Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Flightradar24 Feeder Chat

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I think you might be referring to this map, that was started by a community member:

    http://imradarfeeder.com/

    But there might be others as well.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by HermanZA View Post
      I think you might be referring to this map, that was started by a community member:
      With just 715 feeders listed, both "F" and "T", that map only covers a small percentage of FR24 feeders.

      As Mike says, it needs to be a 100% or not at all.
      Mike


      www.radarspotting.com

      Radarspotting since 2005

      Comment


      • Thanks for answering my question.
        I didn't consider the competitive reasons. When I looked earlier at where coverage is needed and saw LAX, I thought for sure there must be something being fed to here. Also I didn't know about that the change in altitude can affect what is being relayed here.

        Comment


        • FR24 has many feeders around the LAX/Southern California area, I also cover the LAX area with my feed :-)

          Originally posted by Matt View Post
          Thanks for answering my question.
          I didn't consider the competitive reasons. When I looked earlier at where coverage is needed and saw LAX, I thought for sure there must be something being fed to here. Also I didn't know about that the change in altitude can affect what is being relayed here.
          Brian

          www.RadarSpotters.eu
          [ Feeder Station List ][ Map ][ Latest Feeders Rank Stats ][ ImRadarFeeder.com Radar Feeders WorldWide Map ][ VRS Feeder List ] (NEW)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by HermanZA View Post
            I think you might be referring to this map, that was started by a community member:

            http://imradarfeeder.com/

            But there might be others as well.
            If that site is correct, there is some wacky issue of codes...
            YBCG6 (which I can never recall seeing online so this might be very old) is nowhere near YBCG - off by about 150 km's, it's on border of YBBN and YBSU, though I'd classify it more as YBSU.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Ressy View Post
              If that site is correct, there is some wacky issue of codes...
              YBCG6 (which I can never recall seeing online so this might be very old) is nowhere near YBCG - off by about 150 km's, it's on border of YBBN and YBSU, though I'd classify it more as YBSU.
              No, there is no issue with codes. For FR24 the radar code was created many years ago, just to be a unique code to identify a receiver in our system, nothing more and nothing less. We have learned during the years that this often collides with feeders interest of having the "perfect code", but the code was once created not to be perfect, but to be unique. If we would build the system today we would have taken a completely different approach and different system construction.

              Today, every time we change the code we more or less loose the history of the receiver. In most cases it does not matter, in other cases support ha big problems to follow a history of a receiver and in some cases to find a receiver. Just an example I spent 20 minutes yesterday with support to find full history of a receiver that was installed 2013, renamed, replaced, renamed again, replaced again in 2014 and renamed.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mike View Post
                No, there is no issue with codes. For FR24 the radar code was created many years ago, just to be a unique code to identify a receiver in our system, nothing more and nothing less. We have learned during the years that this often collides with feeders interest of having the "perfect code", but the code was once created not to be perfect, but to be unique. If we would build the system today we would have taken a completely different approach and different system construction.

                Today, every time we change the code we more or less loose the history of the receiver. In most cases it does not matter, in other cases support ha big problems to follow a history of a receiver and in some cases to find a receiver. Just an example I spent 20 minutes yesterday with support to find full history of a receiver that was installed 2013, renamed, replaced, renamed again, replaced again in 2014 and renamed.
                an extra database table column could save you that time

                So YBCG6 is actually still active?, and if so have you confirmed they did not move?
                From the apparent location on that third party website they have an excellent coverage area for ground from there letalone airspace, yet I can never recall seeing them, I ask only because of your recently stated comments about showing aircraft once data is uploaded by at least two stations for verification, and as per my several posts about me detecting aircraft FR24 not showing, since YBCG6 is only a few kilometres to my west - and with far greater coverage, you should have got both data sets and "displayed" the non displaying local aircraft.

                Comment


                • MLAT is now Online In The Philippines and Asia
                  Ice
                  F-RPLL3

                  Comment


                  • MLAT Philippines???? MLAT NUMBER ?

                    Originally posted by AircraftSpotterPH View Post
                    MLAT is now Online In The Philippines and Asia
                    What do you base your opinion on?

                    Yes Mode-S has become enabled for Philippine receivers but I haven't seen any tracking of domestic non-ADs-b aircraft yet.

                    Seeing Unknowns on the FR24 map is an indication that an MLAT server is on in an area of overlapping coverage.

                    It's unclear how FR24 was able to overcome latency issues in Australia and New Zealand. My latency to the server is about 500 ms.

                    Philippine ISPs do not peer in Manila but peer overseas so your neighbor across the street using a different ISP will have to send packets overseas to communicate with you resulting in unnecessary latency. Peering is in the future here so that the Philippines will finally present a unified connection to the world.

                    If you are sampling the FR24 receiver, Mode-S enabled or disabled doesn't prevent the receiver from detecting and indicating Unknown (positionless) aircraft, but just tells the receiver to include or exclude unneeded information from the packets sent home to the server.

                    John
                    F-RPVD1

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by paradiselost View Post

                      It's unclear how FR24 was able to overcome latency issues in Australia and New Zealand. My latency to the server is about 500 ms.
                      Sydney/Australia based co-located server to process and forward I believe. We often remain online, or can selectively go offline separate from the globe. And also uses us as new update tests (see the new website change screenshots)
                      Posts not to be taken as official support representation - Just a helpful uploader who tinkers

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by paradiselost View Post
                        What do you base your opinion on?

