RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Nate Duehr]

On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:28:54 -0400, "Woodrick, Ed"
 said:
> 
> 
> Easy solution, stop callsign routing. Use repeater linking instead.
> Problem solved.
> 
> Ed WA4YIH

That'd be silly.  If I want to KNOW for sure the call made it to the
other side, and get a RESPONSE from the network that says so, the ONLY
option for that is callsign routing.

The day D-Plus linking is CONFIRMED with a "UR" back on the radio, you'd
have an argument.  Until then, they're both viable, and only one is
guaranteed to show up at the other end.

Try listening in on on a Reflector-based D-Plus Net sometime and see how
many stations double and can't figure out that's what happened.  It's
REALLY obvious when you listen/watch for it.

Another common mistake on Reflectors:  People don't listen for AT LEAST
THREE MINUTES before transmitting after linking in.  D-Plus is slightly
busted in that it can't "pick up in the middle of a stream" when you
link your local repeater into a Reflector and there's already a
transmission taking place.  You hear NOTHING.

Since the timeout timers on the repeaters are 3 minutes... the only
GUARANTEED way the "frequency is clear" after you link into a Reflector,
is to WAIT 3 MINUTES.  No one does it.  You hear people bust into
on-going QSO's on REF001C *ALL THE TIME* because of this.

It's not fully-baked yet.  Callsign routing is.

As I've said before, I use both.  But your zealoutry (you've made this
argument before, and don't seem to care about the above-mentioned before
BUGS in it) about it is misplaced.  D-Plus isn't "right" yet.  If Robin
can't find a way to have it respond with "UR" properly, it'll NEVER be
right.  It's a hackish add-on that works, but isn't engineered as well
as the VERY VENERABLE callsign routing.  

For one repeater to one repeater "linking" it's mainly attractive to
people because it requires less brainpower to operate, and considering
that callsign routing doesn't really require much brainpower, it's kinda
funny really.  How hard is it to keep your regular contact's repeaters
in a memory channel as a "/repeater" route?  Not hard at all.

The other major draw is Reflectors, but as pointed out above, the way
it's implemented today, people won't wait long enough (one full
transmission's maximum time) to see if the frequency is clear when they
link in.  I hear it all the time on busy Reflectors.  

The other thing you hear CONSTANTLY on a busy Reflector is whole
transmissions disappearing and people saying, "Not sure where you went,
but we didn't hear any of that transmission, Bob."  No one has done an
adequate investigation into the cause.

I'm not anti-DPlus or pro-callsign routes or anything like that.  But
I'm a support tech who always calls it like it is... D-Plus linking has
problems still.  

I think also from a human-training point of view, it adds confusion. 
People start to think the ONLY way to call another system is via D-Plus
commands, and that's just not accurate.  If they want to KNOW their call
went through, they really should be using callsign routes and
understanding them.

Is it nice to have Dongle users and Reflectors, sure.  Is D-Plus the
answer to all routing/calling for everything?  Not yet.  Not by a long
shot. 

Nate WY0X
--
  Nate Duehr
  n...@natetech.com

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Nate Duehr]

On Sun, 17 May 2009 09:33:33 +1000, "Tony Langdon" 
said:
> At 01:16 AM 5/17/2009, you wrote:
> >John is right on the money here.
> >
> >-
> >
> >Tactical Call Sign SOP:
> >
> >A tactical call sign is entered in the 4 digit comment field after a 
> >station's legal call sign:
> 
> This would seem to be the most sensible way.

And how does that work when attempting to use callsign squelch?

Y'all really missed that (or chose to ignore it) in my reply.   Tactical
callsigns really only have a "purpose" as a way to activate callsign
squelch for a pre-arranged event.  Yes, it can be done with real
callsigns, but if you're attempting to leverage the technology to make
your event run BETTER... putting a comment in the comment field is
generally useless.  

Have you seen how long it takes an ID800H to get around to displaying
the comment field?

Nate WY0X
--
  Nate Duehr
  n...@natetech.com

RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Tony Langdon]

At 05:22 PM 5/17/2009, you wrote:

>That'd be silly.  If I want to KNOW for sure the call made it to the
>other side, and get a RESPONSE from the network that says so, the ONLY
>option for that is callsign routing.

This is true, DPlus does not give any concrete indications that 
you're getting anywhere.  However, it is an extremely useful addition.

>Try listening in on on a Reflector-based D-Plus Net sometime and see how
>many stations double and can't figure out that's what happened.  It's
>REALLY obvious when you listen/watch for it.

I found the DV Dongle useful for watching what's happening on a reflector.


>Another common mistake on Reflectors:  People don't listen for AT LEAST
>THREE MINUTES before transmitting after linking in.  D-Plus is slightly
>busted in that it can't "pick up in the middle of a stream" when you
>link your local repeater into a Reflector and there's already a
>transmission taking place.  You hear NOTHING.

That's a biggie.  Who's going to wait 3 minutes?  It's a battle to 
get people to listen for 15-30 seconds on IRLP, before 
calling.  Hopefully, it will one day be possible to resolve this 
issue, and have DPlus send traffic to newly connected stations within 
a few seconds of the connection being made

>It's not fully-baked yet.  Callsign routing is.

