| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 02.10.03 10:15l 251 Lines 9308 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2054-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Sep 29, 10/12
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0BI<DB0NOS<DB0EA<DB0RES<ON0AR<
IW8PGT<SP7MGD<ZL2TZE<VK3KAY<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 031001/1414Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:9454 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2054-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Take Control of your DIGI part 4
From: Steve Jones <s.jones@rogers.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:13:51 -0400
X-Message-Number: 48
on 9/29/03 7:38 PM, Bill Vodall - WA7NWP at wa7nwp@jnos.org wrote:
>
>I now consider DIGI_NED as the least acceptable level of digipeater
>for a busy area. While it probably would be possible to eventually
>realize acceptable basic APRS packet functionality with UIDIGI, it
>is too limiting. With real software and hardware we can do great
>new things. IM!HO it's time to quit being cheap and making excuses
>for poor performance. It's time to make some serious progress.
Why is Digined the least acceptable?
With it's rules based system and dupe checking it's probably one of the best
packages out there.
Supports wide,relay,widen-n,tracen-n and directional digipeating.
Henk can probably correct me but I believe it supports the LANn-N idea as is
with no modifications necessary except to the rules file.
--
Steve <s.jones@rogers.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Take Control of your DIGI part 4
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:22:08 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 49
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Bill Vodall - WA7NWP wrote:
>>KE4ROC-9>BEACON,WC4ADG,W4SBO-7,W4GPS-7*/1:!3440.31N/08633.13W_Remote U2000 WX
Station
>>KE4ROC-9>BEACON,WC4ADG,W4GPS-7,WIDE*/1:!3440.31N/08633.13W_Remote U2000 WX
Station
>>
>That's exactly as expected. Kantronics does not do dupe elminination
>on WIDE packets. It's a problem with their implementation.
We need to be speciifc. ALl kantronics with callsign substitution ROMS
do do it on WIDE. THe only WIDE's that dont get substituted are ANY TNC
that is using MYALIAS as WIDE (except for Paccom NEW roms). We need to
obsolete those digis. be they old KPC-3 roms, TAPR TNC's or whatever...
BOb
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Take Control of your DIGI part 4
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:25:15 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 50
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Tim Cunningham wrote:
>In this event if you want commonality in a network you have to go with
>the least common denominator. We know what that suggests, but can we
>bring ourselves down to it as a starting point the reality of what can
>be done now.
Yep, and that is callsign substitution and using short RELAY,WIDE or
WIDE,WIDE paths... and implementing the new WIDEn-N paradigm...
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Fwd: Re: Take Control of your DIGI part 4
From: WA8LMF2@aol.com
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:37:59 EDT
X-Message-Number: 51
In a message dated 9/29/2003 5:31:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
s.jones@rogers.com writes:
>>I now consider DIGI_NED as the least acceptable level of digipeater
>>for a busy area. While it probably would be possible to eventually
>>realize acceptable basic APRS packet functionality with UIDIGI, it
>>is too limiting. With real software and hardware we can do great
>>new things. IM!HO it's time to quit being cheap and making excuses
>>for poor performance. It's time to make some serious progress.
>
>Why is Digined the least acceptable?
>
>With it's rules based system and dupe checking it's probably one of the best
>packages out there.
I think the meaning of the statement was that nothing less than Digined's
intelligence was acceptable; i.e. that Digined was the most desirable of
what is currently available ---- not that Digined was undesirable.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Take Control of your DIGI part 4
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:37:01 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 52
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Bill Vodall - WA7NWP wrote:
>The strongest argument for my suggestion is the very existence
>of this discussion. After all these years we're still dealing with
>digipeater and path issues.... It's time to fix it and move on.
ANd I agree completely. Lets FIX what we have and use it as it was
intended (2 hop LOCAL or whatever is your 50 ALOHA LAN), and swiftly
switch to the new WIDEn-N paradigm.
