There have been some openings in discussion towards that goal, but (this
is my interpretation) there seemed not to be too much support for that.
If I recall correctly the use of flarm (as information source about
competitors as opposed to anti-collision warning) may be prohibited in
British comps, though.
I see it so that it was the same with radios, electrical variometers and
gps, but all still made it and we don't question them any more.
Personally I don't see too much advance in practice transferring
information between flarms. If you are close enough to really profit
about the lift strengths it is almost always possible to see it as well ;)
As the miniturization continues it becomes more and more difficult to
guard against for those who want to cheat, so it may be just better to
allow the usage...
hannu
p.s. as now I don't have this flarm radar myself...
On 29.3.2011 10:33, Hannu Niemi wrote:
There have been some opnings in discussion towars that goal, but (this
is my interpretation) there seemed not to be too much support for
that. If I recall correctly the use of flarm (as information source
about competitors as opposed to anti-collision warning) may be
prohibited in British comps, though.
I see it, that it was the same with radios, electrical variometers and
gps, but all still made it and we don't question them any more.
Personally I don't see too much advance in practice transferring
information between flarms. If you are close enough to really profit
about the lift strengths it is almost always possible to see it as well ;)
As the miniturization continues it becomes more and more difficult to
guard against for those who want to cheat, so it may be just better to
allow the usage...
hannu
p.s. as now I don't have this flarm radar myself...
On 29.3.2011 9:54, Luke O'Donnell wrote:
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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto:m...@duempel.org>> wrote:
On 2011/03/29 06:30, Hannu Niemi <hnpi...@phnet.fi
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
