Do current builds of XCSoar still have the lift-rate via flarm sensing
capability? I was under the impression it was no longer in the build as of
5.2.x or something. At least i recall a conversation between altair owners
who mentioned you had to use an older build to get the functionality.
The sportsmanship of using the functionality in competitions seems dubious
at best, has it been specifically ruled against by FAI or other gliding
bodies?
Luke
On 29 March 2011 16:29, Hannu Niemi <hnpi...@phnet.fi> wrote:
> Actually I see that the airspace control is the "main point" why the
> software loggers are not approved because the restricting altitudes are
> mostly defined in standard pressure. The gps altitude is not pressure
> altitude neither the accuracy on vertical component of GPS coordinates isn't
> as good as lateral.
>
> About the OLC flights it depends quite a lot WHERE you are flying. Here in
> Finland it is quite possible to fly long flights without ever being close to
> another glider, if you fly somewhere else than southern Finland ;)
>
> hannu
>
>
> On 29.3.2011 9:20, martin.kopp...@gmx.de wrote:
>
> If loggers would cooperate more tightly with EG Flarms, they could also log
> meeting other aircraft during the flight. These events would be hardly
> predictable by anyone interested in tampering with the flight data. During
> scoring, flight data of all pilots could then automatically be checked
> against each other. I can imagine that his would make even a software logger
> tamper proof up to an extent that practically makes data manipulation
> impossible in comps, especially if collected flights are not published
> before all the IGC-Files have been turned in.
>
> AFAIK the standard Flarm box does already collect this data as a means
> for a range check analysis.
>
> It could well be that one could spoof a flight for decentralised
> competitions such as OLC, because one could argue that there was no other
> glider close enough all flight long, but even that is quite unlikely.
>
> Viele Grüße,
> Martin Kopplow
>
> ---
>
> Am 29.03.2011 um 07:34 schrieb "Luke O'Donnell" <l.odonnel...@gmail.com>:
>
> Ahh, that's right, i forgot they had internal altitude sensors.
>
> I don't think for one second that trying to cheat by tampering with a log
> would be easy - spoofing tens of thousands of datapoints in such a way that
> it looks like a valid flight would be incredibly difficult and time
> consuming - time that would be much better spent practicing :P. Having said
> that, much the same would apply to attempting to tamper with a non-IGC
> approved logger, you would still need to spoof the datapoints in such a way
> that it looks like a valid flight.
>
> From what i've seen, it's common practice for competition pilots
> (especially at the higher levels) to look at the top few pilots traces for
> the day to see what better decisions they made, so it's not as though people
> wouldn't notice the trace behaving significantly different to what they are
> used to seeing. I guess i'm just saying that trying to successfully spoof a
> trace even with a non-igc approved logger would be very difficult to get
> away with in real life, and would likely see you never competing again
> (rightly so). I'm not convinced the biggest hurdle would be trying to
> overcome the protections put in place by the IGC certification, but rather
> the sort of problems mentioned above.
>
> Luke
>
>
> On 29 March 2011 15:23, Hannu Niemi <hnpi...@phnet.fi> wrote:
>
>> There actually two things that make a logger IGC approved
>>
>> 1. The anti-tampering methods which both signs the code against changes in
>> the file (easy) and against opening the device (electronic seal). Quite
>> many of loggers have integral antenna to make your approach a bit difficult.
>>
>>
>> 2. The approved loggers have also internal pressure metering to have
>> reliable altitude reference (flight levels are based on normal pressure). It
>> also makes faking the gps signal more difficult as gps height should follow
>> the altitude trace.
>>
>> I believe that tampering with results is quite difficult in practice
>> during the competition because you can't know much earlier where one should
>> fly and at what time. Normally we are so many that being missed and still
>> "as-of-been-there" is quite difficult an equation. At least here (and in
>> most comps I know) the IGC files are made available and some peer-control
>> would quite surely - at least in long run - show this forgery off. Also the
>> time restraints give quite a little time for tampering.
>>
>> hannu (I have been scoring maybe 50-60 comps since '91)
>>
>>
>> On 29.3.2011 8:10, Luke O'Donnell wrote:
>>
>> I was under the impression it was the same in Australia - generally
>> XCSoar/SeeYou etc traces are accepted in smaller reigonal comp's, but not at
>> the national level. If i recall correctly, the Australian National's rules
>> (Jan 2011) were that you could submit a non-IGC approved trace only once
>> during the competition - intended to be a failsafe in the event of a logger
>> failure.
>>
>> I havn't found much solid documentation on the web RE the anti-tamper
>> requirements for IGC-approved loggers, are these really all that
>> tamper-proof? I imagine that anyone who was really dedicated to cheating
>> could probably plug a device into the external GPS antenna connector of an
>> approved logger and spoof the gps signals. This would remove the need for
>> such a cheater to actually tamper with the .igc file, which would presumably
>> be detectable with reference to some sort of hashing algorithm.
>>
>> Luke
>>
>> On 29 March 2011 14:50, Max Kellermann <m...@duempel.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2011/03/29 06:30, Hannu Niemi <hnpi...@phnet.fi> wrote:
>>> > Only thing you are missing without declaration is the "accelerated
>>> > rate of fixes" near turnpoint (though I am not sure if GPS-NAV even
>>> > supports this). In Volkslogger et al the logger logs fixes every
>>> > second below 0.5 km before the turning point cylinder
>>>
>>> XCSoar does that.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet
>>> the
>>> growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses
>>> are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology - will your
>>> software
>>> be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker
>>> today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmar
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Xcsoar-user mailing list
>>> Xcsoar-user@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcsoar-user
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the
>> growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses
>> are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology - will your software
>> be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker
>> today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmar
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xcsoar-user mailing list
>> Xcsoar-user@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcsoar-user
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the
> growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses
> are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology - will your software
> be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker
> today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmar
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xcsoar-user mailing list
> Xcsoar-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcsoar-user
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the
> growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses
> are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology - will your software
> be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker
> today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmar
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xcsoar-user mailing
> listXcsoar-user@lists.sourceforge.nethttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcsoar-user
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the
> growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses
> are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology - will your software
> be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker
> today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmar
> _______________________________________________
> Xcsoar-user mailing list
> Xcsoar-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcsoar-user
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the
growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses
are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology - will your software
be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker
today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmar
_______________________________________________
Xcsoar-user mailing list
Xcsoar-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcsoar-user
