Hi Thanks to all of those answering in this thread, confirming my thinking.
On the below idea of running low speed DD i am kind of thinking if that is really making sense. As the DD are using Ethernet packet one of the benefit are the longer packet making the overhead a smaller proportion of the total data send. Going for lower speed would mean sending those longer packet taking so long to send that it might not be practical. Chances of error occurring going up... So with lower speed i would expect a need for smaller packets making the Ethernet style not so efficient due to the bigger overhead... We have at my work seen the similar thing changing from IEEE GPIB communication to Ethernet.. In theory the communication should be much faster, but this was only true where we transferred large amount of data. On the small command to setup the instrument the less overhead on GPIB was at least equally fast.. Again am I fare off ??? Every body have a happy Christmas. The christmas dinner are approaching here in OZ land and my son are now so excited waiting for the Christmas gift, that we traditional open on the 24th in the evening in OZ. 73 de OZ1BZJ --- In [email protected], Nate Duehr <n...@...> wrote: > > John D. Hays wrote: > > > > > > The protocol differentiates the DV datastream (AMBE encoded voice, including > > 1200 bps messaging) from the DD datastream (Ethernet packets encapsulated in > > D-STAR headers) by flipping a single flag bit. No DV radios allow this > > "flip" at the current time, though I think it would have been a great > > extension to the protocol (unfortunately to be fully compliant with the > > written spec you must send DD at 128Kbps, kind of silly, it should allow it > > at any clock rate the two endpoints agree upon). Also, it is unfortunate > > that the Icom RP2C controller believes that DV is 4800 bps and DD is 128 > > Kbps. Maybe in a future version this can be changed? > > Yeah, I figured that it was a bit-flip to get to DD, but knew the spec > also called for it to be high-speed. > > Yes, "low-speed DD" as an add-on spec would be useful, *if* Icom knows > their current rigs won't completely freak out when receiving such a > transmission. > > If it couldn't be made backward compatible with the current rigs, it > would be a mess. If it could, it would be a neat "future feature". > > Nate WY0X >
