Watching two flights come into Paine Field (KPAE) and on Skyview they show them as E170s. But they are both E175s (E75L). The ICON shows as a 170. It should be similar to the 737. Is there a way to fix that?
You’ll probably have to modify this file on the pi
The E170 uses the jet_swept symbol, so adding a line with
‘E75L’: ‘airliner’,
might do the trick?
Edit: Yes, that works, it is pretty easy to change the icons.
The icon selection is rather crude. The E170 and 175 both carry around 70 to 80 passengers, that is probably why they are assingend the same icon.The 737 types are lager and carry up to215 passengers, so they get a different icon, even though the smaller variants carry just 85 pax. It is actually commented that those need some work, but I guess it is just not a high priority.
Problem is that its showing at a 170 not the E75L. I made the change but they are showing as a swept wing not the airliner.
Ctrl-F5 to refresh the browser cache?
No difference ( did a reboot too). When you click on the plane outline this is what it says
QXE2742 A817B1
Registration: N620QX
Country of registration: United States
Aircraft Type: E170
You changed this file?
/usr/share/dump1090-fa/html/markers.js
Anyway i’m not clear what the problem is?
The wrong type is shown when clicking the aircraft?
E170 and E175 is close enough, no? 
There is a way to change the database but it’s quite involved:
dump1090/README.aircraft-db.md at master · flightaware/dump1090 · GitHub
Don’t E170 and E175 look quite similar?
Just change E170 to the airliner icon as well in the file you already edited.
Oh it’s the same ICAO type huh? That’s why there is no E175 listed in the database.
Look for the E170 and change it like that:
'E170': 'airliner',
And yes the icons are just meant to represent relative size, not necessarily engine configuration i think.
I believe there was a thread on this forum with many more custom icons.
Don’t have the link right now though.
Yeah if you want custom icons, check out this thread:
But they are showing as a swept wing jet icon with the two engines on the tail (like a CRJ200), not the Smaller version of the A321 or 737.
Could you link me pictures from jetphotos or something.
I checked on wikipedia and i think you have some models confused.
Embraer E-Jet family - Wikipedia
Looks to me like E170 and E175 look basically the same, engines under the wings.
Maybe you are think of the ERJ?
Embraer ERJ family - Wikipedia
Yes they are showing as ERJ instead of E170s … I couldnt edit fast enough 
Well then change the E170 type in markers.js as i wrote.
I’m not sure if it is on purpose due to their smaller size.
So maybe it should be changed in the official version as well.
I found way down that they had the E170 in the jet swept section. Changed that. Now to wait for one to come by and see how it does
thanks
Works
So FA Staff if you read this, your markers.js file has an error. E170 should be airliner and not swept jet.
1 Like
Well they didnt fix it. I did the upgrade and they put it back again.
Now I have to go edit this file again.
PLS Flight Aware Staff can you fix this.
I had posted an issue here but it was coding error. Fixed it.
FA Staff needs to update their standard markers.js.
Wow, here it is in November and I apparently received an update.
AND THE ERROR IS BACK AGAIN.
Can you please fix this FA Staff.
1 Like
Can you create a PR for this?
Thanks OB, where does one create a problem report?
But basically, the issue is the markers.js released with the software has the E-170 series of aircraft as swept wing. Its actually a smaller 737 type aircraft. I simply edited the markers.js to remove
‘E170’: ‘jet_swept’,
and typed under 737
‘E170’: ‘airliner’,
I meant a pull request on github. If you’re not familiar with git it’s probably not worth the learning curve just for this one change.
I actually created an internal issue for this back in June but the web team hasn’t got to it yet.
@w7psk can you try this version of markers.js and see how it looks? I mechanically generated a new list of type exceptions; it looks OK from a quick look but I haven’t gone over it in detail.