
can”) OZ that requires FR use. The
sector OZ is unlimited in distance from its turn point within the
sector boundaries, while the cylinder
OZ area is limited to within 500 metres of the turn point. The
cylinder OZ has some advantages, as
when declaring a badge or record in conjunction with a competition
flight, and some FRs only allow
this sector to be used, but the cylinder OZ can severely restrict a
pilot’s chances of achieving a predeclared
turn point.

[Bernie[_4_]]

Jim,

I think you are absolutely correct, you've got me there!

The only think I can think of is that Andrej from See You says:

".... you will get the statistics according to that task as if you
flew it in competition. "

and I'm wondering if competition TP's are different to badge TP's and
enforce the limited radius?

Or perhaps it is a function of how your TP sectors are defined in
See You?

Regards, Bernie.

[Greg Arnold[_2_]]

Nice flight.

It appears you rounded all the turnpoints, and in fact SeeYou says that
you did, but also says the task wasn't finished. One of the SeeYou guys
may have to explain this.

Does your triangle meet the 28% FAI requirement? It looks like the third
leg is a bit short. But that doesn't explain why SeeYou says you didn't
complete the task.



Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
> On Nov 10, 4:45 pm, Bernie > wrote:
>> Me again!
>>
>> Actually I looked at your initial post and see that what you declared
>> IS the task See You knows about (571.0 Km triangle). I thought you
>> had more TP's for a while there.
>>
>> But you clearly didn't go through the FAI sectors, you certainly went
>> beyond them substantially....... but thats not the same as through
>> them!
>>
>> And if you zoom in, you'll see that you didn't get any closer to the
>> apex of the Ely AP sector than the photo landing point in your orbit
>> to the North East.
>>
>> So See You is working as designed I'd say.......... and you either
>> have to try harder to get the sectors or just use the Edit/Optmize/
>> Copy process to get your distance.
>>
>> Regards, Bernie.
>
> Okay. I'm obviously mistaken about the nature of the FAI Sector. I
> had believed the legs were infinitely long, and haven't found a
> reference in the FAI Sporting code that specifies any size for the
> sector. Doesn't mean it's not there, just means I haven't found it
> yet. If you have a reference, please post it. I didn't claim the
> flight for anything but OLC, but would hate to be attempting a badge
> fligth and find out only after the flight that I'd blown it!
>
> Thanks
> Jim

[5Z]

On Nov 10, 6:41*pm, Uncle Fuzzy > wrote:
> Okay. *I'm obviously mistaken about the nature of the FAI Sector. *I
> had believed the legs were infinitely long, and haven't found a
> reference in the FAI Sporting code that specifies any size for the
> sector. *Doesn't mean it's not there, just means I haven't found it
> yet. *If you have a reference, please post it. *I didn't claim the
> flight for anything but OLC, but would hate to be attempting a badge
> fligth and find out only after the flight that I'd blown it!

Go to Options->Observation Zone
then modify waypoint radius to 10 miles and your flight will become
valid.

The FAI sector is defined in photographic terms, so although it's
"infinite", in practical terms it needs to have some limit, and in the
old days it was the resolution of the camera and visibility of the
turnpoint.

If the sector were really infinite, then it would wrap around the
globe such that any declaration could be completed by making a pattern
flight, since one would be in ALL the OZs immediately after release.
Not quite what was intended.

It appears the authors of SeeYou decided to implement the OZ as a
quarter circle with limited, user adjustable radius. I don't see any
problem with extending this radius to a fairly large size in order to
capture a flight such as yours.

Consider a 50+ km diameter thunderstorm sitting on top of the
turnpoint. If using a camera to document the flight, you might just
be SOL due to not being abole to see any landmarks at or near the
turnpoint. B ut with GPS, you just circumnavigate the storm, and
although you may fly several hundred km farther than the declared
distance, at lest you are able to claim the declaration.

