Re: [WISPA] Ping --- Radio Mobile Hates Me.
I'd like to chime in as one who does professional RF engineering for a living. I have worked with Roger for the last 10 years helping to improve radio mobile. There are so many features that the program supports now compared to when I started it just boggles the mind. That being said, it should be put in to perspective that commercial software packages for RF engineering cost from $15,000 to $70,000 dollars and do not perform any better than Radio Mobile. As a professional RF Engineer who has had to learn these commercial tools, I can tell you it takes a huge amount of time to learn any RF propagation software package and that there are no shortcuts or dummies guides. There is no substitute for time and persistence in learning any RF software package. Much of this will be spent in trial an error and reading the archives and tutorials. There are no shortcuts, mouse over or quick start guides. If RF design was as easy as an idiot proof software package, then anyone with a mouse could do it, there would be no need for expertise in the field. Spend the time to read the archives in the yahoo group and the tutorials. Impatience will not speed up anything and whining about a set of documentation or quick tools tips will not make you and RF design expert. Just because a person can point and click does not mean you can generate RF coverage maps. Some knowledge of RF theory helps so that one may understand the methods and settings within a program. If you want hand holding, cough up the 35 grand or so to purchase a commercial software package. I'm sure that is easier than reading a little bit... If I seem sarcastic it is because I really get annoyed at people who complain about a free lunch...This software package is free, quit complaining to the author about your lack of ambition to read the many manuals available on line. For those of us who understand the value of this free product, we dislike those who would say things to possibly discourage the author who donates his time and effort for free giving a product that would otherwise cost in the thousands of dollars..those who think they are entitled just because they sit behind a keyboard and can complain, need a reality check. If you don't like the product that you paid nothing for.simply move on and be quiet. This was never meant to be a for profit program...accept it for what it is and be thankful rather than complain. Any other options are far worse... Brian From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 3:25 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ping --- Radio Mobile Hates Me. At 7/21/2010 12:37 PM, Scott Reed wrote: If you have, join the Yahoo RM group. Lots of help there. Plus links to at least 2 tutorials. I've been there, and it helps. But it is not a substitute for a good collection of documentation. There's useful stuff on Roger's web site too, but it isn't always easy to figure out certain things, like when to use which mode to use for a network (spot, accidental, broadcast...) and what settings make the most sense. I use MapInfo a lot and it has thick manuals, the unabridged one being PDF only. Yes, it's expensive commercial software. I'm spoiled. ;-) I suppose a wiki might be a way for the community to collect its thoughts. I did see some interesting discussions on the Yahoo group about the nodes, and about the land cover. I roughly doubled the forest loss numbers, from Roger's default. This still might not be adequate, though, since it makes it seem *possible* to blast 5.8 GHz through the woods. Is 180 a good setting for most forests? Roger does this for a living and his employer sells a very nice commercial package. They have been nice enough to allow him to to RM for free, so we get a super program at no cost. This also means that Open Source is out, as I am sure the source is too similar to their commercial package. If you want the pay version, I am sure an e-mail to him would get you company contact information. What is the commercial product? He certainly hides any mention of it. If it's reasonable, I might look. I remember seeing an add-on for MapInfo, though. The price was roughly similar to the price of the local calling area database license. My car cost less, new. SPLAT looks to be a somewhat similar open source program, but much more limited in scope and not nearly as well updated. This is complicated stuff, I know. About 3/4 of the confusion might be solved by having a mouse-over help function, where you could right-click on a box and pop up a tutorial on what the values mean and how to set them. That could be an interesting volunteer project. Of course Roger's primary market is 2 meter repeaters, so the parameters we use in the WISP bands are a bit different... ...The only time I would see a need for antenna patterns is if you have a fixed-base AP and mobile CPE. If both are fixed-base, I am
Re: [WISPA] Ping --- Radio Mobile Hates Me.
] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 3:25 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ping --- Radio Mobile Hates Me. At 7/21/2010 12:37 PM, Scott Reed wrote: If you have, join the Yahoo RM group. Lots of help there. Plus links to at least 2 tutorials. I've been there, and it helps. But it is not a substitute for a good collection of documentation. There's useful stuff on Roger's web site too, but it isn't always easy to figure out certain things, like when to use which mode to use for a network (spot, accidental, broadcast...) and what settings make the most sense. I use MapInfo a lot and it has thick manuals, the unabridged one being PDF only. Yes, it's expensive commercial software. I'm spoiled. ;-) I suppose a wiki might be a way for the community to collect its thoughts. I did see some interesting discussions on the Yahoo group about the nodes, and about the land cover. I roughly doubled the forest loss numbers, from Roger's default. This still might not be adequate, though, since it makes it seem *possible* to blast 5.8 GHz through the woods. Is 180 a good setting for most forests? Roger does this for a living and his employer sells a very nice commercial package. They have been nice enough to allow him to to RM for free, so we get a super program at no cost. This also means that Open Source is out, as I am sure the source is too similar to their commercial package. If you want the pay version, I am sure an e-mail to him would get you company contact information. What is the commercial product? He certainly hides any mention of it. If it's reasonable, I might look. I remember seeing an add-on for MapInfo, though. The price was roughly similar to the price of the local calling area database license. My car cost less, new. SPLAT looks to be a somewhat similar open source program, but much more limited in scope and not nearly as well updated. This is complicated stuff, I know. About 3/4 of the confusion might be solved by having a mouse-over help function, where you could right-click on a box and pop up a tutorial on what the values mean and how to set them. That could be an interesting volunteer project. Of course Roger's primary market is 2 meter repeaters, so the parameters we use in the WISP bands are a bit different... ...The only time I would see a need for antenna patterns is if you have a fixed-base AP and mobile CPE. If both are fixed-base, I am not sure what the patterns will gain you. I do the same thing; I have a 5.8 network, a 2.4 network and a 900 network. Most of my POPs are setup with 3 120* sectors, so all POPs are setup with an omni of the same gain as the sector antenna. In my experience so far, the results are fairly accurate when there is clear line-of-sight. If there are a significant number of trees in the path, it obviously is not so good. I suppose if you have 2 90* sectors trying to cover 360* you would want patterns to find the nulls and edges, but if you have antennas for full coverage, the pattern probably is not so important. For point to point links, antenna pattern does not matter , assuming you are planning to aim the antennas directly at each other as that is the assumption RM makes. Not all of the sectors need full-circle coverage, so I was thinking about using the model to see how it looked with partial coverage on some poles. This would save radios and antennas... In fact, with three sector radios and two backhaul radios (not to mention needing three backhaul radio degrees at mesh junctions), that exceeds the four-slot maximum of any one Routerboard, right? So do you often put back-to-back radios in one box? I think the only way to do sectors in RM is to treat them as separate radios, So if Unit 10 was three sectors, it might end up as say Units 10, 91, and 92, in the access network, right? The Yahoo group has also had discussions about exports and imports. There are several things you can do. Again, check out the tutorials. I would have to disagree about the need for many improvements. Granted, I have been using it for over 5 years, but I find everything to be where expected and do what it should. Roger is open to suggestion, though. Let him know what you would like to see. I don't want to disparage Roger and his great work; it's just little things. I just hate drop-downs, which RM's UI makes me use too often, especially for selecting radios. But also the fact that adding a radio requires going to both the unit properties and then the network properties is counter-intuitive and a bit clumsy. These sorts of things aren't show-stoppers, just places where it helps reduce one's sanity just a bit more. Which can be in short supply... Fred Goldstein wrote: At 7/21/2010 11:41 AM, MarlonS wrote: Radio Mobile hates everyone that doesn't use it every day. It's a great tool, but boy is it frustrating! Roger has done a wonderful
Re: [WISPA] Ping --- Radio Mobile Hates Me.
