Allycrash is a fair target i reckon, every meeting that has had a stuff up with timing is nearly always running Allycrash, this has been the case for along time.

Over the last two years, Alycat Software has eliminated all test sites in NSW and Victoria.

As of the latest version, 8.4, released some months ago now, Alycat is no longer sold into these states.

The next step, as of the next release, will be a complete withdrawal from the Australian market.

I do not need this crap, I have serious personal issues to contend with, and after almost 20 years of this it is enough. It must be wonderful to have as your major personal problem the fact that a toy car race meeting was delayed.

We take fun seriosuly and when big meetings have issues we like to complain and pin point the issues. Base on what you said above you need not be concerned about our complaints it not your problem and seems u wont be fixing it.

There are ways around the problems (i.e more testing) clubs have been experiencing and as long as people voice their opinions things will improve. Peoples opinions are not always right but its a free world.

we wish you luck, dont let out rants disturb you.

silence isn't golden when holding it inside

fix it? How can I, from what I heard they were running version 7, that is 6 or more years old and is a Windows 3.1 program. As has been stated by Microsoft, et al, support in 32 bit Windows for older 16 bit applications is not perfect. It becomes more problematic when low level hardware interaction occurs (read "transponders") and is exacerbated with the move to Windows 2000 and XP. If they could not have afforded the upgrade fee (a maximum of $200 Au) I would have given them a copy. But then I wasn't there and don't even know what the problem was, but that never seemed to stop people commenting in these forums, just see the Brat.

Well Paul Smith I think if you feel so deeply about this subject then you wont want race an event that runs Alycat any more. So I can safely say that you wont be running at the state titles the winter championships the challenge Cup , the National title, your own club of SMA and most club in Australia. I can't say TCS because you can't run it again seeing that you have gone to Japan on the back of Alycat. I would say about 75% of RC car clubs run Alyact and the there are only two or three people complaining
Seeing that the problems you are talking about does not even concern alycat I think he deserves an apology.

This is getting funny.:)

I don't think so:flaming: :flaming: :flaming:

Does this revelation mean there is going to be a positive or a negative effect on clubs, will clubs update to a current program or will they try and struggle on with a redundant version? maybe its time for people with the rights to the various other programs to come to the rescue, with discounted license rates etc.

Ken my thoughts are with you, and anyone else that is having personal problems.

Trev - it would be ignorant to boycott a race meeting based solely on the system being used, there just arent that many big meetings in Australia to pick and choose.

Its amusing how everyone has gone personal, i believe Mackem created the thread to talk about ways of improving meetings, being from a program point of view, hardware, or just the general knowledge of the user. IMO if a club puts their hand up for a major meeting then they should have a current lap scoring program, an up to date hardware setup, the knowledge to operate it effectively, and most of all that all the components when combined operate effectively.

In the last few meetings i can think of the following issues:

Tamworth - Power spikes, to my knowledge they were not running a UPS or a surge protector.
Wodonga - a borrowed system incorrectly set up.
ACT - according to Steve, a new PC not proven.

This info is from memory so if it is incorrect please advise, but they all relate to a lack of preparation on the clubs behalf, most of the discussion to now has been on the software alone, while it has been pointed out that the program has been at the centre of a number of issues, the whole system needs to be investigated. I would like to see all major meeting attain a ARCMACCA's approval under which things like track condition, and lapscoring systems are meant to be up to scratch. But for whatever reason this was not upheld in relation to Wodonga.

While RC in Aus is such a small market i dont see it getting any bigger if we continue to put up with less than professional meetings, my thanks go out to those that put the required effort into running meetings, but misdirected effort is no help to us either.

Maybe the step after that is to withdraw it from the world. As for your personal issues. If you get so tied up in this forum re alycat you should consider counselling.

And Trev you should stop getting so defensive it isnt the best program weather it be its complexity or whatever it is. the meets that its been run at have generally had an issue the meets without Moorebank EC are generally flawelesly run meetings why?

Cause they dont use Alycat.

Another thing to look at Steve has only been running meets for 2 years and i recall 1 problem with the system where as others with Alycat have been running it for 5 + years and seem to have problems regardless.

This is a problem where experincing with Alycat not you Trev so stop getting worked up

as i had mention more testing should be conducted but individual clubs. If all runs well at a club day dont change things before a big meeting. the quirky timing issues seems to happen at several big meetings, would be nice to know what causes it.

Like at ACT on the weekend... super quick lap times and exagerated race times and cars not counting at all. Not the first meeting to have these exact problems.

Timing system has nothing to do with what meeting i choose to attend or the result, if we have major pain in the butt issues though its fair game to cry out for a solution.

There are certainly more than two or three people complaining, majority choose to not publicly say anything though. Alycat may not always be the issue but there are problems and its a common factor. Maybe a new back to basics system would be an improvment.

If clubs are running old versions they should be told and not given big meetings unless the timing system is proven to work properly. All clubs can afford to upgrade to the lastest version i'm sure.

Why? They represent well over 75% of the Alycat user base and have less than 5% of the problems, etc..