-Tom

[Uncle Fuzzy]

On Nov 10, 6:13*pm, 5Z > wrote:
> On Nov 10, 6:41*pm, Uncle Fuzzy > wrote:
>
> > Okay. *I'm obviously mistaken about the nature of the FAI Sector. *I
> > had believed the legs were infinitely long, and haven't found a
> > reference in the FAI Sporting code that specifies any size for the
> > sector. *Doesn't mean it's not there, just means I haven't found it
> > yet. *If you have a reference, please post it. *I didn't claim the
> > flight for anything but OLC, but would hate to be attempting a badge
> > fligth and find out only after the flight that I'd blown it!
>
> Go to Options->Observation Zone
> then modify waypoint radius to 10 miles and your flight will become
> valid.
>
> The FAI sector is defined in photographic terms, so although it's
> "infinite", in practical terms it needs to have some limit, and in the
> old days it was the resolution of the camera and visibility of the
> turnpoint.
>
> If the sector were really infinite, then it would wrap around the
> globe such that any declaration could be completed by making a pattern
> flight, since one would be in ALL the OZs immediately after release.
> Not quite what was intended.
>
> It appears the authors of SeeYou decided to implement the OZ as a
> quarter circle with limited, user adjustable radius. *I don't see any
> problem with extending this radius to a fairly large size in order to
> capture a flight such as yours.
>
> Consider a 50+ km diameter thunderstorm sitting on top of the
> turnpoint. *If using a camera to document the flight, you might just
> be SOL due to not being abole to see any landmarks at or near the
> turnpoint. *B ut with GPS, you just circumnavigate the storm, and
> although you may fly several hundred km farther than the declared
> distance, at lest you are able to claim the declaration.
>
> -Tom

Thanks Tom!
That was indeed the problem. There's still a ton I don't understand
(like why there is a maximum altitude in the observation zone) but
that's one thing cleared up!
Gotta' love the internet for being able to contact so many people.
There's almost always someone who has an answer!
Thanks again!

[Uncle Fuzzy]

On Nov 10, 6:09*pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> Nice flight.
>
> It appears you rounded all the turnpoints, and in fact SeeYou says that
> you did, but also says the task wasn't finished. *One of the SeeYou guys
> may have to explain this.
>
> Does your triangle meet the 28% FAI requirement? It looks like the third
> leg is a bit short. *But that doesn't explain why SeeYou says you didn't
> complete the task.
Thanks Greg, it was a pretty awesome day! The flight did meet the 28%
rule, I spent a couple hours the night before laying out the task.
The OLC FAI triangle came in at 625 kilometers. The hard part about
laying out an FAI triangle around here is staying out of Restricted
Airspace. It would be REALLY hard to stay completely out of all MOA's
on a triangle.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 10, 6:24*pm, Uncle Fuzzy > wrote:
> On Nov 10, 6:13*pm, 5Z > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 6:41*pm, Uncle Fuzzy > wrote:
>
> > > Okay. *I'm obviously mistaken about the nature of the FAI Sector. *I
> > > had believed the legs were infinitely long, and haven't found a
> > > reference in the FAI Sporting code that specifies any size for the
> > > sector. *Doesn't mean it's not there, just means I haven't found it
> > > yet. *If you have a reference, please post it. *I didn't claim the
> > > flight for anything but OLC, but would hate to be attempting a badge
> > > fligth and find out only after the flight that I'd blown it!
>
> > Go to Options->Observation Zone
> > then modify waypoint radius to 10 miles and your flight will become
> > valid.
>
> > The FAI sector is defined in photographic terms, so although it's
> > "infinite", in practical terms it needs to have some limit, and in the
> > old days it was the resolution of the camera and visibility of the
> > turnpoint.
>
> > If the sector were really infinite, then it would wrap around the
> > globe such that any declaration could be completed by making a pattern
> > flight, since one would be in ALL the OZs immediately after release.
> > Not quite what was intended.
>
> > It appears the authors of SeeYou decided to implement the OZ as a
> > quarter circle with limited, user adjustable radius. *I don't see any
> > problem with extending this radius to a fairly large size in order to
> > capture a flight such as yours.
>
> > Consider a 50+ km diameter thunderstorm sitting on top of the
> > turnpoint. *If using a camera to document the flight, you might just
> > be SOL due to not being abole to see any landmarks at or near the
> > turnpoint. *B ut with GPS, you just circumnavigate the storm, and
> > although you may fly several hundred km farther than the declared
> > distance, at lest you are able to claim the declaration.
>
> > -Tom
>
> Thanks Tom!
> That was indeed the problem. *There's still a ton I don't understand
> (like why there is a maximum altitude in the observation zone) but
> that's one thing cleared up!
> Gotta' love the internet for being able to contact so many people.
> There's almost always someone who has an answer!
> Thanks again!