True.  There's a number of situations that I don't really like 
callsign routing for, but it is the better developed method for using gateways.

>As I've said before, I use both.  But your zealoutry (you've made this

Me too.  I probably use each method 50% of the time.  If I know who 
I'm calling, or which system I want to call, I'll generally use 
callsign routing.  I generally use DPlus linking mainly for nets on 
reflectors or DV Dongle use.

>For one repeater to one repeater "linking" it's mainly attractive to
>people because it requires less brainpower to operate, and considering
>that callsign routing doesn't really require much brainpower, it's kinda
>funny really.  How hard is it to keep your regular contact's repeaters
>in a memory channel as a "/repeater" route?  Not hard at all.

I don't use a lot of routes, so I just have the setup to access the 
local gateway in memory, and use the UR callsign memory to dial up a 
destination I've previously used, or manually add it, if there is a 
new one.  For incoming calls, I'll try one touch reply first.  If 
that doesn't work, I have to assume it's a DPluc link, unless the 
other end gives their origin gateway.

>I think also from a human-training point of view, it adds confusion.
>People start to think the ONLY way to call another system is via D-Plus
>commands, and that's just not accurate.  If they want to KNOW their call
>went through, they really should be using callsign routes and
>understanding them.

I work a little differently, so I can swap between techiques as the 
situation fits.  For everyone else, they just need to learn both 
methods, and when to use which. :)  I know, that seems hard for a lot 
of people, but we're stuck with that, until there's suitable, sane 
interlocks that prevent people from doing the _really_ loopy things, 
and telling them when things don't work as they intended (e.g. busy, 
in link, etc).


>Is it nice to have Dongle users and Reflectors, sure.  Is D-Plus the
>answer to all routing/calling for everything?  Not yet.  Not by a long
>shot.

Agree, but they are useful. :)  Time will see big improvements, I'm sure.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Tony Langdon]

At 05:31 PM 5/17/2009, you wrote:

>And how does that work when attempting to use callsign squelch?

Hmm, I'd have thought that callsign squelch would be generally an 
impediment to emergency operations.  I know that if I was an operator 
on duty, I'd much rather an open channel, so I could be attentive to 
whatever's happening, and not accidentally hit the PTT before 
listening.  Proper procedure would require one to open the squelch, 
listen, then call Net Control.  I prefer to know the status of the 
channel, before I touch the radio.

Visual indication of callsigns in general is of limited use, because 
my eyes would normally be occupied with a message form or 
similar.   Exception of course would be if I was using D-RATS, rather 
than voice, where it's all visual.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

[DSTAR_DIGITAL] ID800H Software Download

[John]

I have a icom ID-800H and the programming software. Is there anyone who might 
know the appropriate sequence to download data?  It seems the data downloads ok 
but then after turning the radio back on the memory channel number and the 
letter M blink alternately. Is there a process I need to follow such as 
pressing power while I hold another button to set it up for download?

I am using windows XP as the OS

RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Woodrick, Ed]

We've had the discussion many times before.

Last year at Dayton, everyone was having to source route to the local repeater 
to talk. No one was able to have a conversation because people kept barging in 
because they could not hear the activity on the local repeater.

This year there were a number of good QSOs because it was linked to the 
reflector and everyone could hear the activity before talking.

You say that because you look at your display and see the response that you 
have an ironclad knowledge that your signal went through. But that's not a 
possibility for mobile stations who should keep their eyes on the road. And my 
HT has been on my belt all weekend, I'm not lifting it every time I have to 
talk. I've been able to talk around the world this weekend without EVER looking 
at my display, nor changing a channel. I've had a number of QSOs, I've people 
from all over the place. I've heard both sides of the conversations.

That's something that just WILL NOT HAPPEN, no way, no how, with callsign 
routing. There have been three or four way conversations with people from 
different states and different countries. That CAN NOT HAPPEN with callsign 
routing.

We have the Southeaster Weather Net where 25+ repeaters and 50+ users link up. 
There's less doubling here than on a FM local repeater net. You CAN NOT DO THIS 
with callsign routing.

If I am having a conversation on a repeater with someone local and someone 
source routes in, they don't know an existing QSO is on the repeater, even if 
the wait 15 minutes. The only way that they can find out is if they keep 
transmitting and watching their display and eventually see the error code come 
back. For me to tell them that the repeater Is busy, I've got to program my 
radio as I'm driving 70 mph down the road. And then make a call, and then 
change the programming on my radio. A process that usually takes a couple of 
minutes.

My comment was meant as a tongue in cheek response and I didn't intend to 
inflame you so badly. But indeed the response stands, Source routing has a 
number of issues for which this is indeed a case. And not source routing is 
indeed a solution. About the only one that you've found as a negative for 
linking is that the first QSO might be lost. And your premise is that people 
link and don't listen at all, that's just not the situation. A LOT of people 
listen and it's up to the seasoned operators to show users how to do it 
correctly.

