| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 28.07.03 11:56l 226 Lines 9567 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 1687-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Jul 25, 2/6
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0BEL<IK6PYS<W4JAX<KD4GBA<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 030727/1426Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:5257 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:1687-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: RE: WinAPRS 2.7.2 message bug...
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 08:26:43 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 9
>>I'm trying to doing some messages but just noticed that 2.7.2 doesn't do
>>wrap-around in the message window any longer! Have to type several
>>messages individually now... Is this a known bug???
In my opinion, APRS is not a paragraph communications system. It is a
one-line message system. The one lines get delivered independently and
senders should properly phrase their information to take ADVANTAGE of the
one-line system.
Having a type-on-forever-let-the-machine-think-for-me message window in my
mind, is counter productive to efficient APRS message communications.
I'm glad to see it works this way...
de WB4APR, Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Trucks with 7 and more Wides <g>
From: "Dick Stanich" <dick@kb7zva.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 8:46:43
X-Message-Number: 10
Tim,
<snip>
It's not O.K. But perhaps a more in depth explanation is in order. Here's
what I do. We don't want a packet going more than three or four hops here.
The digi trims at wide4-4. Let's assume a packet is sent with a path of
wide7-7 and SEA hears it 'first.' That's seven hops requested none used.
Now we know that we don't want more than four hops. We change the packet
from wide7-7 to wide4-4 and process it. So it leaves SEA as wide4-3. Make
sense?
</snip>
It only makes sense if ALL digis in your area are on the same page. What's
going to happen when VE7DIE, to your north, hears the WIDE7-7 and doesn't
change the packet path? And again hears the packet as WIDE4-4 after it's
converted. SEA has converted it to WIDE4-4. Say VE7DIE doesn't care to
alter the header. You have the same packet traveling 2 different paths. One
digi senerio honors the WIDE7-7 and others create a fresh packet with
WIDE4-4. All you are doing is dumping the WIDE7-7 you hear from VE7DIE, and
it's still on the digi train. Where is the gain?
I only use VE7DIE as an example. It is a very powerful digi overlooking
Seattle. It has been there for years.
Awareness and education, to me, are the best methods... than trying to
alter the method in which digipeaters have functioned across the network
for years. You are just adding to the complexity of your own network with
disregard to your neighbors. You'll never stop seeing WIDE7-7's completely
until the original source stops sending them. If you make better use of
IGates and have better placement of digi's, you can create a 'cell' exactly
the way you want, without changing the original concept.
When digipeating, the packet goes all the way from the first station,
through all relay stations, to the destination station. The response has to
take the same exact reverse path. When the path is altered by SEA, is it
capable of sending a fake ack also? I don't think so. The end user will
never see an acknowledgement and probably think his path isn't LONG ENOUGH
to the destination station. In affect, the path source belongs to SEA, NOT
the original sending station.
Dick, KB7ZVA
APRSWest
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [ Bob Bruninga ] RE: WinAPRS 2.7.2 message bug...
From: "Gregg G. Wonderly" <gregg@skymaster.cytetech.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:06:20 -0500
X-Message-Number: 11
>Having a type-on-forever-let-the-machine-think-for-me message window
>in my mind, is counter productive to efficient APRS message
>communications.
>
>I'm glad to see it works this way...
What is counter productive is when your message is 2 characters too long
and you have to spend extra time rewording it to make it short enough.
Having the system break the packet at a word boundry and send two packets
for you is what works best. Certainly, that promotes longer worded
exchanges... On repeaters, the same long winded conversational modes
timeout the repeater and then everyone gets to wait for the repeater to
come back... Certainly, some training and thinking go a long way towards
making a fragile system work better for everyone...
-----
gregg@cytetech.com (Cyte Technologies Inc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [ Bob Bruninga ] RE: WinAPRS 2.7.2 message bug...
From: "Daron J. Wilson" <daron@wilson.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 07:51:47 -0700
X-Message-Number: 12
>>Having a type-on-forever-let-the-machine-think-for-me message window
>>in my mind, is counter productive to efficient APRS message
>>communications.
