--- In [email protected], James Ewen <ve6...@...> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Broncus<fmhillho...@...> wrote: > > > I going to start with this setup once the trip is done; > > N7FMH-9,WIDE1-1,WIDE2-1. For now, once I am out of > > the range of my PNRDVL fill-in, it won't be an issue. > > That would be a good way to ensure that you are using the same path > for both the timed, and SmartBeacon enabled units. You still will > have issues out of your control like time differences between when the > different trackers beacon. You might loose some packets due to > collisions etc.
That was my thinking as well. And it turns out I have a TNC that will do PP (proportional pathing). I will now have to run the three at the same time. > >> > I thought it would be interesting to collect data from a 'timed' > >> > tracked and overlay it on a SmartBeaconing track. > > > >> I don't think it would really prove a lot. The HT (going through the T2) > >> would be basically a 40W tracker with fixed timing. > > > > The use is really for showing someone on a Powerpoint slide the effects > > of timed versus smart timing for the purpose of the network benefits. > > Not everyone is easily convinced that Smartbeaconing is good. > > Some will run timed just because it requires no thinking. By having > > -7 and -9 running at the same time, the data reflects the same route > > and travel time. And, the beacons are easily counted. > > If you are going to do this, please don't just analyze the packets > over the duration of the route travelled. I don't plan to. Sorry, I didn't really mean to say 'counted'. I realize to futility in that. I find that often people want to see a realistic track so they increase their timing to really shorts times, like 15 or 30 seconds. They claim they have to to get a track close to their real path. (Admission of guilt: I thought the same once) They want every corner. When I show them the SmartBeacon mode and explain the network impact, they realize it is worth the time to learn and do SmartBeacon. > If you compare a timed beacon unit (3 minute interval?) against a > properly set up SmartBeacon unit (1 min at >60, 30 min at <5, and > normal corner pegging values) over the course of a couple hours, with > a "normal" trip of 1/2 hour duration in that time, you will probably > find the SmartBeacon unit will send fewer packets. The track left by > the SmartBeacon unit will also do a better job of describing the path > taken by the tracked unit. > > If you extend that to where people leave their tracker on 24 hours a > day, the SmartBeacon unit wins hands down. If however you only analyze > the difference between the two over a twisty course that lasts 30 > minutes, the SmartBeacon unit will send more packets. I understand. I leave my tracker on 24/7 in the car. I did the Skyline Drive back in May and sent a few packets! But the rest of the time I was on I-81 or some other basically straight road. > One caveat: Preemptive digipeating will use a path that is not next in > line, jumping past the paths in front of it. It will be marked as > used, and the paths in front will never get used. > > If you use a path such as WIDE1-1,WIDE2-1,MYCAR and have your vehicle > set to preemptive digipeat on MYCAR, it will be handled by the car, > but will look like this after. WIDE1-1,WIDE2-1,MYCAR* where the > asterisk (*) represents the has been digipeated bit. Any subsequent > digipeater fill-in or mountaintop will only look for a path that is > after the has been digipeated bit. I don't quite get this. But I think you are saying, the car would see the MYCAR (fromthe HT) and forward the beacon with the WIDE1-1,WIDE2-1 intact which a fill-in or WIDE digi would see and treat it like it came direct. Very useful! I read about the different features but when it comes down to implimentation, that is where the real learning begins. :) > One other observation from down your way... ever thought about building > WIDE digipeaters rather than a bunch of fill-in digipeaters? Fill in > digis are to boost the signal into the WIDEs from areas where low > powered trackers don't get heard. You should still be able to hear the > WIDE digipeaters in that area so that APRS is a bi-directional > communications medium. Actually I have considered just switching PNRDVL over to a WIDE digi and sticking the antenna higher. A planned move has been the reason for delay. (see last response) > From what I can see you have a bunch of fill-in digipeaters, but the > closest WIDE digi is 30 kms away. Can you hear N1EXT-5 reliably in > your area? Not only do you want your tracker to be heard from where > you area, but you need to be able to hear other people as well. If you > send an APRS message to me, it goes through PNRDVL to an i-gate, and > then to me a couple thousand miles away. If I send a reply, will your > local i-gate be able to get that message back to me? (It should be > sending just locally, or possibly 1 hop depending upon the density of > i-gates in the area) Since the i-gate is a fixed station with > reasonable antenna, it should not be using WIDE1-1. That means you > need to be able to hear the i-gate or a WIDE digi to get my message. I will have to check the stations heard for N1EXT-5. In the car I hear AC1U, NE1B, N1NAZ-5 and KA1GJU. to the north, N1IIC is down onthe other side of a hill. He covers Concord ok. I have been working with my T2/radio to improve the reception. The D7 appears to receive slightly better at last test. I havne't tested it again since the last change. I am thinking one of the issues here is the thick layer of trees mixed with low antennas. I am hoping that a 5/8 wave will improve the reception. I currently am using a 1/2 wave. I have not tried a message beyond local. I should try that. I don't have anyway to store a message at this point in the car so I have to be present to see it. And there is no PC connect to PNRDVL. I know the NE1B Digi does not support messaging. I have been trying to convince him but no luck yet. I am not sure of the N1NAZ-5 either. > What about co-locating a WIDE digi with the 147.33 repeater? PNRDVL is supposed to move there. It is waiting for space to open up. I hear the available cabinet space is the issue. It was supposed to be re-configured in the springtime. :( I understand there is antenna space on the tower. We will see. There is a possible other location up on the same hill (not as much antenna height) but I would need to collect solar panels, batteries, etc. No power. From a network stand point it might be better and less subject to power outages but currently the extra expense doens't work for me. Best regards, Fred