THen for all those with better ideas, yes, move on to new firmware, new
hardware, new software, new frequencies, new modes, new data rates, new
radios, no NMEA, no Kenwoods, no Tiny-trackers, and lets all have fun
with this hobby.
But a 1200 baud channel CANNOT SUPPORT more than about 50 users reliablity
using the statistics of a real time event, stop trying!
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Take Control of your DIGI part 4
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:40:06 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 53
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Dave VanHorn wrote:
>>digipeater and path issues.... It's time to fix it and move on.
>
>Wasn't Mike Musick going to do something palm based along these lines?
>I'd have a tough time siting a PC at my digi, but a palm pilot would be no
>trouble at all.
What a waste of a perfectly good palm PC...
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Take Control of your DIGI part 4
From: "Sean \\The RIMBoy\\" <sean@rimboy.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 17:43:38 -0500 (CDT)
X-Message-Number: 54
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Gregg G. Wonderly wrote:
>When I go to findu and request 100 stations within 100 miles of W4GPS-7 I see
>that there are perhaps way too many digis in the area.
Mind posting the URL that you used since this:
http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/near.cgi?call=W4GPS-7&distance=100
And this:
http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/map-near.cgi?call=w4gps-7&cnt=100
are not exactly supporting that?
Last I checked Oklahoma is quite a bit flatter than the Huntsville and
Middle Tennessee area. I can state for a fact that if W4GGM-1, KF4TNP-1
(when it's on the air), and WA4ZDS-2 all fill in major holes that are not
covered by any of the Huntsville digis (or Nashville digi's).
Unfortunately I'm not able to duplicate the exact results you're seeing.
Sean...
--
Believing I had supernatural powers, I slammed into a brick wall.
--Paul Simon
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
KG4NRC http://www.rimboy.com Your source for the crap you know you need.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: palm digis was: Re: Take Control of your DIGI part 4
From: "Sean \\The RIMBoy\\" <sean@rimboy.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 17:47:55 -0500 (CDT)
X-Message-Number: 55
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Dave VanHorn wrote:
>>The strongest argument for my suggestion is the very existence
>>of this discussion. After all these years we're still dealing with
>>digipeater and path issues.... It's time to fix it and move on.
>
>Wasn't Mike Musick going to do something palm based along these lines?
>I'd have a tough time siting a PC at my digi, but a palm pilot would be no
>trouble at all.
While several of us were impressed with using that, the fundamental
question that we could not get over is power issues. I'm not a PDA user,
but how does one handle the power on those? Last I checked they're
designed to run off of batteries. Are there attachments such as cig
lighter adapter or other such power solutions available? I know there are
cradles but I thought those were for charging and communication and not
for running the PDA. Granted you won't be using the PDA on a day in day
out basis but I did not think the cradles were condusive to even letting
the PDA run the UI.
I'd sooner put a low end computer at a site than put a handy PDA at one.
Sean...
--
Believing I had supernatural powers, I slammed into a brick wall.
--Paul Simon
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
KG4NRC http://www.rimboy.com Your source for the crap you know you need.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Take Control of your DIGI part 4
From: "Bill Vodall - WA7NWP" <wa7nwp@jnos.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:00:46 -0700
X-Message-Number: 56
>>I now consider DIGI_NED as the least acceptable level of digipeater
>>for a busy area. While it probably would be possible to eventually
>>realize acceptable basic APRS packet functionality with UIDIGI, it
>>is too limiting. With real software and hardware we can do great
>>new things. IM!HO it's time to quit being cheap and making excuses
>>for poor performance. It's time to make some serious progress.
>
>Why is Digined the least acceptable?
It can do what we need now.. More importantly, it's upgradeable!
We can modify it for future network improvements and functionality.
With DIGI_NED, we're not artificially limited by our tools.
For example, right now in the NWAPRS sig we're discussing using it to do
geographic digipeating. That will allow a digi to respond to one area
where it's needed and not respond to another area where there's already
more then enough digi's. (We know directional antennas would help too...)
This is one of many ideas that have been presented.
Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