Tom beat me to the punch on the OZ radius. The only reason I can think
of for the height limit is for competition flights where start
cylinders have a ceiling. My guess is it was just easier to include it
for all waypoints as I don't know of any rules that require it.

Nine Bravo

[Jim White[_3_]]

At 05:54 11 November 2008, wrote:
>On Nov 10, 6:24=A0pm, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 6:13=A0pm, 5Z wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 10, 6:41=A0pm, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
>>
>> > > Okay. =A0I'm obviously mistaken about the nature of the FAI
Sector.
>=
>=A0I
>> > > had believed the legs were infinitely long, and haven't found a
>> > > reference in the FAI Sporting code that specifies any size for the
>> > > sector. =A0Doesn't mean it's not there, just means I haven't
found
>it
>> > > yet. =A0If you have a reference, please post it. =A0I didn't
claim
>th=
>e
>> > > flight for anything but OLC, but would hate to be attempting a
badge
>> > > fligth and find out only after the flight that I'd blown it!
>>
>> > Go to Options->Observation Zone
>> > then modify waypoint radius to 10 miles and your flight will become
>> > valid.
>>
>> > The FAI sector is defined in photographic terms, so although it's
>> > "infinite", in practical terms it needs to have some limit, and in
the
>> > old days it was the resolution of the camera and visibility of the
>> > turnpoint.
>>
>> > If the sector were really infinite, then it would wrap around the
>> > globe such that any declaration could be completed by making a
pattern
>> > flight, since one would be in ALL the OZs immediately after release.
>> > Not quite what was intended.
>>
>> > It appears the authors of SeeYou decided to implement the OZ as a
>> > quarter circle with limited, user adjustable radius. =A0I don't see
>any
>> > problem with extending this radius to a fairly large size in order
to
>> > capture a flight such as yours.
>>
>> > Consider a 50+ km diameter thunderstorm sitting on top of the
>> > turnpoint. =A0If using a camera to document the flight, you might
just
>> > be SOL due to not being abole to see any landmarks at or near the
>> > turnpoint. =A0B ut with GPS, you just circumnavigate the storm, and
>> > although you may fly several hundred km farther than the declared
>> > distance, at lest you are able to claim the declaration.
>>
>> > -Tom
>>
>> Thanks Tom!
>> That was indeed the problem. =A0There's still a ton I don't
understand
>> (like why there is a maximum altitude in the observation zone) but
>> that's one thing cleared up!
>> Gotta' love the internet for being able to contact so many people.
>> There's almost always someone who has an answer!
>> Thanks again!
>
>Tom beat me to the punch on the OZ radius. The only reason I can think
>of for the height limit is for competition flights where start
>cylinders have a ceiling. My guess is it was just easier to include it
>for all waypoints as I don't know of any rules that require it.
>
>Nine Bravo
>
FAI GP rules allow the task setter to set a maximum height for a turn
point, presumably so that spectators may watch from the ground as lunatics
hurtle overhead.

