SUGGESTION: Under LIVE TRACKING, place thumbnail pictures of the aircraft with hyperlinks to the manufacturer’s website for the specific aircraft to identify facts and figures. If at all possible, add diagrams for the average seat configuration for the equipment.
For example, clicking on the “B738” thumbnail picture next to the IDENT would take you to a page either on Flightaware’s or Boeing’s website with a large picture of the equipment, a diagram of the average seating configuration and facts and figures regarding the Boeing 737-800 (distance, years, capacity, speed, etc.).
It’s a question of of bandwidth on FlightAware’s end. There’s also the problem that the links maintenance. Because the link would be to an external site outside of the control of FlightAware, the links would have to be checked daily to ensure they are still correct (more bandwidth used). There’s also the problem that not every flight is shown with the correct aircraft (FAA’s doing, not FlightAware).
Doesn’t seem like this is your decision to make Dami, why don’t you let FA make their own decisions about how they use their bandwidth. They’ve shown themselves to be very smart folks and I think they can decide for themselves.
If they wanted to (and again, it is their call), FA could let you upload the pictures to their site rather than have links if this was really a concern. However, they have been using links for pictures on this site for a long time (as do many other sites) and it doesn’t seem to be an issue.
lieberma, caflier: This is my opinion. The original poster was asking for opinions. My opinion is that it shouldn’t be done. Besides the bandwidth issue, there’s also the issue of more clutter on the screen.
Again, it was my opinion. If FlightAware decides to do it, then that’s entirely up to them. In the meantime, opinions were asked for and I gave mine.
It’s my understanding that the forum is on another server from FlightAware.
If not FlightAware bandwidth, what about the bandwidth of the FlightAware staff in maintaining the links to the outside links? What about the bandwidth here on the forum for all those people who say “I clicked a link and nothing happened?”
I find adding pictures to the site a feature that’s not needed, just like ATC feed is not needed. If you want to see what an aircraft looks like, do what I do and open up a new tab or window, go to Google or your favorite search engine, and search for it. You’d get a variety of pictures.
If you want to see the seating chart (which Joshgreen also suggested), go to Seatguru or look it up in Google.
I think* that if anything is to be added to the flight displays, it should be something I would find my useful: more flights displayed before you have to click “more” - in other words, I’d like to see 7 flights displayed.
It is curious that a guy with 2677 posts expresses concern about bandwidth.
I think Allen has it right, you don’t know what you are talking about. I don’t see how FA’s bandwidth is even something that you can have an opinion about, at least not an **informed **opinion - you don’t know what their pipes or server capabilities are.
Then do you think that they should also get rid of those pictures next to people’s names?
You obviously don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to bandwidth.
Thumbnail pictures will not bring flight aware down to a crawl nor is it a bandwidth issue.
In fact, this replies in this thread probably takes more kb traffic then a measily ole 5kb thumbnail pic.
If you don’t like clutter, that is your opinion, good on you, but when you say tecnically incorrect information, I will call you out on it.
Allen
It’s my understanding that the forum is on another server from FlightAware.
If not FlightAware bandwidth, what about the bandwidth of the FlightAware staff in maintaining the links to the outside links? What about the bandwidth here on the forum for all those people who say “I clicked a link and nothing happened?”
It is curious that a guy with 2677 posts expresses concern about bandwidth.
I think Allen has it right, you don’t know what you are talking about. I don’t see how FA’s bandwidth is even something that you can have an opinion about, at least not an **informed **opinion - you don’t know what their pipes or server capabilities are.
Then do you think that they should also get rid of those pictures next to people’s names?[/quote]
Why is everyone picking on me?
I gave my opinion. If you don’t like it then don’t read it.
I already know what a 737-800 looks like and just about every other aircraft on FlightAware. I’d rather use Seat Guru to find aircraft config. I already know facts and figures regarding the 737-800, along with 737-700, 737-400, 737-900, 737-300, 737-500, 737-600, and 737-200adv. FlightAware doesn’t need to be clogged up with common information that can be found in 10 seconds. Anyway, there are so many different configurations for any given aircraft that it would be a mess to sort them all out.
