On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Keith VE7GDH<[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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. > > I don't think it will be a very valid comparison in your area. You say > that you can't always get to a high digi from the 40W tracker in your > vehicle, and that it often needs help from a digi at your home QTH. > Running the HT at a fixed rate will probably get more position reports > to an IGate just because it is beaconing all of the time. The 40 W > tracker using SmartBeaconing will only beacon when it needs to... every > few minutes at highways speeds and one or several times when it turns a > corner, and down at a 10-30 minute rate when it's sitting still. How do you figure it wouldn't be a valid comparison? The concept behind SmartBeaconing is to slow the rate down when nothing is changing. The timed beacons are wasteful of resources because the tracker beacons no matter what is going on. This is akin to the old ongoing SNL news report from Gilda Radner "Generalísimo Francisco Franco is still dead!". Sitting in the parking lot at work all day is not a notable event every 3 minutes. I would think the comparison would be valid in that the total number of packets over a period of time would be compared, as well as the quality of information provided from each tracker. Which units sent the more useful information? SmartBeaconing will send packets that depict significant events, such as the corners made showing which streets last turned onto. James VE6SRV