Jim

[Mark Dickson[_2_]]

I don't think the problem is with Seeyou, I think the problem is with your
302. I often get a similar result from Seeyou using a 302. The problem is
with the engine noise detector; despite having a pure sailplane the 302 is
too sensitive and picks up noise that is assumed to be engine noise by
Seeyou. Next time you open one of your flights in seeyou, right click,
select flight properties and check pure glider.
There is a modification that Dickie Feakes (UK) does to the 302 to solve
this problem; maybe you have someone in the US that can do the same.


At 22:44 10 November 2008, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
>When I look at my flights in See You, it always tells me I haven't
>completed the task. I don't know if it's because See You wants me to
>fly cylinders, or of the ZERO entries in my Takeoff and Landing
>Coordinates are the issue. Here's what shows in the declaration:
>
>C0000000N00000000WTAKEOFF
>C3803480N11705370W*TONOPAH
>C3918500N11450510WEly AP
>C3924400N11656600WAustin6
>C3803480N11705370W*TONOPAH
>C0000000N00000000WLANDING
>
>In case anyone is bored and feeling like digging into it, this is the
>flight:
>
>http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?flightId=-1674917029
>
>If the issue is the TAKEOFF and LANDING coordinates, I don't know how
>to get them in the 302A declaration. Need help dispelling my
>ignorance.
>
>TIA
>

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

Cambridge Aero Instruments can do the 302 Engine Noise Level upgrade here in
the USA. All new 302 ENL units built starting around Jan. 2008 have the
hardware change that fixes the previous problem with the ENL recording. If
you own an ENL version built before that I highly recommend sending it to
Cambridge for upgrade. www.cambridge-aero.com.

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com

"Mark Dickson" > wrote in message
...
>I don't think the problem is with Seeyou, I think the problem is with your
> 302. I often get a similar result from Seeyou using a 302. The problem
> is
> with the engine noise detector; despite having a pure sailplane the 302 is
> too sensitive and picks up noise that is assumed to be engine noise by
> Seeyou. Next time you open one of your flights in seeyou, right click,
> select flight properties and check pure glider.
> There is a modification that Dickie Feakes (UK) does to the 302 to solve
> this problem; maybe you have someone in the US that can do the same.
>
>
> At 22:44 10 November 2008, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
>>When I look at my flights in See You, it always tells me I haven't
>>completed the task. I don't know if it's because See You wants me to
>>fly cylinders, or of the ZERO entries in my Takeoff and Landing
>>Coordinates are the issue. Here's what shows in the declaration:
>>
>>C0000000N00000000WTAKEOFF
>>C3803480N11705370W*TONOPAH
>>C3918500N11450510WEly AP
>>C3924400N11656600WAustin6
>>C3803480N11705370W*TONOPAH
>>C0000000N00000000WLANDING
>>
>>In case anyone is bored and feeling like digging into it, this is the
>>flight:
>>
>>http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?flightId=-1674917029
>>
>>If the issue is the TAKEOFF and LANDING coordinates, I don't know how
>>to get them in the 302A declaration. Need help dispelling my
>>ignorance.
>>
>>TIA
>>

[Peter Purdie[_4_]]

No Mark, if you look at the noise trace it is reasonable, and at the
'photo landing' time noise is relatively low. The problem is clearly
the setting of the TP zone radius, and the 'photo landing' is at the
closest approach to the waypoint, since the flight path never enters the
zone within the radius set.

In SeeYou, go into Edit/Flight Properties/Observation Zone. Change the
two waypoint radii from 3km to 30km. The flight is now analysed as
completed at a speed of 82.58 kph.

Interestingly, the analysis also shows that every thermal was turning
right.

I have seen traces where SeeYou interprets a noise peak (due to opening
the DV panel for extra ventilation) as an engine run, but this isn't one
of them.

At 11:00 11 November 2008, Mark Dickson wrote:
>I don't think the problem is with Seeyou, I think the problem is with
your
>302. I often get a similar result from Seeyou using a 302. The problem
>is
>with the engine noise detector; despite having a pure sailplane the 302
is
>too sensitive and picks up noise that is assumed to be engine noise by
>Seeyou. Next time you open one of your flights in seeyou, right click,
>select flight properties and check pure glider.
>There is a modification that Dickie Feakes (UK) does to the 302 to solve
>this problem; maybe you have someone in the US that can do the same.
>
>

[Big Wings]

I'm wondering if SeeYou is confused by the fact that the flight wraps
around midnight (UTC) and apparently starts after it has ended.