Click HERE, for all you interested in the 737. There’s also a site like that for the 757 and 767.
If you want to know what an airliner looks like, go to www.airliners.net. Simple? There are about 50 pictures of each and every individual airliner in the US on that site.
BTW: I have know idea why anyone would want a million pictures of boring plane pictures? (Excluding those few photags who actually do real aviation photography.)
Guys I agree with Allen. From my experience with websites and server bandwith a thumbnail will not affect it really at all. (unless you have like dail-up) You can easily put the pictures on a image server like photobucket and it wouldn’t hurt bandwith at all with Flightaware. This is a good idea and I think staff members should look into stuff like this.
Between Jetphotos.net, airliners.net, and dozens of other sites, you have just about every aircraft ever made covered. Why add another site to what is a aircraft TRACKING site, not an aircraft data and/or photography site?
So, you suggest getting rid of airport procedures, weather because they are available at other websites too??? Lets not forget about the resource page links while we are at it.
Guys, I really don’t have an opinion – I could be relatively happy either way. That said, what about out of production aircraft – if you go to Hawker Beech’s website, you won’t find anything about a Beech Starship. So what then? Forget about the Starship - there are other aircraft that are flying out there whose manufacturers don’t even exist. Does the Flightaware staff have to research where to find that information? How many man-hours will it take to compile the database of information and links? What if Flightaware says ok to this, but wants to charge people to cover time-expense?
While I agree it isn’t a bandwidth issue, I do know what the aircraft that I see on here look like, and I am reasonably smart enough to do a google search if I want more information. Would a thumbnail pic make my flightaware experience better – to me, no, it wouldn’t. The proposed thumbnail pic isn’t why I come here, nor would it be an influencing factor in coming to this site more than I already do if it were offered.
Just my two cents worth…and of course, I could be wrong.
For the next week, rRead, re-read, and re-read again what I said in the partial quote above. Then ask 20 people with IQs more than 73.2 about it. Then re-read my full posting again.
I didn’t imply that the procedures, weather, etc., should be removed. Believe it or not, while pictures do not have anything to do directly with aircraft tracking, these items do.
I think, just like the approach plates, airport resources, weather and such, adding pics of planes would FOR ME, enhance my experience on FA.
FA is starting to become a one stop shop service which I personally like.
As with any enhancements, upgrades and such, you have cost factor for upgrades and enhancements.
In this case, a 152 or 747 pretty much are not going to change in looks, and it’s a one time setup, not an ongoing maintenance thing. I may even learn the difference between one low wing and another
Granted, C182 and C172 on a thumbnail, there won’t be a whole heck of a difference in a thumbnail, but like you said, a starship, there is a unique shape that can be viewed within a thumbnail.
And for planes unavailable, put a graphic in unavailabe and let the audience contribute to the database.
Weather has something to do with flight tracking. Geez, something new everyday. What does METARS have to do with tracking IN THE LITERAL SENSE.
Instrument approach procedures not on the tracking maps, whats up with that? How does that directly do with tracking in the LITERAL sense.
**I know you didn’t imply **they should be removed, but they don’t have anything to deal DIRECTLY with tracking an airplane on a map either IN MY OPINION.
Metar gives you an indication of what the weather is like, right? Doesn’t that affect the routing of an aircraft? Weather most assuredly affects flights and the resulting routing.
Instrument approach procedures aren’t on the map but it’s nice to be able to see what the flight looks like in the approach phase.
Wouldn’t it be nice to know what the airplane looks like just like what the flight looks like in the approach phase as you say above WITHOUT having to leave the website???
Maybe you are more savy in knowing what the looks of a 727 and a 737 is, or a cherokee vs a piper is, but I am not. One less place for me to look should there be a thumbnail to look at.
Just like our avatars in these forums, the thumbnails can be easily put in an unobtrusive place. We are talking thumbnails, not full screen pics.
You can easily put the pictures on a image server like photobucket and it wouldn’t hurt bandwith at all with Flightaware. This is a good idea and I think staff members should look into stuff like this.