My personal experience with Radio Mobile has been very good. I have done
about 30 different amateur and commercial transmitter/repeater plots
with this free software and it has predicted coverage exceedingly well.
I have taken most of my RM plots and field verified them myself.
The other side
I would agree with every word...a bit of time and it does the job well.
Doug
- Original Message -
From: Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] How Accurate is Radio Mobile?
My personal
2005 1:54 PMSubject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] How Accurate is Radio Mobile?My personal
experience with Radio Mobile has been very good. I have done about 30 different amateur and commercial transmitter/repeater plots with this free software and it has predicted coverage exceedingly well. I have taken
At 11/27/2005 08:03, you wrote:
I've found that Radio Mobile is very accurate. maybe not 100% but very,
very close in my usage. (mobile VHF 50w to repeaters/bases in eastern
SC) I do model my mobiles with unity gain antennas to give me cushion
with actual usage(gain antennas). Even when
I keep hearing about this better data from commercial propagation
software but can't find any reference to it on any of their marketing
material nor references to how they actually do it -- even
assuming it's
proprietary, I don't even see hints about it anywhere.
A lot of the original 30
Hm I'm using the older versionI N T E R E S T I N G.any other comments on the newer versionmaybe we should take this the RadioMobile Group..Lloyd KD4HTW[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11/27/2005 08:03, you wrote:I've found that Radio Mobile is very accurate. maybe not 100% but
The new version does have some nice features, so I keep both around for
now. You should download the new version try running a comparative set
of plots. Initially they will not agree at all due to the change in the
way urban or city loss is implemented (simple checkbox in old version,
Jeff DePolo WN3A wrote:
[snipped Jeff's long detailed reply...]
Thanks Jeff, that was very informative for someone who's never used the
commercial software.
I still wish someone would do head to head comparisons against all the
packages sometime, but I doubt anyone will.
Head to head
Nate, I did a h 2 h comp with the commercial s/w I
have purchased for well over $10K a few years ago. The
results were far more accurate with RM than the
commercial stuff a few years old, and better yet it
was FREE from a fellow ham radio operator.
Hence my original posting regarding the use of
At 11/27/2005 08:49, you wrote:
There is also a new data set from SRTM (the Shuttle Radar Topography
Mission) where a majority of the earth's surface was measured using
microwave interferometry. The accuracy isn't necessarily superior to
existing data (I think 50 feet was the predicted elevation
Bob,
I cannot state that Radio Mobile is not as accurate as a commercial program.
However, the commercial programs use digital elevation models that have been
extensively refined with additional data points and calibrations that are not
provided by the NGS. It is this value-added aspect that
I guess it doesn't really make much difference how accurate a propagation
program is, since the Hams I know who have used Radio Mobile or similar
programs, simply put the computed coverage plot on the wall and proudly
proclaim that it represents the coverage of their particular station. I
Eric Lemmon wrote:
Bob,
I cannot state that Radio Mobile is not as accurate as a commercial program.
However, the commercial programs use digital elevation models that have been
extensively refined with additional data points and calibrations that are not
provided by the NGS. It is this
At 11/26/2005 16:55, you wrote:
Bob,
I cannot state that Radio Mobile is not as accurate as a commercial program.
Well, IMO the remainder of your post attempts to implicitly bash RM in many
ways. Fair enough - it would be foolish for any multi-million dollar
corporation to try to save $10k on
14 matches
Mail list logo