As far as signals dropping into nowhere, that does indeed SOMETIME occur and is 
often related to network congestion. It is a known problem and there have been 
a number of things that Robin has done to help with the situation. BUT, since 
you don't use it that much, you probably don't have much experience and are 
speaking from what could be older experience.

As one of the managers of one of the largest nets, I have a direct and constant 
exposure to the issues and while repeaters do sometime drop off, the occurrence 
has dropped dramatically. We have MANY nets in which we don't have repeaters 
drop off the air. And then periodically we have one during which there is 
obvious network congestion and we lose a couple of repeaters during the net, 
but they reconnect and life goes on.

Ed WA4YIH



From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Nate Duehr
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:22 AM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)





On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:28:54 -0400, "Woodrick, Ed"
mailto:ewoodrick%40ed-com.com>> said:
>
>
> Easy solution, stop callsign routing. Use repeater linking instead.
> Problem solved.
>
> Ed WA4YIH

That'd be silly. If I want to KNOW for sure the call made it to the
other side, and get a RESPONSE from the network that says so, the ONLY
option for that is callsign routing.

The day D-Plus linking is CONFIRMED with a "UR" back on the radio, you'd
have an argument. Until then, they're both viable, and only one is
guaranteed to show up at the other end.

Try listening in on on a Reflector-based D-Plus Net sometime and see how
many stations double and can't figure out that's what happened. It's
REALLY obvious when you listen/watch for it.

Another common mistake on Reflectors: People don't listen for AT LEAST
THREE MINUTES before transmitting after linking in. D-Plus is slightly
busted in that it can't "pick up in the middle of a stream" when you
link your local repeater into a Reflector and there's already a
transmission taking place. You hear NOTHING.

Since the timeout timers on the repeaters are 3 minutes... the only
GUARANTEED way the "frequency is clear" after you link into a Reflector,
is to WAIT 3 MINUTES. No one does it. You hear people bust into
on-going QSO's on REF001C *ALL THE TIME* because of this.

It's not fully-baked yet. Callsign routing is.

As I've said before, I use both. But your zealoutry (you've made this
argument before, and don't seem to care abo

Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[John D. Hays]

D-PLUS Linking has its purpose, for wide area nets and if you know where 
the station is that you want to talk to and the repeater they are using 
is linked.

Source routing to an individual callsign (native D-STAR) has its purpose 
as well.  If the station (callsign) that I want to talk to is attached 
to a traveler, say a long haul truck driver or a road warrior, then 
simply calling the station using callsign routing makes more sense.  
Hopefully, the participants in a "local" QSO that gets interrupted by a 
remote call are not the types that think they have exclusive use of a 
frequency and have the courtesy and skill to let the remote station know 
what is going on. 

Callsign squelch is not D-STAR native, but it is a nice feature added to 
their radios by Icom.  It seems quite a few folks think that callsign 
squelch is the only reason to have the UR callsign set, but I see it as 
a secondary feature.

Woodrick, Ed wrote:
>
>
> ...
>

> That's something that just WILL NOT HAPPEN, no way, no how, with 
> callsign routing. There have been three or four way conversations with 
> people from different states and different countries. That CAN NOT 
> HAPPEN with callsign routing.
>
> We have the Southeaster Weather Net where 25+ repeaters and 50+ users 
> link up. There's less doubling here than on a FM local repeater net. 
> You CAN NOT DO THIS with callsign routing.
>
> If I am having a conversation on a repeater with someone local and 
> someone source routes in, they don't know an existing QSO is on the 
> repeater, even if the wait 15 minutes. The only way that they can find 
> out is if they keep transmitting and watching their display and 
> eventually see the error code come back. For me to tell them that the 
> repeater Is busy, I've got to program my radio as I'm driving 70 mph 
> down the road. And then make a call, and then change the programming 
> on my radio. A process that usually takes a couple of minutes.
> ...
>

> Ed WA4YIH
>
> 


-- 
John D. Hays
Amateur Radio Station K7VE 
PO Box 1223
Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
VOIP/SIP: j...@hays.org 
Email: j...@hays.org 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[john_ke5c]

> Source routing to an individual callsign (native D-STAR) has its purpose 
> as well.  If the station (callsign) that I want to talk to is attached 
> to a traveler, say a long haul truck driver or a road warrior, then 
> simply calling the station using callsign routing makes more sense.  

Callsign routing to a long haul truck driver who is in range of a DStar 
repeater say 5% of the time, and whose whereabouts even then would be known 
only if he remembered to key up?  Without dplus and reflectors, DStar would be 
on its way to join HF digital.  I agree 100% with Ed.

73 -- John

[DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking

[Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D)]

There is no question Dplus makes contacts possible for more people, in 
large due to the obtuse nature of setting up radios that you likened to 
MSDOS vs Windows as a user interface in an earlier post.  Many average 
hams find setting up a radio and using the features of say, and IC91, 
far too complex.  Set UR=CQCQCQ and RPT2 to G and you can make contacts, 
provided the repeater is linked to something. 

DSTAR continues to emerge.  That said, I believe the long range solution 
to more fully utilize DSTAR lies in a sensible user interface that 
integrates all of the features of DSTAR (G2 and Dplus) in a user 
friendly format.  Also making system statue available on demand through 
the low speed data capabilities will be a tremendous asset.