paid nothing for...simply move on and be quiet. This was never meant to be a for profit program.accept it for what it is and be thankful rather than complain. Any other options are far worse. Brian *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [ mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Fred Goldstein *Sent:* Wednesday, July 21, 2010 3:25 PM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Ping --- Radio Mobile Hates Me. At 7/21/2010 12:37 PM, Scott Reed wrote: If you have, join the Yahoo RM group. Lots of help there. Plus links to at least 2 tutorials. I've been there, and it helps. But it is not a substitute for a good collection of documentation. There's useful stuff on Roger's web site too, but it isn't always easy to figure out certain things, like when to use which mode to use for a network (spot, accidental, broadcast...) and what settings make the most sense. I use MapInfo a lot and it has thick manuals, the unabridged one being PDF only. Yes, it's expensive commercial software. I'm spoiled. ;-) I suppose a wiki might be a way for the community to collect its thoughts. I did see some interesting discussions on the Yahoo group about the nodes, and about the land cover. I roughly doubled the forest loss numbers, from Roger's default. This still might not be adequate, though, since it makes it seem *possible* to blast 5.8 GHz through the woods. Is 180 a good setting for most forests? Roger does this for a living and his employer sells a very nice commercial package. They have been nice enough to allow him to to RM for free, so we get a super program at no cost. This also means that Open Source is out, as I am sure the source is too similar to their commercial package. If you want the pay version, I am sure an e-mail to him would get you company contact information. What is the commercial product? He certainly hides any mention of it. If it's reasonable, I might look. I remember seeing an add-on for MapInfo, though. The price was roughly similar to the price of the local calling area database license. My car cost less, new. SPLAT looks to be a somewhat similar open source program, but much more limited in scope and not nearly as well updated. This is complicated stuff, I know. About 3/4 of the confusion might be solved by having a mouse-over help function, where you could right-click on a box and pop up a tutorial on what the values mean and how to set them. That could be an interesting volunteer project. Of course Roger's primary market is 2 meter repeaters, so the parameters we use in the WISP bands are a bit different... ...The only time I would see a need for antenna patterns is if you have a fixed-base AP and mobile CPE. If both are fixed-base, I am not sure what the patterns will gain you. I do the same thing; I have a 5.8 network, a 2.4 network and a 900 network. Most of my POPs are setup with 3 120* sectors, so all POPs are setup with an omni of the same gain as the sector antenna. In my experience so far, the results are fairly accurate when there is clear line-of-sight. If there are a significant number of trees in the path, it obviously is not so good. I suppose if you have 2 90* sectors trying to cover 360* you would want patterns to find the nulls and edges, but if you have antennas for full coverage, the pattern probably is not so important. For point to point links, antenna pattern does not matter , assuming you are planning to aim the antennas directly at each other as that is the assumption RM makes. Not all of the sectors need full-circle coverage, so I was thinking about using the model to see how it looked with partial coverage on some poles. This would save radios and antennas... In fact, with three sector radios and two backhaul radios (not to mention needing three backhaul radio degrees at mesh junctions), that exceeds the four-slot maximum of any one Routerboard, right? So do you often put back-to-back radios in one box? I think the only way to do sectors in RM is to treat them as separate radios, So if Unit 10 was three sectors, it might end up as say Units 10, 91, and 92, in the access network, right? The Yahoo group has also had discussions about exports and imports. There are several things you can do. Again, check out the tutorials. I would have to disagree about the need for many improvements. Granted, I have been using it for over 5 years, but I find everything to be where expected and do what it should. Roger is open to suggestion, though. Let him know what you would like to see. I don't want to disparage Roger and his great work; it's just little things. I just hate drop-downs, which RM's UI makes me use too often, especially for selecting radios. But also the fact that adding a radio requires going to both the unit properties and then the network properties is counter-intuitive and a bit clumsy. These sorts of things aren't
Re: [WISPA] Ping --- Radio Mobile Hates Me.
