On Aug 10, 2009, at 6:05 AM, Fran Miele wrote: > 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.
Continually saying "it works fine" doesn't make it so. It also doesn't fix the problems. We wouldn't be discussing it if ALL of us hadn't had the experience of this screwing up somewhere, sometime. I know I have. People using the "side channel" of a callsign route should a) expect interference from the Reflector traffic, or b) unlink from it to handle the call and then reconnect. That seems obvious and "stupid simple". If Reflector traffic overrides or interferes with that short of a conversation, so be it. But at least the callsign routed traffic doesn't interfere with the "31 repeaters" (someone else used that number, so I'll use it going forward) going the other direction. Only one. Problem is -- there's no way for any of us to have any effect on the outcome other than to do years of work to get to where Robin is with reverse-engineering and insider information. He's more than welcome to that mess, really. I hope it's worth it for him. All I really know is this: When I dial someone on my phone, I don't expect that call to be heard by 20 other people. I only expect than when I DIAL the conferencing bridge. Same thing on my digital radios. D-STAR, P-25, whatever. If I put your unique identifier into my rig, and your local repeater copies that traffic and chooses to forward my transmission on to "31" other repeaters, that's wrong. Flat wrong. I know... I know... I'm in the minority who want it to work as people would EXPECT it to from every other digital system they've learned. Sure, let's just break the principal of least surprise and route any user making a call to any other INDIVIDUAL, to EVERY REPEATER ON THE PLANET. Why not?... Just to give a ridiculous example to prove the point. Like I've said before, I have zero power to change it, other than to ask nicely. And the powers that be aren't all that interested. So who cares? You know how to avoid having your transmissions routed to "31" other repeaters without your knowledge when you key up? DON'T BUY D-STAR. :-) No vote, no representation by anyone in authority, not even people engaged in public conversation about it, very often. People think D- Plus *is* D-STAR. It's not. But here in the U.S., woe to the Gateway admin who decides not to run it. You'd be buried in a mountain of local whiners who would want it. I understand that if an admin doesn't like what Robin built, their only choice is not to run D-PLUS -- and that'll cause you more headaches in complaints from users, than just ignoring its problems like everyone else does. So I'm going back into my hole and will continue to ignore its problems, just so we can have an all digital network-wide chit chat, at the expense of trashing the original callsign-routed design completely. Who needs it? Fran's right... all we need is giant D-PLUS links. And they all work PERFECTLY from what I hear. Never a single problem. (Give me a break, Fran. The thing can't even gracefully handle a "double", pick up a second stream where the first left off, implement a digital "capture effect", etc. It's not THAT good. And please don't tell me digital audio streams can't be mixed... since that's what I've earned a living working on, is systems that have done that since 1991... D-Plus just isn't all that "smart" yet. Maybe it will be someday, maybe it won't. I don't know.) Personally, I'd just like to see it not route people who are callsign routing to places they never intended. That seems a reasonable enough request, doesn't it? Back to you. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [email protected]