>>
>>I'm glad to see it works this way...
>
>What is counter productive is when your message is 2 characters
>too long and
>you have to spend extra time rewording it to make it short
>enough. Having the
>system break the packet at a word boundry and send two packets
>for you is what
>works best. Certainly, that promotes longer worded exchanges...
>On
>repeaters, the same long winded conversational modes timeout the
>repeater and
>then everyone gets to wait for the repeater to come back...
>Certainly, some
>training and thinking go a long way towards making a fragile
>system work
>better for everyone...
Exactly..training and thinking.
Repeaters are made for extended voice transmissions, APRS is not
designed for extended messaging. Bob can certainly speak to this much
better but APRS is designed as a tactical positioning system. If you
are going to send messages, why not get on packet or voice and let the
position reports and short situational reports go thru on APRS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: WinAPRS 2.7.2 message bug...
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:22:02 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 13
Bob:
>>Having a type-on-forever-let-the-machine-think-for-me message window
>>in my mind, is counter productive to efficient APRS message comms.
>>[I think WinAPRS is doing the right thing]...
Greg:
>What is counter productive is when your message is 2 characters too long
>and you have to spend extra time rewording it to make it short enough.
>Having the system break the packet at a word boundry and send two
>packets for you is what works best.
I disagree. In that case, the sender is adding dozens of more packets to
the network and a complete additional set of ACKS all for the purpose of
sending just 2 additional characters. I'd rather the sender take the few
seconds to do it right in the first place. His message will arrive
quicker, be complete and be conscise.
>Certainly, [allowing text box with word-wrap and auto line length]
>promotes longer worded exchanges... [but]..., some training and
>thinking go a long way towards making a fragile system work better for
>everyone...
Yes, but witness the current discussion about "educating" APRS users about
the damage of long paths, and I think we all agree that APRS client
software should try to 'force' the users into using techniques that are
most efficient for the network.
Letting users type run-on sentences without knowledge of how it can best
be done for the efficiency of the network is one good example of where
such clinet software can help. The APRSdos msg-entry line also has
markers at the 24 and 45 character line boundaries to aid the sender in
formatting his message properly for diplay on a D7 or D700 screen.
APRS is not a run-on sentence or paragraph message system. It sends
independent "msg lines" of up to 63 characters (45 to a D7 and 48 to a
D700)... we should not bury that detail below the visibility of its
users...
de WB4APR, Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [ Bob Bruninga ] RE: WinAPRS 2.7.2 message bug...
From: "Gregg G. Wonderly" <gregg@skymaster.cytetech.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:24:20 -0500
X-Message-Number: 14
>Repeaters are made for extended voice transmissions, APRS is not
>designed for extended messaging. Bob can certainly speak to this much
>better but APRS is designed as a tactical positioning system. If you
>are going to send messages, why not get on packet or voice and let the
>position reports and short situational reports go thru on APRS.
My point is only that the automatic splitting mechanism is very valuable.
The paragraph chit-chat during an emergency is, in fact, deterimental to
the performance of the network. In many areas, there are no longer packet
repeaters on other frequencies it seems. Either that, or people don't know
where they are, or how to use them... It just seems to me that 144.39 has
become the defacto packet frequency that people use because of ignorance of
lack of choice...
-----
gregg@cytetech.com (Cyte Technologies Inc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: More I-Gate questions.
From: "Dave Thege" <dthege@conpoint.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:14:59 -0500
X-Message-Number: 15
How often does the information from the internet get gated to rf? Does that
depend on the beacon rate of the tnc? Is there another setting I'm missing.
Also where does the range filter txt go. Is that sent after the Log on? I'm
using UI-VIEW 1.94 I connected to one of the 14580 ports and set the range
filter to r/42/-97/200 and didn't get anything. When I connected
Texas.aprs2.net 14579 without a filter I was receiving info. Bear with me
gang this I-gate stuff is new to me.
Dave N0XBN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
