Selection of Radar sites for web display?

[Anmer]

I explained clearly why I care in my first post. Probably you didn't care enough to read that,

As it happens I did read your first and subsequent posts. The use of "meaningless" was in reference to the radar label attached to a flight. Which it is, whether you like it or not.

But if making personal comments about other forum members makes you feel better, so be it.

[elljay]

Or better: "Stop feeding data to us, we don't care".

Yes, sometimes FR give that impression, but the fact that they're recruiting an "IoT Technical Support Specialist" to "help data sharers get the most out of their hardware by providing them with up-time and coverage solutions" seems to show they realise something needs doing and they are doing something concrete about it.

[Anmer]

If FR24 didn't care, Mike wouldn't have bothered to reply 6 times in this thread.

[elljay]

True, but the data is agreed to be confusing and has been for ages so why don't FR fix the display to something useful?

[MrBill]

Because the vast majority of the 18,000 plus FR24 feeders are asking the same question.

Time to move on. This is a totally "dead" and irrelevant topic.

If FR provides the data in flight details view then we have an expectation and the question can be asked. If you’re not interested in participating in a constructive manner then move on. No need to comment.

FR should just remove it if there’s no logical explanation. That or improve that detail with a drop down that’s contains all the radars contributing data to the flight. That seems like overkill so I vote for the former.

But don’t dismiss valid questions from other members because the same question isn’t logically answered. It would keep coming up if the question was properly satisfied.

[Oblivian]

But don’t dismiss valid questions from other members because the same question isn’t logically answered. It would keep coming up if the question was properly satisfied.

You would think so, but I still get made out the bad guy for my posts being 'unfriendly' trying to point (often the first reply they have) most to an already established answer or method even when they are generally satisfied somewhere previously with similar key words.

Sent from my XT1092 using Tapatalk

[Anmer]

If you’re not interested in participating in a constructive manner then move on. No need to comment.

Read my previous posts in this thread. The problem is when Mike and others provide an explanation, the answers are rejected without justification. That's why we should "move on". We're not achieving anything by challenging the qualified responses without substantive data to the contrary.

FR should just remove it if there’s no logical explanation. That or improve that detail with a drop down that’s contains all the radars contributing data to the flight. That seems like overkill so I vote for the former.

Totally agree. See my previous posts.

But don’t dismiss valid questions from other members because the same question isn’t logically answered.

But that's the point. It has been logically answered, here and in dozens of other forum threads.

[abcd567]

Two things I never bother and look to:
(1) What is my rank and why it is less than others in my area.
(2) Why my station is not shown as radar for any of the flights which my receiver picks and feeds to FR24.

This attitude keeps my blood pressure normal and keeps me happy

[SoNic67]

The explanation given would not fit the reported behavior. The answer was that "the assignment is random". Well, in my case there is hardly any assignment (I would say 99.95% of time I don't have any), and even when there is one, it is "snatched" in 5-10 miles of me.
So the "random" explanation fails mathematically.
Right now I am reporting 90-95 planes (to 160miles/270km) on my local web page. None of them is assigned by FR4 to me on the public webpage (filter by my radar name). Zero. Zilch. Nada.

And for people that are projecting their own reasons to me, I clearly stated why I asked this. I don't care about stats or "glory" or the free Business account (that's nice, but I have it, so is not that).
I am an engineer, a tinkerer, that wants to understand why things are behaving a certain way. I don't understand why that bothers people to the point that they need to post negative things about this.

PS: I guess is too much to expect those days. Like when I asked publicly a question about a certain product on Amazon, and someone answered the question with "I don't know". Like I was asking him specifically. I don't get this...

[Mike]

I am an engineer, a tinkerer, that wants to understand why things are behaving a certain way.

Here are the answers to your first post.

Does anyone know what are the criteria based on which the planes are associated with radar sites on the web page?