Picture adding a $300 PC to your radio and getting a GUI interface where 
the PC gets a daily or weekly update of the state of DSTAR, and uses 
that info to communicate with and control your radio.

I would not go so far to liken G2 Dstar alone to HF Digital because HF 
Digital has functional difficulties like the AOR format being too 
unreliable, and other sound card formats being difficult to set up.  
Dstar saw a lot of growth before Dplus and Dplus continues to be a 
tremendous stimulus for continued growth. 

Just my thoughts on a Sunday afternoon,  73, Steve nu5d.

john_ke5c wrote:
>> Source routing to an individual callsign (native D-STAR) has its purpose 
> Callsign routing to a long haul truck driver who is in range of a DStar 
> repeater say 5% of the time, and whose whereabouts even then would be known 
> only if he remembered to key up?  Without dplus and reflectors, DStar would 
> be on its way to join HF digital.  I agree 100% with Ed.
>
> 73 -- John
>
>   

-- 
A Decibel saved is a Decibel Earned...

Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[k7ve]

--- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, "john_ke5c"  wrote:

> Callsign routing to a long haul truck driver who is in range of a DStar 
> repeater say 5% of the time, and whose whereabouts even then would be known 
> only if he remembered to key up? 

Well, that is like making the argument that there shouldn't be defibrillators 
on airplanes because they only are useful 0.1% of the time when a passenger 
has a heart attack.

I used to be a "road warrior" and on any given day may have been in one or more 
different major cities. My travels took me to 5 continents and many of the US 
States and Canadian provinces.  Had D-STAR been available then, the first thing 
I would have done after leaving an airport terminal is to key-up on a D-STAR 
repeater -- then my friends and more importantly my family (my wife, all 4 
sons, and my daughter-in-law are all licensed) could call me without knowing 
where I was, what repeater I was on, what frequency, etc. For family members 
that don't regularly operate, just having the radio preprogrammed would make it 
almost like an intercom, PTT to "Dad" anywhere he might be...

As D-STAR grows beyond a handful of repeaters in any given area, there 
certainly will be repeaters that are quite, where callsign routing to the 
individual station makes a perfect use case.  In fact, I think most of the 
linking right now is more of a function of insufficient local traffic and 
trustees wanting to hear something coming out of that expensive repeater they 
put up.

Also, applications like D-PRS, Digital Data (if done right), and D-RATS do make 
use of callsign routing.  DPLUS is not the solution to these.

In many ways, DPLUS is just IRLP/Echolink for Digital Voice.  (No slant on its 
utility, but it is not the final definition of D-STAR communications - it is an 
application that uses defined D-STAR.)

>Without dplus and reflectors, DStar would be on its way to join HF digital.  
>

HF Digital is alive and well (from CW, to packet, to PSKxx, to Pactor, ...).  
If you are referring to digital voice on HF, a big factor there was that the 
"good" implementation was plagued by ignoring intellectual property rights and 
using a vocoder without the owner's permission.  When a good, legal and/or 
licensed vocoder for HF is implemented, I think you will see a rise in HF 
Digital Voice.  Shoot, with a good modulation scheme, D-STAR might even find a 
home on HF if we can move to bandwidth defined modulation authorization instead 
of discrete designators.

> 73 -- John
>

Not every QSO is a random fishing expedition, sometimes you want to speak to a 
specific station, regardless of its location and frequency.

See: http://k7ve.org/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=26

John - K7VE

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking

[John D. Hays]

Steve is correct. It has more to do with the user interface than with 
the protocol(s) involved.  One of the problems with D-STAR (and amateur 
radio design in general) is that radios are designed by engineers, 
usually without any benefit of a user interaction designer.  The 
popularity of the iPhone, for example, tells us a lot about how people 
would interact with a communication device and associated applications.

What I would like to see is a radio platform for D-STAR that is 
integrated with something like Android 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Android), with a touch screen as 
well as other controls.  By using an open platform like Android, 
applications could be written by the community that talk to the 
underlying DV (and DD) mechanisms, as well as controlling frequency and 
other operating parameters.  I don't currently see Icom or other major 
amateur radio manufacturers adopting this approach (Icom just started 
providing free access to programming software for newer D-STAR radios) - 
but one can hope.  Maybe something can be built on top of Fred's 
(PA3YBR) platform.

The same is true for the gateway.  If OpenDSTAR ever comes out, there is 
a lot that can be done to create a much more friendly user interaction 
with the network, though simpler controllers need to be built and leave 
routing/gateway functions to the gateway (The whole module "G" in RPT2 
is stupid and redundant if the controller would just pass all traffic to 
the gateway.)

Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) wrote:
>
>
> DSTAR continues to emerge. That said, I believe the long range solution
>
> to more fully utilize DSTAR lies in a sensible user interface that
> integrates all of the features of DSTAR (G2 and Dplus) in a user
> friendly format. Also making system statue available on demand through
> the low speed data capabilities will be a tremendous asset.
>
> Picture adding a $300 PC to your radio and getting a GUI interface where
> the PC gets a daily or weekly update of the state of DSTAR, and uses
> that info to communicate with and control your radio.
>
-- 
John D. Hays
Amateur Radio Station K7VE 
PO Box 1223
Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
VOIP/SIP: j...@hays.org 
Email: j...@hays.org 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Nate Duehr]

Ed,

Some of the things in your latest post are patently false, but you're 
now down to making personal attacks and assumptions about me that mean 
it's time to end the conversation.  You're obviously not ready to have 
an adult conversation about the real issues at hand.  You can't stick to 
the topics I brought up, and ignored most of them in your reply.

Your original posting you said was "tongue-in-cheek" had no emoticons or 
other indications that it was a joke, and you were saying that people 
just shouldn't callsign route and only use D-Plus links.

I don't think you were joking at all.  I replied saying that was silly, 
and that started this whole thing.  You wouldn't be so defensive about 
it if you were really kidding.

You're continuing to vigorously defend D-Plus' built in problems and 
won't admit it has just as many problems as callsign routing... so 
what's the point?  You're obviously not going to be swayed by facts.

You said multiple country/repeater conversations aren't possible with 
callsign routing -- False.

You said you can't reply to someone callsign routing to your repeater to 
tell them the repeater's busy without programming in callsigns -- also 
False.

You said that dropouts of transmissions doesn't bother you and then went 
on to discuss changes that Robin has made, when there's been no code 
changes to D-Plus on the Gateways for months -- also False or made up.

Generally, you're just not ready for this discussion, yet.  You're not 
willing to stick to the technical pros/cons of both systems, so I'm 
ending this.

So if there's no reality/truth in the conversation, why have it at all?

I think we both agree that both systems have pros/cons, but you've got 
some pink sunglasses on there when you look at D-Plus, and you take them 
off when you look at callsign routing.

Nate WY0X

RES: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking

[Joao Roberto S. G. Ferreira]

John,

 

What a coincidence! I talked exactly about this subject with Ray Novak from
Icom in 2006 here in Brazil. The radio amateur should have access to an open
language to deal with the radio interface and the radios will never more be
like this.

 

73's

 

PY2JF

 

De: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] Em
nome de John D. Hays
Enviada em: Sunday, May 17, 2009 6:39 PM
Para: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Assunto: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking

 
 It has more to do with the user interface than with 
the protocol(s) involved. 

RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Tony Langdon]

At 09:33 PM 5/17/2009, you wrote:
>We've had the discussion many times before.
>
>Last year at Dayton, everyone was having to source route to the 
>local repeater to talk. No one was able to have a conversation 
>because people kept barging in because they could not hear the 
>activity on the local repeater.

I've experienced this as well.

>That's something that just WILL NOT HAPPEN, no way, no how, with 
>callsign routing. There have been three or four way conversations 
>with people from different states and different countries. That CAN 
>NOT HAPPEN with callsign routing.

That's one of the issues I've had with callsign routing.  I do use 
it, but in its proper place.

>If I am having a conversation on a repeater with someone local and 
>someone source routes in, they don't know an existing QSO is on the 
>repeater, even if the wait 15 minutes. The only way that they can 
>find out is if they keep transmitting and watching their display and 
>eventually see the error code come back. For me to tell them that 
>the repeater Is busy, I've got to program my radio as I'm driving 70 
>mph down the road. And then make a call, and then change the 
>programming on my radio. A process that usually takes a couple of minutes.

Murphy's law says you'll squeeze in between the overs of those who 
are using the remote gateway.  I've seen this sort of freaky timing 
in IRLP and Echolink, and I have seen it in D-STAR as well.  Of 
course, you will get no busy indication if this happens. ;)

>As one of the managers of one of the largest nets, I have a direct 
>and constant exposure to the issues and while repeaters do sometime 
>drop off, the occurrence has dropped dramatically. We have MANY nets 
>in which we don't have repeaters drop off the air. And then 
>periodically we have one during which there is obvious network 
>congestion and we lose a couple of repeaters during the net, but 
>they reconnect and life goes on.

I must start dropping in on your net again, now that hurricane season 
is just around the corner. :)

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking

[Tony Langdon]

At 05:43 AM 5/18/2009, you wrote:

>DSTAR continues to emerge.  That said, I believe the long range solution
>to more fully utilize DSTAR lies in a sensible user interface that
>integrates all of the features of DSTAR (G2 and Dplus) in a user
>friendly format.  Also making system statue available on demand through
>the low speed data capabilities will be a tremendous asset.

Indeed.  Evolution should take care of a lot of the rough edges that 
we see in D-STAR/DPlus today.  IRLP and Echolink have "status" 
commands, why can't D-STAR have a status command that can return the 
system status?  D-STAR has the advantage of both voice and data to 
respond with.


>Picture adding a $300 PC to your radio and getting a GUI interface where
>the PC gets a daily or weekly update of the state of DSTAR, and uses
>that info to communicate with and control your radio.