of us who understand the value of this free product, we dislike those who would say things to possibly discourage the author who donates his time and effort for free giving a product that would otherwise cost in the thousands of dollars .those who think they are entitled just because they sit behind a keyboard and can complain, need a reality check. If you don't like the product that you paid nothing for simply move on and be quiet. This was never meant to be a for profit program ..accept it for what it is and be thankful rather than complain. Any other options are far worse Brian From: mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.orgwireless-boun...@wispa.org [ mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 3:25 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ping --- Radio Mobile Hates Me. At 7/21/2010 12:37 PM, Scott Reed wrote: If you have, join the Yahoo RM group. Lots of help there. Plus links to at least 2 tutorials. I've been there, and it helps. But it is not a substitute for a good collection of documentation. There's useful stuff on Roger's web site too, but it isn't always easy to figure out certain things, like when to use which mode to use for a network (spot, accidental, broadcast...) and what settings make the most sense. I use MapInfo a lot and it has thick manuals, the unabridged one being PDF only. Yes, it's expensive commercial software. I'm spoiled. ;-) I suppose a wiki might be a way for the community to collect its thoughts. I did see some interesting discussions on the Yahoo group about the nodes, and about the land cover. I roughly doubled the forest loss numbers, from Roger's default. This still might not be adequate, though, since it makes it seem *possible* to blast 5.8 GHz through the woods. Is 180 a good setting for most forests? Roger does this for a living and his employer sells a very nice commercial package. They have been nice enough to allow him to to RM for free, so we get a super program at no cost. This also means that Open Source is out, as I am sure the source is too similar to their commercial package. If you want the pay version, I am sure an e-mail to him would get you company contact information. What is the commercial product? He certainly hides any mention of it. If it's reasonable, I might look. I remember seeing an add-on for MapInfo, though. The price was roughly similar to the price of the local calling area database license. My car cost less, new. SPLAT looks to be a somewhat similar open source program, but much more limited in scope and not nearly as well updated. This is complicated stuff, I know. About 3/4 of the confusion might be solved by having a mouse-over help function, where you could right-click on a box and pop up a tutorial on what the values mean and how to set them. That could be an interesting volunteer project. Of course Roger's primary market is 2 meter repeaters, so the parameters we use in the WISP bands are a bit different... ...The only time I would see a need for antenna patterns is if you have a fixed-base AP and mobile CPE. If both are fixed-base, I am not sure what the patterns will gain you. I do the same thing; I have a 5.8 network, a 2.4 network and a 900 network. Most of my POPs are setup with 3 120* sectors, so all POPs are setup with an omni of the same gain as the sector antenna. In my experience so far, the results are fairly accurate when there is clear line-of-sight. If there are a significant number of trees in the path, it obviously is not so good. I suppose if you have 2 90* sectors trying to cover 360* you would want patterns to find the nulls and edges, but if you have antennas for full coverage, the pattern probably is not so important. For point to point links, antenna pattern does not matter , assuming you are planning to aim the antennas directly at each other as that is the assumption RM makes. Not all of the sectors need full-circle coverage, so I was thinking about using the model to see how it looked with partial coverage on some poles. This would save radios and antennas... In fact, with three sector radios and two backhaul radios (not to mention needing three backhaul radio degrees at mesh junctions), that exceeds the four-slot maximum of any one Routerboard, right? So do you often put back-to-back radios in one box? I think the only way to do sectors in RM is to treat them as separate radios, So if Unit 10 was three sectors, it might end up as say Units 10, 91, and 92, in the access network, right? The Yahoo group has also had discussions about exports and imports. There are several things you can do. Again, check out the tutorials. I would have to disagree about the need for many improvements. Granted, I have been using it for over 5 years, but I find everything to be where expected and do what it should. Roger is open to suggestion, though
Re: [WISPA] Ping --- Radio Mobile Hates Me.
Fred, Your points are understood and I should not have sent that email at 2AM after spending time with fellow WISP's here at the show in the hotel bar J That being said, to be able to zoom in and out like a consumer level mapping program and have everything redraw on the fly is massively computational. The terrain data has to be drawn as well as reloaded in the map memory. The map is not what most people consider a visual map. That is considered a picture in the program while the map is the raw terrain data used for the propagation computations. Redrawing and rescaling all of that would also require a repropagation. As far as losing any volatile layers, one should not draw them and leave them volatile but save in a new picture for comparison purposes or keep them in the same picture. For items like the visible units just hit the redraw networks button. To redraw the map (and resulting picture representation of the terrain) at a zoomed in level for examining the terrain detail you can draw a box around the area of interest and use the edit fit map to selection feature. Just change the map resolution to something that fills your screen rather than the number of pixels in the selection area. The only other way to do the on the fly zooming is to export your plot to Google Earth and do it there. The terrain data in that program is not the 10 meter resolution but rather 30 meter and will at least give you the general idea of the topology. Brian From: Fred Goldstein [mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 7:39 AM To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ping --- Radio Mobile Hates Me. Brian, Please don't misunderstand me. I am very appreciative of the work done on RadioMobile and the fact that it's free! And, having worked with RF for a long time, I'm well aware of how complex the issues are. Which is why searching a Yahoo group doesn't strike me as an ideal way to learn the program. Some of what concerns me about RM are my general concerns with most free software, and this is especially true for Linux stuff, where free as in speech is a religious argument that often doesn't result in this much of a product. The RF core of the RM package is wonderful. I can just see a lot of ways in which the whole thing could be even nicer if the UI were updated. Decisions that got the job done up front may not be ideal in the long term. (You can see a lot of that in how TCP/IP itself was written.) Commercial vendors generally work on these issues -- somebody is paid to do the boring crap -- because it helps them sell. So if I am making suggestions, it is in the spirit of constructive criticism, not putting down anyone's efforts. As a user, I can see ways that it could be better. I am not a coder and don't know how much work any such changes would be to implement. But -- as a user -- wouldn't it be nice if it had a zoom function, for instance, so you could blow up a detail of a combined-cartestion coverage map or show-networks view without having to redraw the whole thing? This might be practical if the computations were done on SRTM points (to make the underlying map) but then to display it, those results stayed put while you moved around and rescaled your view of it. Lots of picture-manipulating programs do this. Heck, I'd pay to have it, though I guess Roger's employment situation makes it impossible to sell a premium version. I hate how many Linux coders, when confronted with a problem in the code, whine, you have the sources, luser, fix it. Mozilla, at least, pays rewards for some bugs, and it's constantly improving (argh, another important update this morning!). Commercial software companies pay for ideas to improve the product. I'm not whining; I just spend a lot of time with RM (I've been using it for several years) and just have ideas how it could be even better. As no doubt do others. ;-) I'm sorry if you think I'm sounding unappreciative of the work that went in to it. At 7/22/2010 02:00 AM, Brian Webster wrote: I'd like to chime in as one who does professional RF engineering for a living. I have worked with Roger for the last 10 years helping to improve radio mobile. There are so many features that the program supports now compared to when I started it just boggles the mind. That being said, it should be put in to perspective that commercial software packages for RF engineering cost from $15,000 to $70,000 dollars and do not perform any better than Radio Mobile. As a professional RF Engineer who has had to learn these commercial tools, I can tell you it takes a huge amount of time to learn any RF propagation software package and that there are no shortcuts or dummies guides. There is no substitute for time and persistence in learning any RF software package. Much of this will be spent in trial an error and reading the archives and tutorials. There are no shortcuts, mouse over or quick
Re: [WISPA] Ping --- Radio Mobile Hates Me.
Very true. Very steep learning curve that is easily forgotten. Go through the tutorials several times. The hardest part I found was getting the correct clutter data. -- Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net http://www.mtin.net/blog Wisp Consulting Tower Climbing Network Support From: Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:41:46 -0700 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ping --- Radio Mobile Hates Me. Radio Mobile hates everyone that doesn't use it every day. grin marlon - Original Message - From: Robert West mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 7:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Ping --- Radio Mobile Hates Me. Ping. (Had to) Bob- Still fighting the animal that is Radio Mobile. Why does Radio mobile Hate Me? I should have been a HAM. Maybe it¹s just bad Karma.. -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ping --- Radio Mobile Hates Me.
Radio Mobile hates everyone that doesn't use it every day. grin marlon - Original Message - From: Robert West To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 7:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Ping --- Radio Mobile Hates Me. Ping. (Had to) Bob- Still fighting the animal that is Radio Mobile. Why does Radio mobile Hate Me? I should have been a HAM. Maybe it's just bad Karma -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ping --- Radio Mobile Hates Me.
