I believe there may be a bug in how traffic is being read. Looking at the log I noticed some information missing

          JBU395   N629JB   HPN->MCO JBU A320 =c= AIGAIM_jetBlue Airbus A320-200SL - jetBlue for Good
          SWA2590_                   SWA B738 =2= AIGAIM_Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-800SSW - SN ETOPS

SWA2590 is actually a B737-700, however it is obviously showing as a B737-800.

More examples include -

          NKS203                     NKS A320 =2= AIGAIM_Spirit Airlines Airbus A320-200 - Wifi
          NKS1475                    NKS A320 =2= AIGAIM_Spirit Airlines Airbus A320-200 - OC Wifi new engine titles
          SWA1980_                   SWA B738 =2= AIGAIM_Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-800SSW - SN
          AAL3017_                   AAL A320 =2= AIGAIM_American Airlines Airbus A320-200 - CFM

As you can see, each entry is not only missing a city pair, but also a tail number.

This also seems to be happening with A319/A321's. I don't believe this is an issue with my setup, as the models do show on Vatsim and have showed up until a few days ago. I just am usure how to check or communicate with RT to inquire about this.

 Are those taken right out of the log? Are you using PT only by any chance?

The Jetblue type is wrong but the =c= is indicating that is was "matched" from cache, an aircraft that re-appeared, after a hick-up in RT.

50 minutes ago, Dave_YVR said:

The Jetblue type is wrong

Is it? N629JB - Airbus A320-232 - JetBlue - Flightradar24

 

2 hours ago, noahharget said:

Looking at the log I noticed some information missing

Yes that can happen. The RT data is not perfect.

2 hours ago, noahharget said:

SWA2590 is actually a B737-700, however it is obviously showing as a B737-800.

It is a B738 in the RT data. There is no tail number, so PSXT cannot correct that from info in its database.

2 hours ago, noahharget said:

As you can see, each entry is not only missing a city pair, but also a tail number.

City pairs are often missing, or in the wrong order. Tail numbers are normally present. It also depends on the area where you are flying. There are very good area's and there are less good areas....

2 hours ago, noahharget said:

 I just am usure how to check or communicate with RT to inquire about this.

That is of no use. RT cannot correct these issues, the problems are in the data feeds it has subcontracted. More quality means higher RT license fees.

Edited February 4, 20251 yr by kiek

1 hour ago, kiek said:

Is it? N629JB - Airbus A320-232 - JetBlue - Flightradar24

While still an A320, it's the wrong livery and doesn't have sharklets. It's the little things. 🙂

I'm working on a revised jetBlue regcode atm, AIG title adjustment again. 

Edited February 4, 20251 yr by Dave_YVR

26 minutes ago, Dave_YVR said:

While still an A320, it's the wrong livery and doesn't have sharklets. It's the little things. 🙂

I know, but either the OP did not install that AIG livery in his sim or because of the AIG title changes lately,  the match  upon regcode (N629JB is in AIG-regcodes) did not succeed. 

Edited February 4, 20251 yr by kiek

4 hours ago, kiek said:

Yes that can happen. The RT data is not perfect.

It is a B738 in the RT data. There is no tail number, so PSXT cannot correct that from info in its database.

City pairs are often missing, or in the wrong order. Tail numbers are normally present. It also depends on the area where you are flying. There are very good area's and there are less good areas....

That is of no use. RT cannot correct these issues, the problems are in the data feeds it has subcontracted. More quality means higher RT license fees.

Ok lots to reply to haha
I was checking FR24, which did show that B738 should have been a -700. I'm getting lots of incorrect matching as of recent, which could be due to the AIG-regcodes I assume. I have all liveries installed through AIG along with the updates. I used to get pretty spot on matching when it came to special livery tail numbers (SWA or AA) too, but that has changed. Today's post was obviously in MCO.

Looking at little navmap, I have an Envoy E175 labeled as 175, a United B38M labeled as 737. It's missing the type designator for the incorrect planes. I know this isn't an issue with PSXT per se, but wanted to bring it up!

I've attached my settings of PSXT just to ask for suggestions of what I could change 🙂 https://photos.app.goo.gl/kTsZiZaRKjNzEM597

Edited February 4, 20251 yr by noahharget

5 hours ago, Dave_YVR said:

 Are those taken right out of the log? Are you using PT only by any chance?

The Jetblue type is wrong but the =c= is indicating that is was "matched" from cache, an aircraft that re-appeared, after a hick-up in RT.

I am using PT Only

 I can't say that I've ever seen the log missing that many regs before or were those just picked out of the log because they were missing the reg? 

 Sitting at MCO during a similar time period 1400z. I didn't get much traffic using PT only, but nothing in the log missing a reg.  I think the missing regs is the issue more than anything. 

4 hours ago, Dave_YVR said:

 I can't say that I've ever seen the log missing that many regs before or were those just picked out of the log because they were missing the reg? 

 Sitting at MCO during a similar time period 1400z. I didn't get much traffic using PT only, but nothing in the log missing a reg.  I think the missing regs is the issue more than anything. 

Those were just hand-picked. I'm flying into SFO now, and there's tons of missing regs. Definitely think it may be a RT issue given all models are installed and this just started to become an issue. However, it does seem to be better now! Will reply to this thread if it does become an issue again!

10 hours ago, noahharget said:

I am using PT Only

That's about Static parked aircraft only, not live aircraft

Edited February 5, 20251 yr by kiek

52 minutes ago, noahharget said:

Those were just hand-picked. I'm flying into SFO now, and there's tons of missing regs. Definitely think it may be a RT issue given all models are installed and this just started to become an issue. However, it does seem to be better now! Will reply to this thread if it does become an issue again!

Must be the region then, at EHAM almost all regcodes are there.