Not practical outside the shack.  Nice when you can use it, but if 
D-STAR suddenly requires a PC hanging off my radio to make use of it, 
it's going to be almost useless for me, as I'm one of those highly 
portable operators.  I don't run APRS, because of the lack of one 
piece integrated solutions for that mode.  Even the Kenwoods still 
require a serially connected GPS, and that serial cable is enough to 
make things unweildy (I rarely even use a speaker mic).

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Tony Langdon]

At 09:23 AM 5/18/2009, you wrote:

>You said multiple country/repeater conversations aren't possible with
>callsign routing -- False.

OK, that's one trick I would like to know, and without using 
multicast - because of the administrator intervention required, I 
consider this feature to have extremely limited use.

Not nit picking, just want to know any tricks I don't know. ;)

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[justin Mann]

Your argument about having to program your radio driving 70mph down the road
sure bolsters my case that icom oughtta be putting a voice module  in both
their hts, and mobile rigs.  

 

  _  

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Tony Langdon
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:53 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

 

Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[john_ke5c]

> > Callsign routing to a long haul truck driver who is in range of a DStar 
> > repeater say 5% of the time, and whose whereabouts even then would be known 
> > only if he remembered to key up? 
> 
> Well, that is like making the argument that there shouldn't be defibrillators 
> on airplanes because they only are useful 0.1% of the time when a 
> passenger has a heart attack.

I'm glad you agree: defibrillators are as useful to the average airline 
passenger as callsign routing is to the average DStar radio user.  

73 -- John

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Tony Langdon]

At 12:16 PM 5/18/2009, you wrote:

>I was definitely thinking of multicast.  But saying "it's not possible"
>is incorrect.  It *is* possible, with admin interaction and a multicast
>group per-arranged.  Saying it's not as EASY, is correct.

True, in the strictest sense, but in the sense that the majority of 
amateur communications is either not pre-arranged, or in the case of 
scheduled nets, the systems participating are not set in stone in 
advance, then it's "impossible" for common amateur scenarios.

In amateur VoIP, I usually deal with the following scenarios:

1.  Point to point.  This is where callsign routing in D-STAR is at 
its best, and on D-STAR, this is the mode I generally use for point 
to point QSOs.  Callsign routing is particularly useful, when you're 
not sure where the other station is located.  Another advantage of 
callsign routing is that it is stateless, so you don't need to 
remember to tear the connection down at the end, because there wasn't 
one.  Just remove the UR callsign (in my setup, as easy as a flick of 
the VFO knob), when you're done.  I setup my radio that the memory 
has no UR callsign, so I can't inadvertently route to a distant system.

2.  Scheduled net, no fixed participation list, may be banned/muted 
systems.  This covers nets such as the VoIP WX Net.  The only net I 
have participated on D-STAR that is anything like this is the SE WX 
Net.  IRLP and Echolink also allow for stations to be banned or 
muted.  This is less of an issue on D-STAR, because most of those 
blocks are for technical issues that D-STAR doesn't have (repeater 
bounce, intermods, etc).  DPlus is the only D-STAR game in town here.

3.  Free form, multi-reflector networks.  Some of the D-STAR 
reflectors probably come close to this, albeit on a single 
reflector.  The archetype of this sort of operation is the VK/Ireland 
IRLP/Echolink network, which has at least two IRLP reflectors and 3 
Echolink conferences participating.  Occasionally, one or more of the 
connected systems is dropped off the network to segregate scheduled 
net traffic, usually by automated means (cron jobs, etc).  Again, 
this is definitely NOT something that could be covered by 
multicast.  The closest in the D-STAR world are those reflectors 
where general ragchewing is commonplace, and again, DPlus is the tool 
for the job.

You can see why multicast doesn't do a lot for me. ;)

So for 90% or more of possible scenarios, it's "not possible".  For 
the other < 10%, you can use multicast. ;)  And I ruled out multicast 
as a viable option, because I can't think of a net I participate in 
(on any mode, not just D-STAR), where all systems involved would be 
known in advance.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Woodrick, Ed]

I absolutely stand by my statements.

Embedded...
From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Nate Duehr
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 7:23 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)





Ed,

Some of the things in your latest post 

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Tactical Call indication

[Woodrick, Ed]

There's a little bit of reality that's being left out of this discussion that 
definitely needs to be interjected.

When the conversation is using voice, there is absolutely no issues with the 
tactical callsigns being used on voice. Actually D-STAR makes it much more 
effective as you don't have to use voice to make the legal identification, you 
can stay completely in the tactical callsign realm.

When sending data, remember that you usually have to program a callsign in the 
software. This is because that the protocol level callsigns are not presented 
to the software, the software has to create it's own identification. So, in the 
software you can set a tactical call and again the radios themselves can stay 
with the legal callsign and the application handles the tactical callsigns.

Now, if you use the space after the / or the short message field to hold a 
tactical identification, then the information will be seen in most places where 
the callsign is displayed, such as a radio or repeater log.

So I think that this is LOT less of an issue that we seem to be making it.

