Ed Yoho wrote: > The basic difference is on systems with site prefixing as part of the > command structure, different inputs get different command requirements. > Using macros to simulate site prefixing is pretty inefficient. As an > example, a user wants to enter command 12345. From the main mobile input > he would enter ##12345. From down link somewhere if the site prefix was > 55, he would enter *#5512345. To replicate this functionality without > site prefixing capabilities, the controller would need two functionally > equivalent commands (12345) with ##12345 accessible only from the mobile > input while *#5512345 being accessible only from the link ports. Each > command would need to be replicated (one for the mobile input and the > other from the link inputs). If a site has X commands, with site > prefixing it would take X + 2 macros (the two are needed to cover the ## > mobile site prefixing and *#55 link site prefixing). Without site > prefixing, the controller would need X * 2 macros to perform the same > task(s). Without site prefixing, the macro requirements double and the > controller needs to mask what commands are available on a port by port > basis. > > Users on systems with site prefixing always know that to command the > local system with command 12345, they just need to enter ##12345 no > matter what site they are currently using. > > Having site prefixing may not be desired by all repeater owners. For > those that do want to use it, it is a major limitation within some > controllers and becomes a make or break situation when deciding on what > controller will fit their requirements. > > Ed Yoho > WA6RQD
Sorry-I still don't get it. First, I've never heard of a controller that needed *'s and #'s at the beginning of a command-any command. But then, there's some not as well known controllers out there. Why would one care about which port a command is usable at? If they're all different anyway, it will only be recognized by the site you want. For the example of command 12345, users enter 12345 from wherever, and it does what you want it to do on the site you want to do it (we'll say site #1 for the sake of it), because it's not a valid command at other sites. To do the same function at site number 2, say, you program it to respond to 22345, and so on down the line. Then site 2 is the only site that does anything with that command. <from another post:> >> Thanks for the reply. True prefixing would be optimal as generating >> multiple macros that accomplish the same task would be a large burden on >> the controller's macro space. A full macro set per port/prefix could get >> painful from a resource standpoint. I also don't see why you would need multiple macros to do one task. Commands that don't apply to a particular site are not programmed in. So in the above, 12345 is only programmed into site 1, and 22345 is only programmed into site 2. Yes, if there's a command that would get acted on at multiple sites, it would need to be programmed into the site that need it I also can't see passing a lot of commands up the line. In-depth programming and higher level control is not something I would want done 3 repeaters away. Turning links on and off, other simple user-type functions, yeah. Turning a transmitter off, ok. But that's just me... Don't get the wrong idea, I'm just saying that what you want can be done just fine, just a somewhat different way of thinking. -------- Jim
