Interleave is a tradeoff... improved error correction
vs latency. If you are going to use a digital mode, as an Amateur, 
you have a responsibility to learn something about how it works. For 
the general population, software needs to be "idiot proof". This 
shouldn't be a constraint for software used by Amateurs ;-)

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Folks, when Simon was first adding Olivia to DM780 he studied Pawel
> Jalocha's coding and consulted with him about the correct 
implementation.
> The lag noticed in DM780 is reportedly as the Pawel Jalocha  
intended.  What
> I am looking for is people to get on the air with Olivia and see if 
the
> applications that may have less lag , have any noticeable decoding
> degradation.  Since I know Olivia in MixW and Multipsk work well, I 
am
> wondering if the "proper" implimentation of Olivia in DM780 is 
worth the
> delay and issues this causes during a QSO (those not knowing about 
the lag
> think we are not coming back to them and start a transmission 
again )
> 
> Andy
> 
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Simon Brown (KNS) 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> 
> >   The lag is in the software - it's part of the design for the 
error
> > correction. Where error correction is part of the design then *in 
general*
> > with Ham modes you have to wait a while before text is decoding 
is the
> > error
> > correction is applied. The lag is not caused by CPU load.
> >
> > To really understand this it's best to analyse the Olivia design 
although
> > this can be rough for the brain :-)
> >
> >
> > Simon Brown, HB9DRV
> > www.ham-radio-deluxe.com
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "captcurt2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <captcurt%40flash.net>>
> >
> > > Sooo. a 500Mhhz machine running at 20% is going to perform the
> > > integrations and decoding same delay as a 2 Ghz machine running 
at 20%??
> > >
> > > That seems counter intuitive to me..
> > >
> > > I'm sure you're right but I don't understand how that can be.
> > >
> > > I thought the load information talked about resources not speed 
of
> > > execution.
> > >
> > > Help me understand..
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andy K3UK
>


Reply via email to