On a personal observation note, with many years of packets use and some D-STAR 
use behind me, I find that if people have to switch fields such as the MYCALL 
or ALIAS during either a practice or an actual event, they often don't

Ed WA4YIH


From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of John D. Hays
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 1:44 AM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Tactical Call indication


The 20 character message works very well and would be a good place to do
"Tactical" if you need more than 4 chars. 

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Nate Duehr]

Tony Langdon wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> At 09:23 AM 5/18/2009, you wrote:
> 
>  >You said multiple country/repeater conversations aren't possible with
>  >callsign routing -- False.
> 
> OK, that's one trick I would like to know, and without using
> multicast - because of the administrator intervention required, I
> consider this feature to have extremely limited use.
> 
> Not nit picking, just want to know any tricks I don't know. ;)

I was definitely thinking of multicast.  But saying "it's not possible" 
is incorrect.  It *is* possible, with admin interaction and a multicast 
group per-arranged.  Saying it's not as EASY, is correct.

Nate WY0X

Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Ray T. Mahorney]

your comment suggests that yet again Icomm missed the boat as far as 
accessibility of the new 
radios.
- Original Message - 
From: "justin Mann " 
To: 
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 00:13
Subject: RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)


Your argument about having to program your radio driving 70mph down the road
sure bolsters my case that icom oughtta be putting a voice module  in both
their hts, and mobile rigs.



  _

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Tony Langdon
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:53 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)






Please TRIM your replies or set your email program not to include the original  
message in reply 
unless needed for clarity.  ThanksYahoo! Groups Links

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Tactical Call indication

[Tom Azlin, N4ZPT]

Why not simply put the tactical call in the short message. Then it will
scroll by every time you transmit.

73, Tom n4zpt

Dennis Griffin wrote:
> I have worked many public service events & disaster preparedness  
> exercises. One would have to be very creative to get meaningful  
> tactical calls with only 4 characters available. I'm often Lead, so  
> that's fine, but how about all the numbered Aid Station, Event,  
> Mobile, Safety, Bicycle, County, Field Team, Hospital, Siren, Support,  
> Shadow, etc. tactical calls?
> 
> When using APRS, we will use the Tactical call in the regular call  
> field and put the FCC call in the status text, which is beaconed every  
> 10 minutes.
> 
> I haven't tried it, but checking my ID-92AD manual, it seems that a  
> user defined 20 character message can be sent with every PTT  
> activation, so maybe that method could be employed when needed.
> 
> 73 de Dennis KD7CAC
> 
> 
> 
> On May 16, 2009, at 4:33 PM, Tony Langdon wrote:
> 
>>
>> At 01:16 AM 5/17/2009, you wrote:
>>> John is right on the money here.
>>>
>>> -
>>>
>>> Tactical Call Sign SOP:
>>>
>>> A tactical call sign is entered in the 4 digit comment field after a
>>> station's legal call sign:
>> This would seem to be the most sensible way.
>>
>> 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
>> http://vkradio.com
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[DSTAR_DIGITAL] ID880 How to get the GPS ICON to appear

[Kent Hufford]

I bought an ICOM 880 at Dayton, with Ed, and others help I put the right
parameters in the first time and got on the air with the Dayton DSTAR
repeater. This is a whole new world to learn.

 

Downloaded the ICOM "free" software and was able to load all the settings
from the radio, make some changes and upload. So the DATA port is working.

 

I am trying to get the GPS portion of the Radio to work. I went into the GPS
setup settings and turned (illum) on show GPS in the upper right corner. As
I read the manual the GPS should be on steady or flashing based on whether
the radio is receiving good or bad(no?) GPS data. 

 

I cannot get the GPS ICON to appear. I've plugged in a NEMA RMC rs232
working GPS (two different ones) and no ICON. I even read the small print
that it needed a NULL Modem adapter. So, I made up a 3/32 Stereo "null"
adapter crossing what would be pins 2+3 on a DB9, which is TIP and RING of
the 3.32 Stereo plug and tried that. NO GPS ICON. 

 

Read in the manual that sorta referred that the GPS would not work without a
call sign. My call sign in entered, and it works cuzz I got on the Dayton
DSTAR with all the correct call signs and settings.

 

I must have to "SET" another setting, got to be something simple.

 

Has anyone else setup a "3rd Party" GPS on the 880 and made work?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Kent

KQ4KK

khuff...@atlanticbb.net

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Tactical Call indication

[Ray T. Mahorney]

lets see if I understand in a tactical call situation my call would be left as 
is and the 
tactical call would be in the message field E.G WA4WGA with the tactical call 
Green Primary 1?
- Original Message - 
From: "Woodrick, Ed" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 01:46
Subject: RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Tactical Call indication


There's a little bit of reality that's being left out of this discussion that 
definitely needs 
to be interjected.

When the conversation is using voice, there is absolutely no issues with the 
tactical callsigns 
being used on voice. Actually D-STAR makes it much more effective as you don't 
have to use voice 
to make the legal identification, you can stay completely in the tactical 
callsign realm.

When sending data, remember that you usually have to program a callsign in the 
software. This is 
because that the protocol level callsigns are not presented to the software, 
the software has to 
create it's own identification. So, in the software you can set a tactical call 
and again the 
radios themselves can stay with the legal callsign and the application handles 
the tactical 
callsigns.

