On 03/23/2018 11:26 AM, Müller, Marcus (CEL) wrote: > Hi Suraj, > > thank you very much for sending us your proposal! This already looks > very nice. Can I wish for you to add something like a rough block > diagram that describes how your simulated illuminator, your signal > recoverer, your radar estimator and your clutter reducer work > together, and which information you plan on letting these exchange? > That would allow us to "mentally" map what you're doing each week in > your proposed timeline to components of the system. > > All in all, this is pretty ambitious, but exciting!
Sure is! There's a couple of typos in the proposal, and I always think that distracts from the quality of content and the content itself. My main issue with this proposal is its vagueness. I would recommend you expand the sections that explain the algorithms you want to implement *a lot*. In particular, we need to know if you've understood the underlying math, DSP, and implementation requirements. Do you have thoughts on a clutter removal algorithm? Like Marcus says, it will better to do a simple approach first. You could, e.g. remove all zero-Doppler targets. As a result of this vagueness, I believe the timeline is probably inaccurate. GUIs are nice, but you should either make them stretch goals, or actual first-class citizens. It's always better to limit your main deliverables to make sure there's time for cleanup and merging. What if the gr-radar maintainer has issues with your pull requests? You're planning to add a of stuff. Were you planning on submitting PRs continuously? If so, I recommend writing that. I'm also curious how you do your signal recovery. The overall proposal is interesting, though, no doubt about that! -- M > How will you tackle the OFDM signal recovery? I think your reference > [2] is really much to be completely done in one GSoC, so it would be > totally OK to say you just picked a reduced approach. Still, if you > want to do that in all its glory, that would be cool, too, but I'd > ask Martin how much work he'd expect that to be, and if necessary, > reserve more time for the algorithmic part alone. I'm also including > Jean- Michel Friedt of low-cost passive radar fame[A], as I hope he > might have a moment to read and comment on your proposal. > > Best regards, Marcus > > [A] http://jmfriedt.free.fr/URSI.pdf On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 12:54 > +0530, suraj hanchinal wrote: >> Hello Everyone, I am Suraj Hanchinal, a second year undergraduate >> in Electrical Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology, >> Kanpur. I had approached the mailing list and communicated with >> Martin Braun, the mentor and others regarding the gr-radar toolbox >> extension idea. I decided to work on adding passive radar support >> to the toolbox after these discussions. I have finally completed >> the proposal [1] and I would like feedback as well as suggestions >> for improvement on the proposal. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Regards, Suraj Hanchinal >> >> Proposal [1] >> https://github.com/surajhanchinal/GSoC_proposal/blob/master/My%20GSoc%20Proposal.pdf >> >> >> _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio >> mailing list Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio >> >> >> _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio >> mailing list Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio mailing list Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio