>> You misunderstand. You can get as close to 100% as you >> want. Some of us have logged data from M12+ receivers without >> error for weeks or months -- gigabytes, error-free. > > Sure, I assume you refer to the case when you check the data length as > well? I meant that the <Checksum><cr><lf><@><@> byte string could also > potentially exist in the data itself, but only in very rare cases > (from there the 95% thumb suck).
Yes, you must use the data length. These are *packets*; all of which have their own fixed length. See pages 30, 31 of the M12+ user manual. >> If you're brave you can process the message, byte by byte, >> field by field, as it arrives in real time and use the checksum >> as a commit. > > Again, the checksum could be part of the data string - so without > checking the data length you'll be waiting for the @@ (less probable > to exist in data). No no, the checksum is a designated byte at a known offset within the packet. You first read the whole packet. Then you validate the checksum byte and/or do other sanity checks on the data. You don't just go looking through all the bytes in the packet for any old byte that equals some value. Maybe re-read Hal's message where he talked about a hunt and sync mode. That got the point across nicely. I hope you end up liking the binary format; I'm not sure how it could be improved. /tvb _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