Now, if you use the space after the / or the short message field to hold a 
tactical 
identification, then the information will be seen in most places where the 
callsign is 
displayed, such as a radio or repeater log.

So I think that this is LOT less of an issue that we seem to be making it.

On a personal observation note, with many years of packets use and some D-STAR 
use behind me, I 
find that if people have to switch fields such as the MYCALL or ALIAS during 
either a practice 
or an actual event, they often don't

Ed WA4YIH


From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of John D. 
Hays
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 1:44 AM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Tactical Call indication


The 20 character message works very well and would be a good place to do
"Tactical" if you need more than 4 chars.




Please TRIM your replies or set your email program not to include the original  
message in reply 
unless needed for clarity.  ThanksYahoo! Groups Links

Re: Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[John D. Hays]

You missed the whole point.

You and Ed seem to advocate that DPLUS is the only legitimate way to 
talk across the D-STAR network and have at least alluded that you would 
like callsign routing banned.  For those cases where it makes better 
sense, it is the right solution, and it is part of the protocol, so 
those of us that understand it, will continue to use it.

Banning callsign routing use would be like banning defibrillators on 
airplanes (the point).  They are not for every passenger, but for those 
who need them, I'm glad they are there.

Those of us who understand and support callsign routing acknowledge that 
DPLUS provides functions that are useful to many, the reverse courtesy 
seems to be totally absent.

john_ke5c wrote:
>
>
> > > Callsign routing to a long haul truck driver who is in range of a 
> DStar repeater say 5% of the time, and whose whereabouts even then 
> would be known only if he remembered to key up?
> >
> > Well, that is like making the argument that there shouldn't be 
> defibrillators on airplanes because they only are useful 0.1% of 
> the time when a passenger has a heart attack.
>
> I'm glad you agree: defibrillators are as useful to the average 
> airline passenger as callsign routing is to the average DStar radio user.
>
> 73 -- John
>


-- 
John D. Hays
Amateur Radio Station K7VE 
PO Box 1223
Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
VOIP/SIP: j...@hays.org 
Email: j...@hays.org 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] ID880 How to get the GPS ICON to appear

[John D. Hays]

The 880 (and 80) are new radios to most of us, but on some of the newer 
radios (2820/92) you have to both enable the GPS (tell the radio one is 
connected) and set a DV mode that tells the radio which sentences you 
are using and whether to use GPS or GPS-A encoding.

As well as the null modem, be sure the GPS is sending at the right baud 
rate (usually 4800).


Kent Hufford wrote:
>
>
> I bought an ICOM 880 at Dayton, with Ed, and others help I put the right
> parameters in the first time and got on the air with the Dayton DSTAR
> repeater. This is a whole new world to learn.
>
> Downloaded the ICOM "free" software and was able to load all the settings
> from the radio, make some changes and upload. So the DATA port is working.
>
> I am trying to get the GPS portion of the Radio to work. I went into 
> the GPS
> setup settings and turned (illum) on show GPS in the upper right 
> corner. As
> I read the manual the GPS should be on steady or flashing based on whether
> the radio is receiving good or bad(no?) GPS data.
>
> I cannot get the GPS ICON to appear. I've plugged in a NEMA RMC rs232
> working GPS (two different ones) and no ICON. I even read the small print
> that it needed a NULL Modem adapter. So, I made up a 3/32 Stereo "null"
> adapter crossing what would be pins 2+3 on a DB9, which is TIP and RING of
> the 3.32 Stereo plug and tried that. NO GPS ICON.
>
> Read in the manual that sorta referred that the GPS would not work 
> without a
> call sign. My call sign in entered, and it works cuzz I got on the Dayton
> DSTAR with all the correct call signs and settings.
>
> I must have to "SET" another setting, got to be something simple.
>
> Has anyone else setup a "3rd Party" GPS on the 880 and made work?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Kent
>
> KQ4KK
>


-- 
John D. Hays
Amateur Radio Station K7VE 
PO Box 1223
Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
VOIP/SIP: j...@hays.org 
Email: j...@hays.org 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Tony Langdon]

At 04:20 PM 5/18/2009, you wrote:
>You missed the whole point.
>
>You and Ed seem to advocate that DPLUS is the only legitimate way to
>talk across the D-STAR network and have at least alluded that you would
>like callsign routing banned.  For those cases where it makes better
>sense, it is the right solution, and it is part of the protocol, so
>those of us that understand it, will continue to use it.

I can see why someone who uses DPlus linking to run large nets of 
some importance might have an issue with callsign routing getting in 
the way.  I think the real issue is that D-STAR is still evolving, 
and DPlus is an aftermarket add on, which is doing its best to work 
with the G2 software.  Over time, the best solution is for a more 
flexible G3 (or G4, or... ;) ) gateway package, with an official API 
for adding extensions such as DPlus, so that interactions between the 
gateway software and any add ons can be more precisely 
controlled.  This would probably resolve a lot of DPlus's quirks as well.

If Icom doesn't do this, then the ham community needs to come up with 
a suitable alternative.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com