Can't see 2nd file with same day/time stamp

[TJS]

Hi,

I have 4 mcidas areas that I'm trying to look at in mcidas-v (say of the brightness temperature). But, I can only look at three of them, since 2 have the same day/time stamp. I did add them a 'local ADDE' files.

I have them in the same directory, but don't want to split all the files into separate directories (which is the whole point of a director on this shared machine). My choice seems to be either relative or absolute, but both only seem to show three of my files. I would like there to be a simple 'listing' of the files to chose from.

From Mcidas-X:
IMGLIST A.8160 8163 FORM=MEMO
Image file directory listing for:A
pos ss yyddd hhmmss lcor ecor lr er zr lsiz esiz z bands
---- ---- ----- ------ ----- ----- -- -- ---- ----- ----- - -----------------
8160 180 06255 51000 2621 5861 4 4 4 1009 5020 2 .234.6..........
proj: 0 created: 2010295 164142 memo: RT GVAR
8161 180 06255 51000 2621 5861 4 4 4 1009 5020 2 .234.6..........
proj: 0 created: 2010295 164504 memo: ITT_CORRECTED
8162 180 06255 52500 2621 5861 4 4 4 1009 5020 2 .234.6..........
proj: 0 created: 2010295 164756 memo: ECLIPSE_1
8163 180 06255 54000 2621 5861 4 4 4 1009 5020 2 .234.6..........
proj: 0 created: 2010295 164805 memo: ECLIPSE_2
IMGLIST: done

Thanks,
TJS

PS: I know I could change the time stamp by a second in mcidas-x, but that's doesn't seem like a good solution.

[Rick]

Hi Tim,

The following inquiry addresses the need to display multiple images with the same day/time:

http://mcidas.ssec.wisc.edu/inquiry-v/?inquiry=699

[kbedka1]

Has any progress been made on this? I see that the initial inquiry was made March 2010. This is a very annoying problem for someone (like me) who is trying to compare output in AREA format from multiple retrieval runs with the same day/time stamp. While I understand why this problem occurs, having to create individual ADDE locations (directories) with one file in each directory is not a sustainable solution. I show colleagues this workaround on monthly basis and no one is really happy about it.

[bobc]

Hi Kris and Tim -

We have moved this inquiry (#699) back into evaluation. Work has not yet begun on this issue, but placing the inquiry in evaluation will allow for it to be looked over again and we can reprioritize it.

Thanks
Bob