On 4/9/2010 8:48 AM, Woodrick, Ed wrote:
Nate,
Please get your fact straights before spreading FUD.
FUD means Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, none of which I am spreading.
D-PLUS was created before the DVDongle. D-PLUS is NOT REQUIRED for a
D-STAR repeater, or one that is connected to the Trust Server. Again,
DPLUS IS NOT REQUIRED! Of course not installing it would probably be
foolhardy as linking is pretty much a way of life for may repeaters.
That's not what the e-mail I have from the Trust Server team said when I
turned up W0CDS. I can produce that e-mail if you like.
If you can point to the official documentation that says it's not
required, please feel free. If things have changed, it'd sure be nice if
this stuff wasn't passed on by word-of-mouth and folklore in a network
this large. Documentation from those who make the decisions, would be
great. I've never seen any. Show us the way...
People refusing to learn c allsign routing IS NOT THE ONLY REASON. I
know how to do it (after all, I kinda wrote the book). But I don't
like its implementation. I don't use it. I think that it is a
relatively ill-conceived function that was only half-heatedly though
through. I believe that you also may be making a mistake to believe
that Icom's gateway implementation is the way that it was intended to
be utilized.
It's the way *Icom* intended THEIR GATEWAY it to be utilized, otherwise
they wouldn't have put their name on it and started shipping it, would
they? You read too much into things, Ed. I never said one or the other
was bad or good... I said they both hase plusses and minuses, and
that Icom's ENGINEERING DESIGN of their Gateway, and thus, how they did
their USER DESIGN of the rigs, never included D-PLUS. That's all
well-known fact, after all. Note how they added MORE features to the
latest rig that didn't play nicely with D-PLUS. Are they stupid? They
know D-PLUS is everywhere on the U.S. Trust system. Or do you propose
that they just ignored it? Why would they do that? Because... they
don't care at all about it. That or they're hideously horrible
engineers who aren't paying any attention at all... and I can't bring
myself to say that.
You judge. But it's clear they're not paying any attention to making
radios (if they had time to put changes in to make callsign routing
easier, they sure as hell could have added linking memories and other
interface changes to make D-PLUS easier... but then they'd have to
explain why they don't have D-PLUS loaded on the repeaters in Japan.
They'd LOSE FACE... which is not something Japanese businessmen do
lightly, nor engineers. Been there, seen that in my professional job,
got the t-shirt.
Like I said, I asked Icom to let me build them a complete computer for
their demo system they were going to bring to Colorado and they refused
to allow D-PLUS on it. I was told it could NOT be put on Icom-operated
demo gear, per Japan. I can dig up those e-mails if you'd like them too.
Icom's own reps are NOT SUPPOSED TO DEMO D-PLUS. I'm only going off of
that fact. If you'd like to call them and get them to post
documentation otherwise, again... feel free.
I can with good conscous, state that without DPLUS, DSTAR would
probably have died. Or at least be at significantly lower levels of
penetration than today. A LOT of people enjoy listening to REF001C and
the nets. A lot of grant money has been spent with the capability to
link repeaters pretty much a requirement.
Now in this, we probably agree. D-STAR would have been dead without the
ability to link the very few users in each repeater's coverage area to
other areas with more activity.
As the local area gets busier, though -- most groups have to set aside
one module in the stack where they allow D-PLUS linking, and keep
another for local traffic.
Normal patterns of behavior for linked and unlinked repeaters these
days... D-STAR has no claim to fame on this one.
Linked repeater systems are popular, because they're more useful for
CQ types of contacts. All completely normal.
On D-STAR, just get callsigns on the screen on the linked system...
that's about the only difference. No one attempts low-speed data (other
than GPS-A) on Reflectors unless they're set aside for the purpose
because it's a channel-hog and people don't understand it. In fact,
people just don't understand much about D-STAR, really. They want to
mash-to-mumble, and have it go world-wide. That's fine, if that's your
goal in Ham Radio... but that goal can be accomplished a LOT cheaper
with a pile of MASTR II's and some old clunker PC's on analog.
So the benefit of D-STAR over a well-built linked analog system is
fairly nil when linked. It offers nothing the other system doesn't do.
(In fact, the analog system might even be VOTED - I'm not holding my
breath for a voted D-STAR receier system)
By the way, what have you done for D-STAR today?
I hang