No one probably knows. For sure not anyone on this forum. Merge code was written 10 years ago by a person that is not working for FR24 today. It has been modified, updated, modifed, updated and modified again for many different use cases. Actually there are many data feeds in the system, for example one for old Pro app and one for new Free app so in this second your code may be showing up in Free app, but not in Pro app. It's just very complex with many, many parameters.

My question is... why? Is something that makes my data un-trusty or un-reliable? Because then, I would like to fix that.

The very easy answer is, no, there is nothing you can do. Your data probably is there but not your code. As I wrote before altitude date may be from feeder 1 and position data from feeder 2 and callsign from feeder 3. In this case maybe you are feeder 1 but feeder 2 code is shown. So no one claims that your data as un-trusty or un-reliable. The only un-reliable data is the radar code.

[SoNic67]

I am more concerned that it seems that I am singular in my experience. Right now I have 110 planes (170 miles/243km) tracked locally and 1 finally shows on FR24 site. So if nobody else sees those dismal results, it might be something else in my system.
Timings, format (like I said the only one that seems to work is Beast-tcp).

[Oblivian]

I am more concerned that it seems that I am singular in my experience. Right now I have 110 planes (170 miles/243km) tracked locally and 1 finally shows on FR24 site. So if nobody else sees those dismal results, it might be something else in my system.
Timings, format (like I said the only one that seems to work is Beast-tcp).

Despite us trying our best to point it out, you are finding the error in your ways right there. You can't tell you such things.

The public display page is exactly that. And you cant prove dismal results when you can't tell how many other sources they are using or see how data is processed at the remote end.

If you wan't assurance your feed is good and its not some rubbish filtering/processing at the receiving end effecting it and not pleasing people (which is basically what it boils down to). It's already been advised how.

And that doesn't include looking at Dump1090 web output or anything else that uses the data. As they can all introduce false 'still tracking' delays if the 'lost contact' (or no-data received) timeout is not 0second/instant. And don't show true signal rate if patchy.

If it wasn't obvious. Data upload isn't live. It's packaged. ADSB sends on average 2-5 packets per second, per aircraft. And you can't see if it is getting all packets of a single airframe in a 5 second period. Or missed half of them and unable to select a good set of track/plottable data.

Online?
Stats:

https://www.flightradar24.com/account/data-sharing

"LAST UPLOAD (5MIN)" check
Web Config:
FR24 Link: Connected via TCP
http://<>:8754/tracked.html - Live data from the receiver being sent

Sending valid data?
Web Config:
Aircraft Tracked:
(ModeS & ADS-B) 12
Aircraft Uploaded: 9
^Believe this will change based on 1) ADSB vs Mode-S/MLAT 2) server telling your feed to not send
Raw feeder visual output:
[feed][i]sent 8,0 AC
[feed][i]removed 1 of 10 AC

If your internet works. And your time is being synced right (it also tells you if you watch the uploading output). And above appears fine. Theres nothing more you can do to make it go faster/pick you more. And that's the realisation most of us have come to.

[SoNic67]

I can't fathom that, sorry.
Local 97, web zero... that makes no sense, even with your explanation. What, there are more than 100 receivers around me? Even then I should see sometimes the planes tracked by my site. I never see any.

Local:


Web:


And yes, my feeder is 100% online:

[Anmer]

What, there are more than 100 receivers around me? Even then I should see sometimes the planes tracked by my site. I never see any.

The bottom line is "Stop looking". I'm sure you can track your local aircraft . What's missing is a label attributing them to your feeder site.

Unfortunately, no matter how you think it should work, the radar label is totally meaningless. Although you, and others, are feeding data to FR24, you cannot expect to see your contributions "awarded" by displaying your radar labels.

This topic has been covered head to toe. If you haven't understood the explanations provided so far, we're going nowhere fast.

[SoNic67]

I don't care about the label per se. I am inquiring about the fact that this might be a symptom of something else, because it makes no mathematical sense (zero out of 100 it's not random).

But i guess you can't understand that, even after I have stated it many times. And I am not sure why you care about this topic, nobody forces you to read it. Or post for that matter.
After all, everything was probably "discussed" already, so we should shut down this forum altogether?