At 7/21/2010 11:41 AM, MarlonS wrote: Radio Mobile hates everyone that doesn't use it every day. It's a great tool, but boy is it frustrating! Roger has done a wonderful thing by putting this out there for free and improving it as he has. But there are so many things that could be done to improve it, especially the clumsy user interface. If it were an open source project, then more people could contribute to the effort. If he had a premium payware version, then he'd have incentive to at least prettify the pay version. Documentation wouldn't hurt either... My current project has set up three networks using the same batch of nodes. One is 5.8 GHz backhaul. One is 900 MHz backhaul, for heavy-forest paths. One is 5.8 GHz access. When it does the show networks, it doesn't seem to find the best path, but it's not terribly predictable as to which common network it's using. So I end up having to do path-by-path comparisons anyway. My next chore is to add antenna patterns. I think this means taking each node and turning it into two or three nodes, if it has two or three separate sectors. I can save network as a CSV, but that seems to only save the node locations. Copying network parameters between projects seems impossible. :=( grin marlon - Original Message - From: mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.comRobert West To: mailto:wireless@wispa.orgWISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 7:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Ping --- Radio Mobile Hates Me. Ping. (Had to) Bob- Still fighting the animal that is Radio Mobile. Why does Radio mobile Hate Me? I should have been a HAM. Maybe it's just bad Karma .. -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ping --- Radio Mobile Hates Me.
Thus is hates me. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 11:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ping --- Radio Mobile Hates Me. Radio Mobile hates everyone that doesn't use it every day. grin marlon - Original Message - From: Robert West mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 7:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Ping --- Radio Mobile Hates Me. Ping. (Had to) Bob- Still fighting the animal that is Radio Mobile. Why does Radio mobile Hate Me? I should have been a HAM. Maybe it's just bad Karma _ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ping --- Radio Mobile Hates Me.
If you have, join the Yahoo RM group. Lots of help there. Plus links to at least 2 tutorials. Roger does this for a living and his employer sells a very nice commercial package. They have been nice enough to allow him to to RM for free, so we get a super program at no cost. This also means that Open Source is out, as I am sure the source is too similar to their commercial package. If you want the pay version, I am sure an e-mail to him would get you company contact information. There are at least 2 users that have done documentation and step-by-step tutorials. Again, available from the Yahoo group. If you just do the radio link function, it does not choose the best network, it chooses the first network that both end-points are a member of. There is a tutorial for best path analysis and it works fairly well. The only time I would see a need for antenna patterns is if you have a fixed-base AP and mobile CPE. If both are fixed-base, I am not sure what the patterns will gain you. I do the same thing; I have a 5.8 network, a 2.4 network and a 900 network. Most of my POPs are setup with 3 120* sectors, so all POPs are setup with an omni of the same gain as the sector antenna. In my experience so far, the results are fairly accurate when there is clear line-of-sight. If there are a significant number of trees in the path, it obviously is not so good. I suppose if you have 2 90* sectors trying to cover 360* you would want patterns to find the nulls and edges, but if you have antennas for full coverage, the pattern probably is not so important. For point to point links, antenna pattern does not matter , assuming you are planning to aim the antennas directly at each other as that is the assumption RM makes. The Yahoo group has also had discussions about exports and imports. There are several things you can do. Again, check out the tutorials. I would have to disagree about the need for many improvements. Granted, I have been using it for over 5 years, but I find everything to be where expected and do what it should. Roger is open to suggestion, though. Let him know what you would like to see. Fred Goldstein wrote: At 7/21/2010 11:41 AM, MarlonS wrote: Radio Mobile hates everyone that doesn't use it every day. It's a great tool, but boy is it frustrating! Roger has done a wonderful thing by putting this out there for free and improving it as he has. But there are so many things that could be done to improve it, especially the clumsy user interface. If it were an open source project, then more people could contribute to the effort. If he had a premium payware version, then he'd have incentive to at least prettify the pay version. Documentation wouldn't hurt either... My current project has set up three networks using the same batch of nodes. One is 5.8 GHz backhaul. One is 900 MHz backhaul, for heavy-forest paths. One is 5.8 GHz access. When it does the show networks, it doesn't seem to find the best path, but it's not terribly predictable as to which common network it's using. So I end up having to do path-by-path comparisons anyway. My next chore is to add antenna patterns. I think this means taking each node and turning it into two or three nodes, if it has two or three separate sectors. I can save network as a CSV, but that seems to only save the node locations. Copying network parameters between projects seems impossible. :=( grin marlon - Original Message - From: Robert West mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 7:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Ping --- Radio Mobile Hates Me. Ping. (Had to) Bob- Still fighting the animal that is Radio Mobile. Why does Radio mobile Hate Me? I should have been a HAM. Maybe it's just bad Karma WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/ +1 617
Re: [WISPA] Ping --- Radio Mobile Hates Me.
At 7/21/2010 12:37 PM, Scott Reed wrote: If you have, join the Yahoo RM group. Lots of help there. Plus links to at least 2 tutorials. I've been there, and it helps. But it is not a substitute for a good collection of documentation. There's useful stuff on Roger's web site too, but it isn't always easy to figure out certain things, like when to use which mode to use for a network (spot, accidental, broadcast...) and what settings make the most sense. I use MapInfo a lot and it has thick manuals, the unabridged one being PDF only. Yes, it's expensive commercial software. I'm spoiled. ;-) I suppose a wiki might be a way for the community to collect its thoughts. I did see some interesting discussions on the Yahoo group about the nodes, and about the land cover. I roughly doubled the forest loss numbers, from Roger's default. This still might not be adequate, though, since it makes it seem *possible* to blast 5.8 GHz through the woods. Is 180 a good setting for most forests? Roger does this for a living and his employer sells a very nice commercial package. They have been nice enough to allow him to to RM for free, so we get a super program at no cost. This also means that Open Source is out, as I am sure the source is too similar to their commercial package. If you want the pay version, I am sure an e-mail to him would get you company contact information. What is the commercial product? He certainly hides any mention of it. If it's reasonable, I might look. I remember seeing an add-on for MapInfo, though. The price was roughly similar to the price of the local calling area database license. My car cost less, new. SPLAT looks to be a somewhat similar open source program, but much more limited in scope and not nearly as well updated. This is complicated stuff, I know. About 3/4 of the confusion might be solved by having a mouse-over help function, where you could right-click on a box and pop up a tutorial on what the values mean and how to set them. That could be an interesting volunteer project. Of course Roger's primary market is 2 meter repeaters, so the parameters we use in the WISP bands are a bit different... ...The only time I would see a need for antenna patterns is if you have a fixed-base AP and mobile CPE. If both are fixed-base, I am not sure what the patterns will gain you. I do the same thing; I have a 5.8 network, a 2.4 network and a 900 network. Most of my POPs are setup with 3 120* sectors, so all POPs are setup with an omni of the same gain as the sector antenna. In my experience so far, the results are fairly accurate when there is clear line-of-sight. If there are a significant number of trees in the path, it obviously is not so good. I suppose if you have 2 90* sectors trying to cover 360* you would want patterns to find the nulls and edges, but if you have antennas for full coverage, the pattern probably is not so important. For point to point links, antenna pattern does not matter , assuming you are planning to aim the antennas directly at each other as that is the assumption RM makes. Not all of the sectors need full-circle coverage, so I was thinking about using the model to see how it looked with partial coverage on some poles. This would save radios and antennas... In fact, with three sector radios and two backhaul radios (not to mention needing three backhaul radio degrees at mesh junctions), that exceeds the four-slot maximum of any one Routerboard, right? So do you often put back-to-back radios in one box? I think the only way to do sectors in RM is to treat them as separate radios, So if Unit 10 was three sectors, it might end up as say Units 10, 91, and 92, in the access network, right? The Yahoo group has also had discussions about exports and imports. There are several things you can do. Again, check out the tutorials. I would have to disagree about the need for many improvements. Granted, I have been using it for over 5 years, but I find everything to be where expected and do what it should. Roger is open to suggestion, though. Let him know what you would like to see. I don't want to disparage Roger and his great work; it's just little things. I just hate drop-downs, which RM's UI makes me use too often, especially for selecting radios. But also the fact that adding a radio requires going to both the unit properties and then the network properties is counter-intuitive and a bit clumsy. These sorts of things aren't show-stoppers, just places where it helps reduce one's sanity just a bit more. Which can be in short supply... Fred Goldstein wrote: At 7/21/2010 11:41 AM, MarlonS wrote: Radio Mobile hates everyone that doesn't use it every day. It's a great tool, but boy is it frustrating! Roger has done a wonderful thing by putting this out there for free and improving it as he has. But there are so many things that could be done to improve it,
