Right now, driving down the road I don't know if our local repeater is linked unless I send UR=K5CTX^^I and the repeater play back "Not Currently Linked." I cannot at all tell if the user at the far end is on a linked repeater or not. I am not even sure what repeater that person last used.
So set UR=W1FJM to call Fran announcing 'Please One Touch to Reply." (My own call progress tone). I either get UR* if the call reached destination, or RPT? if the far end was busy or my radio is mis-programmed. This works AOK with a light use system with 2 repeaters and 2 users. Now suppose Fran were using a reflector with 31 linked repeaters tied in. >From my end, mobile, I don't know which repeater Fran is using. Neither do I know if his repeater is linked to a reflector. I know call sign routing will send my call to the last repeater he used (plus every other repeater in the linked set). Enter Dplus Linking. I now have to shoot blind into a nest of 31 different repeaters hoping in the blind to make my call in between keyups from the different users. Remember, I cannot hear what is happening at the reflector end to time my transmission. Also some folks leave little or no pause between transmissions, and then there are the one or two folks who camp out on a reflector for hours at a time (minus toilet breaks). Sessions that run on for hours on end between 2 or 3 users don't belong on a linked system tying up 20 or 30 repeaters. At the very least, the two or 3 folks tying up the system could call sign route and only tie up their own repeaters, or move to an un-used reflector (unless they need an audience). After 5 or 10 RPT? attempts I just give up and go elsewhere. So, I certainly don't want to take away from anyone else's enjoyment, but a few simple changes (simple from my perspective - maybe not simple for a programmer) could make DSTAR much better for everyone by adding to and not taking away any features. Please don't throw too many rocks at me for my comments. 73, steve --- In [email protected], "Fran Miele" <f...@...> wrote: > > Nate, > > > > I understand what you are saying. My problem is that what is being proposed > creates a situation where a conversation would be taking place on one linked > repeater; no one would hear it and then a second conversation could be > started on another linked repeater and disrupt the first. >
