Hi Scott,

I figured out why the difference. It should have been obvious to me at the 
time. Doh!

This is the fill-in digipeater and it is displayed correctly:
PNRDVL>APN383:!4259.89N107130.40W#PHG6130/W1 Fill-InPinardvill N7FMH 
$GPWPL,4259.89,N,07130.40,W,PNRDVL*41
$PGRMW,PNRDVL,0,4007,PHG6130/W1 Fill-InPinardvill N7FMH *6C 

This is an object from the fill-in which is not displayed correctly:
PNRDVL>BEACON:;147.135NH*111111z4258.99N/07135.36WrT100 r25m S.Uncan MT 
$GPWPL,4258.99,N,07135.36,W,147.135NH*7A
$PGRMW,147.135NH,0,4007,T100 r25m S.Uncan MT *0F

The LCD displays the station that sent the object rather than the object 
itself. In this case, the object is "147.135NH".

I believe my formatting in the fill-in is correct which means the OT2 is not 
doing the right thing.

The attachments are still online for review.

Thanks for looking into this!

Best regards,
Fred



--- In [email protected], Scott Miller <sc...@...> wrote:
>
> Hmmm.  Is the reported distance consistent?  Can you send me an example 
> of a raw packet that it's reporting incorrectly?
> 
> Scott
> 
> Fred Hillhouse wrote:
> >  
> > 
> > HI Scott,
> >  
> > That is correct.
> >  
> > Best regards,
> > Fred
> > 
> >     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >     *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> >     *On Behalf Of *Scott Miller
> >     *Sent:* Tuesday, September 15, 2009 00:24
> >     *To:* [email protected]
> >     *Subject:* Re: [tracker2] Distance calculations
> > 
> >      
> > 
> >     Is that showing 4 miles on the LCD and 0.27 miles on the GPS?
> > 
> >     Scott
> > 
> >     Fred Hillhouse wrote:
> >      >
> >      > [Attachment(s) <#TopText> from Fred Hillhouse included below]
> >      >
> >      > Hi Scott,
> >      >
> >      > I noticed a slight distance discrepancy the other day and
> >     captured a photo.
> >      > Or I have a incorrect setting. I am good with either option. It
> >     looks like
> >      > the range calculations are okay when the distance is close but
> >     not when it
> >      > is further way. I have seen this several times.
> >      >
> >      > Thanks!
> >      >
> >      > Best regards,
> >      > Fred
> >      >
> >      >
> > 
> >
>


Reply via email to