When I run animation against the relevant IGC file its starts at the
launch time but when it reached midnight UTC (part way along the second
leg) it thinks the flight has ended and jumps back to the launch.

Looks like this could be a SeeYou bug - even if it's not the root cause
of the original landout problem.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Nov 11, 7:30*am, Big Wings > wrote:
> I'm wondering if SeeYou is confused by the fact that the flight wraps
> around midnight (UTC) and apparently starts after it has ended.
>
> When I run animation against the relevant IGC file its starts at the
> launch time but when it reached midnight UTC (part way along the second
> leg) it thinks the flight has ended and jumps back to the launch.
>
> Looks like this could be a SeeYou bug - even if it's not the root cause
> of the original landout problem.

I believe this is a known problem and I expect Naviter will be fixing
it. However if you set the correct UTC Offset in Tools>Options>General
this won't happen.

Darryl

[Uncle Fuzzy]

On Nov 11, 7:41*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Nov 11, 7:30*am, Big Wings > wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering if SeeYou is confused by the fact that the flight wraps
> > around midnight (UTC) and apparently starts after it has ended.
>
> > When I run animation against the relevant IGC file its starts at the
> > launch time but when it reached midnight UTC (part way along the second
> > leg) it thinks the flight has ended and jumps back to the launch.
>
> > Looks like this could be a SeeYou bug - even if it's not the root cause
> > of the original landout problem.
>
> I believe this is a known problem and I expect Naviter will be fixing
> it. However if you set the correct UTC Offset in Tools>Options>General
> this won't happen.
>
> Darryl

NOT UTC, NOT 302A!
Problem was fixed by increasing the Observation zone radius in See
You, under 'Tools' / 'Options' / 'Observation zone'
Many thanks to 5Z (Tom) and everyone else who looked into this!

[Darryl Ramm]

On Nov 11, 8:31*am, Uncle Fuzzy > wrote:
> On Nov 11, 7:41*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 7:30*am, Big Wings > wrote:
>
> > > I'm wondering if SeeYou is confused by the fact that the flight wraps
> > > around midnight (UTC) and apparently starts after it has ended.
>
> > > When I run animation against the relevant IGC file its starts at the
> > > launch time but when it reached midnight UTC (part way along the second
> > > leg) it thinks the flight has ended and jumps back to the launch.
>
> > > Looks like this could be a SeeYou bug - even if it's not the root cause
> > > of the original landout problem.
>
> > I believe this is a known problem and I expect Naviter will be fixing
> > it. However if you set the correct UTC Offset in Tools>Options>General
> > this won't happen.
>
> > Darryl
>
> NOT UTC, NOT 302A!
> Problem was fixed by increasing the Observation zone radius in See
> You, *under 'Tools' / 'Options' / 'Observation zone'
> Many thanks to 5Z (Tom) and everyone else who looked into this!

I should have been clear, Tom clearly had nailed it, but the UTC
offset will catch people if a flight wraps as Big Wings reported. It
may not be an issue, or you may have the offset set correctly in
SeeYou on your PC. This comes up when people view a flight trace from
a different timezones, and may need to reset their UTC offset to work
around this.

Darryl

[Andy[_1_]]

On Nov 10, 7:13*pm, 5Z > wrote:
> Consider a 50+ km diameter thunderstorm sitting on top of the
> turnpoint. *If using a camera to document the flight, you might just
> be SOL due to not being abole to see any landmarks at or near the
> turnpoint.

But wasn't it ok to verify being in the sector by photographing a
recognizable feature in the sector rather than the TP itself. I know
that was not valid for US contest TP but it was ok for badges and
records wasn't it? It's been a long time since I used cameras.

Andy