                        Yes Mode-S has become enabled for Philippine receivers but I haven't seen any tracking of domestic non-ADs-b aircraft yet.

                        Seeing Unknowns on the FR24 map is an indication that an MLAT server is on in an area of overlapping coverage.

                        It's unclear how FR24 was able to overcome latency issues in Australia and New Zealand. My latency to the server is about 500 ms.

                        Philippine ISPs do not peer in Manila but peer overseas so your neighbor across the street using a different ISP will have to send packets overseas to communicate with you resulting in unnecessary latency. Peering is in the future here so that the Philippines will finally present a unified connection to the world.

                        If you are sampling the FR24 receiver, Mode-S enabled or disabled doesn't prevent the receiver from detecting and indicating Unknown (positionless) aircraft, but just tells the receiver to include or exclude unneeded information from the packets sent home to the server.

                        John
                        F-RPVD1
                        MLAT

                        Screenshot_2014-11-25-22-51-01.png
                        Ice
                        F-RPLL3

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by paradiselost View Post
                          What do you base your opinion on?

                          Yes Mode-S has become enabled for Philippine receivers but I haven't seen any tracking of domestic non-ADs-b aircraft yet.

                          Seeing Unknowns on the FR24 map is an indication that an MLAT server is on in an area of overlapping coverage.

                          It's unclear how FR24 was able to overcome latency issues in Australia and New Zealand. My latency to the server is about 500 ms.

                          Philippine ISPs do not peer in Manila but peer overseas so your neighbor across the street using a different ISP will have to send packets overseas to communicate with you resulting in unnecessary latency. Peering is in the future here so that the Philippines will finally present a unified connection to the world.

                          If you are sampling the FR24 receiver, Mode-S enabled or disabled doesn't prevent the receiver from detecting and indicating Unknown (positionless) aircraft, but just tells the receiver to include or exclude unneeded information from the packets sent home to the server.

                          John
                          F-RPVD1
                          MLAT

                          Screenshot_2014-11-25-22-51-01.png
                          Ice
                          F-RPLL3

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by AircraftSpotterPH View Post
                            MLAT

                            [ATTACH=CONFIG]5092[/ATTACH]
                            I would have my doubts with this one, remember the radar code displayed is not always a good/confirmed indicator.

                            http://flightaware.com/live/flight/P.../RPMD/tracklog

                            That aircraft should be new enough to be ADSB equipped, and in the past its brothers have been tracked by an ADSB receiver on FA. Its unlikely an A320 would need to be MLAT'd one would have thought.
                            Posts not to be taken as official support representation - Just a helpful uploader who tinkers

                            Comment


                            • MLAT code is always correct as it is the only data source for some aircraft. There are still a lot of new aircraft delivered without ADS-B. I recently added almost 100 new A320/B737 to database from China that has never been tracked with ADS-B.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Oblivian View Post
                                Sydney/Australia based co-located server to process and forward I believe. We often remain online, or can selectively go offline separate from the globe. And also uses us as new update tests (see the new website change screenshots)
                                As to 500ms latency, most aussie carriers favour all intl traffic by the U.S. it helps the U.S. NSA a lot, but not those of us in Asia Pac region from communicating to each other at decent latency.

                                1 gw-brisbane.tpg.lnk01 (10.10.0.1) 0.657 ms 1.027 ms 1.401 ms
                                2 * * *
                                3 203-219-166-2.static.tpgi.com.au (203.219.166.2) 40.103 ms 44.242 ms 46.180 ms
                                4 syd-sot-ken-crt4-TG-13-2.tpgi.com.au (202.7.173.173) 67.633 ms 69.061 ms 74.975 ms
                                5 syd-sot-ken-int2-be-20.tpgi.com.au (203.219.35.68) 72.035 ms 76.152 ms 80.068 ms
                                6 ix-8-1-2-0.tcore2.SQN-San-Jose.as6453.net (64.86.21.57) 279.900 ms 283.047 ms 286.206 ms
                                7 if-1-2.tcore1.SQN-San-Jose.as6453.net (63.243.205.1) 301.965 ms 286.348 ms 285.211 ms
                                8 if-13-2.tcore2.LVW-Los-Angeles.as6453.net (63.243.205.66) 288.470 ms 270.364 ms 271.500 ms
                                9 if-10-0-0-5.mcore5.LAA-Los-Angeles.as6453.net (209.58.33.49) 273.837 ms 274.329 ms 273.394 ms
                                10 ix-5-0.mcore5.LAA-Los-Angeles.as6453.net (209.58.33.78) 358.918 ms 434.922 ms 435.246 ms
                                11 210.213.131.82.static.pldt.net (210.213.131.82) 446.855 ms 518.578 ms 497.333 ms
                                12 210.213.131.57.static.pldt.net (210.213.131.57) 481.549 ms 479.261 ms 480.308 ms
                                13 210.213.244.218.static.pldt.net (210.213.244.218) 475.351 ms 479.305 ms 476.133 ms
                                ...

                                terrorists only need take out 2 landing points (I wont say where but most know anyway) and aus internet is 98% gone, because of our tier 1's fascination of only using the US as our gateway, even to Europe, even to India its by the U.S... go figure

                                So expect high latency to AU. especially from Asia and Europe, with only one or two carriers providing a direct link into Asia ( even then, its not all of Asia *sigh*)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X