Some common sense at last. The purpose of this thread was absolutely not to bash the software or the race officials. It seems from the discussion, no matter how rational, or irrational it has been, that the problem may well be that the version of the software and the hardware used are not compatable, especially when the resources are a little stretched with a large field.

If this is the case, are the users just ignoring the requirements of the software or is there a lack of communication regarding system requirements?

If we need a new computer, say held by ARCMACC, which will run big meetings, then surely those funds could easily be raised. There must have been close to 200 entries for last weekend. How difficult would it be to put a $5.00 levy on all ARCMACC affilliated events for the rest of the year. That should raise more than enough funds to slove the problem. Or am I wrong.

You could do worse then revert to the way it used to be with ROORDA, etc, (and which is the way it is done in some overseas places I am aware of and have been involved with) with one PC used to run all major meetings (would have the advantage of having most entries already in the database), and with one person charged with attending those meetings and running the events. Needless to say, entry prior to race day should be mandatory (there are several free online systems available so there should never be a need for on the day entries) - this would give the race director the ability to do what I always did in this circumstance the night before, set up the meeting and let it run through on automatic, this of course doesn't eliminate all possible problems but it is a big help. AMBrc's should also be mandatory. If the (major) version of the software remains the same, any problems experienced at one meeting could be fixed and tested before the next such meeting, rather than it seems to continue to run old copies of software with various PCs and OSes and various varieties of transponders.

To those who think I am getting personal yes I am. For a long time Ken and I have been friends and he is going though very difficult time I know I've been there, and when people that have really know idea what happened on the weekend bag a program and a friend ( yes it is the same) like that I do get personal, you would do the same if the rolls were reversed.
I know the MM start this thread in a different direct and if it would have stayed in that direction I would not have had a problem.
I hate to say it though :lol: :lol: :lol: but I do agree with what Brad said and it seem that thread has turn so we can get back to the matter at hand.

This has been previously been raised to me for consideration. It is a good idea, however along with the positives there are negatives.

1. Who pays for postage
2. Who pays for damage, loss - "It was in perfect order / It was all there when I sent it to you..."
3. Club - Why should I have to use your computer, etc when mine works perfectly?
4. Which software to use? No matter which one we pick there is a good chance that people won't know or have a very limited knowledge of how to use it so we are back to square one.


What we have to remember is that we are trying to get high quality timing on dodgy build quality, electrically noisy computers, which run dodgy operating systems, which are running on dodgy power (due to all of our power supplies plugged in on the same circuit). If that's not enough it relies on electric induction / radio waves just to get the signal from the transponder. That's a whole another science in itself...

Perhaps we had better go back to manual timing. that would reduce the transponder problem. I don't see the Tourers or F1 having the same problems.

If the power supply is a problem, then clubs should have a dedicated outlet for the computer system. With facilities like Tamworth and Wodonga, these issues are a small fraction of the cost of setting up the facility in the first place.

Hmmm multi million dollar events compared to our $2 events.
Maybe we should raise the entry fees to cover the costs the clubs will have to foot.
I still don't see a problem with $60 to $100 per class entry fee, considering the thousands of dollars most racers spend on their equipment

I actually know one of the guys who runs the computer system at the Australian tracks, and have been to the track - compared to RC racing, there was an awful lot of running around in the computer area, heaps of manual adjustments and there are about 6 people involved. But at least, unlike RC, they generally have "real" transponders, with a rising/falling signal to have a better idea when a car actually crossed the line. It has always amazed me how in RC we assume transponders create some huge sense of accuracy, but at the end of the day we are just averaging the time in and out of the loop, could well be quite a few metres so we are assuming a uniform speed in all of that distance.

Point 1, we use the same gear that big events do, AMB is used in alot of motosport.

Point 2, I also don't see that given the amount of money clubs must make from large meets (at current entry fee) that they can't upgrade the 286 computer that they have run for the last 10 years with and buy proven race software.

Also I don't see why clubs should have to supply a transponder. If you want to race then supply your own personal tranny. I don't own one because I don't have to, but I would at the drop of a hat if I had to. This would also save club money and hopefully upgrade the timing system.

Coxy.

No, they are NOT AMBrc, they are different, and usually a lot bigger, have a look at the ones used in V8 cars, they are a brick.It should be mandatory to use PTs at all major meetings, they speed up the meeting in not having to worry about chasing up transponders, etc. There could easily be a small supply of PTs for hire. There are already quite a few clubs doing this.

Yes I understand that they are not the same size but they are still AMB, and the go kart ones are alittle smaller. The size I believe has a lot to do with the battery they run in them.

Coxy.

Yes, but as long as you understand they are different technologies, there are a lot of different AMB transponders

I know that Moorebank it is manitory to buy a personal transponder. I think its the same at most of the large meets in 1/8 and 1/10 nitro. I think its a good idea

6 paid professional people at that, all RC has to offer are volunteers, in some cases would rather be racing as well.
If we started to use profesionals to run the lap scoring systems like the real racers of this level, we would be paying $100 plus entry fees to these meetings.

Most clubs rely on at least one big meeting to cover expenses like Public Liability insurance, council rents and expenditures, track maintainance etc.

It is great for the racers to come up with the ideas of spending the money, but the club has to earn the money to start with, then it has to managed the money over 12 months minimum. With rained out club days, etc also puts a big hole in the budget.

So do you believe the problem is AMB not Alley Cat.

I was not at the meeting and I have not seen a log file (one has been requested) so unlike a lot of other people here I don't feel I can state anything definitive.

The only definite hardware issue I am aware of is, as stated, if they were using an old 16 bit (Windows 3.1) application with Windows 2000, XP, etc and using low level hardware access, e.g transponders. This is a known recipe for intermittent hardware access problems.

The point I was trying to make is that we cannot assume that because we use AMB transponders and so do F1 that we can expect the same reliability.

However, AMBrc is a huge leap forward from any earlier system. I have examined many log files and the reliability of the AMBrc hardware is high. I have seen many meeting, over months, without even one missed lap. With sequence numbering, data re-requesting and data logging, etc, etc, it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt where any problem occurs, in either the trackside of the decoder (usually the loop) or computer side of the decoder (cable, port, computer or software) and with some further work even more can be found.

Of course, even if a definitive answer is found via a log file, e.g. that the problem was the loop, and that is backed up by sending the info to AMB, it doesn't mean that RC people here would even believe it, as has been shown.

This is encouraging. I was not aware that this sort of feedback from a meeting took place.

I guess that the next question is, if it proves that the problem was with using a 3.1 application, then I suppose it is purely up to the club to do someting about updating the software.

How would we know, as racers, if this upgrade had been carried out before we make the trip to Kambah again?

It only works if we can get a log file - there has never been a log file provided for any other of the problems being discussed here. Current version log files provide info on every keystroke, mouseclick, functions called and used, etc, etc.. You would appreciate that this info cannot be provided without a purchaser's consent, you would have to contact the club. On road rules used to include a requirement as to the standard of software used (I know, I was section head, I wrote them, and no, they were generic and did not specify Alycat).

Mad mackem just to give you some idea of the information gathered. Say the meeting I ran in Melbourne for TCS with 140 entries, I was using the same version of the program I am using now. The size of the meeting was about 10mg the log files 1 gig. a club meeting at Castle Hill would be 1-2 mg the log file would be 35-50 mg so you can see if a program does happen Ken can trace were it is and if it is Alyact or something else.

If you wish I can show you tonight when you come down to racing.
An example of a operating system failure was about 2 years ago, I had just bought a brand new computer put windows 98 on it and loaded Alycat 8.3 on and I had problems with missed laps. It took 3 months and alot of hair :lol: :lol: to work out that it was the operating system that caused it. I changed to xp and the problem was fixed.
But I do agree that if we are going to run meeting like we have been with international driver coming the association or the promoter should look at making sure that not just the track and organizer can hold it but the lap-scoring system as well

Thanks Trev, I'll take you up on that.

I shouldn't worry about the hair, you have a lot more to lose than I do. :nod:

Log file = 1 Gig, holly crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My guess this is why the system is crashing at big meets.

ROTFL, why would a disk file, large or small, cause a program to crash?????? Please, some common sense here. The logging system has been refined and improved over about the last 15 years, in all that time there has been one (1) crash caused by a log file, back in '99 I think, when something was tried to be logged early on before the log file was opened. Alycat issues a warning if disk space starts to get low so there should be no cause for running out of disk space.

However, I haven't seen too many log files that big, 20 Megs might be average.

Alycat, If you're having problems with finding the time etc to work on the system, why not release the system under a suitable open-source licence? That way many more people are able to point out issues and problems in the code, and even fix them with the correct skill.

Open sourcing the code does not mean you cannot sell the product for a fee(a common misconseption), it would more than likely increase sales because everyone would be able to trust the system a hell of a lot more.

Unless you're using proprietry AMB code to interface with the AMB system, of course you couldnt release that section of the code..

There are some very business freindly open-source licences around. Something to think about, though.

Sorry for not having enough common sense for you, but sounds like TJ has Log files larger than 20 meg every week.

So a 20 meg (your average) log file must be a 40 driver race meet.

morer like 60 entries

I have plenty of time to work on this system, why did you think otherwise?ALL code used to access the AMB is proprietry

You mentioned personal problems back on page 2.

Not if you worked out the protocol and wrote the code yourself.

"Must"? What makes you think having twice as many entries would cause the program to do twice as much work? Does it involve that much more processing to run 10 cars in a race compared to 5? There are a lot of overheads that need to be done to say run a race, even if there no drivers in it. But this is irrelevant, what does it matter how big the log file is, provided there is sufficient disk space? And how does this affect stability of a program?

And something I just thought of - earlier copies of a new version often have substantial debug logging in, which can SUBSTANTIALLY increase the size of a log file.

Time or lack of it won't help, in fact Alycat is a diversion.

Quote:

---

Not if you worked out the protocol and wrote the code yourself.

---

ROTFL, are you serious? Apart from the legal considerations of attempting to reverse engineer stuff, even if you put a port sniffer on and ran the AMBrc decoder, there is an awful lot of data going both ways. And USB was a further nightmare, mainly because AMB would not provide any specific info and AMB does not use a standard USB setup.