[DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Repeater can't hear well
Sounds like your antenna has been isolated from your receiver. Check or replace the cable between the receiver and the duplexer. If that doesn't fix the problem, you may have a mis-tuned duplexer or a blown pre-amp if you are using one. RF issues are the same in digital as they are in analog. An experienced repeater owner in your area might spot the problem quickly. Ernie W6KAP --- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, Steve Glen redbirdsfa...@... wrote: Is there an adjustment for receiver sensitivity on either the RP 2C or the RP4000V? Once a transmitted signal gets more than about 100 or 200 yards away from the site we can not key the repeater. We have checked antenna, duplexer, and feed line and all of those seem to be working well. Once the repeater is keyed, the transmit side is great with an excellent coverage area. The issue is at the input side.  Can anyone point me to where an input signal threshold might be set? A second question is can anyone suggest a good way to measure the signal required to âkeyâ the repeater?  Feel free to contact me with suggestions here on the list or on at the above email address.  Thank you in advance!  Steve Mercure WU5PIG DStar System.
RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Wouldn't It Be Nice ?
Isnt the purpose of linking to a reflector to allow people to converse with others they would not normally communicate with or to provide wide area coverage like we try to do here in Connecticut? Our people dont seem to have a problem one-touching into a conversation, if they want to join in and they certainly dont listen to a one-sided conversation because there isnt one. Fran _ From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 11:58 PM To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Wouldn't It Be Nice ? On Aug 9, 2009, at 8:43 PM, Adrian wrote: It´s really no big deal for the amount of callsign routed incoming calls that occur. A vast percentage of op´s, had to relearn(or even discover) this part of d-star during the contest. That's kinda my point. Aren't most people often avoiding callsign routing in the U.S., because of bad interactions between the two types of routing? Wouldn't more people try it if they didn't think they might be routed into a giant Net or something by the ONE Gateway / Repeater they meant to contact? Seems rude to call somewhere and have the machine you called route you into a Reflector, doesn't it? The user of the radio intended their call to go somewhere, and instead it went to 20 other somewheres... and the admin of that system that forwarded the user's call into those other systems, has literally no control over that behavior at all. It's that completely back-assward? -- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech. mailto:nate%40natetech.com com
RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Wouldn't It Be Nice ?
Nate, I understand what you are saying. My problem is that what is being proposed creates a situation where a conversation would be taking place on one linked repeater; no one would hear it and then a second conversation could be started on another linked repeater and disrupt the first. Believe me; I am not trying to be argumentative. I think this whole need for a solution has come about because people think call routing creates one-sided conversations on a reflector and it doesn't. Fran _ From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 12:00 AM To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Wouldn't It Be Nice ? On Aug 9, 2009, at 8:36 PM, Fran wrote: Our repeater is always linked to a reflector and we want people to be able to call route to us, so it is NOT a good solution. Fran Nothing about my solution would stop that. It would simply stop your Gateway from routing THEM to the Reflector. You appear to not understand what I'm saying. They can call route to your Repeater/Gateway JUST FINE. Your Gateway/ Repeater should NOT route them back into the Reflector. Your local users can then callsign route back to them and NOT be heard on the Reflector, too. WITHOUT having to disconnect from the Reflector. Re-read the solution again. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech. mailto:nate%40natetech.com com
Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Wouldn't It Be Nice ?
So what! They can't push a couple of buttons IF they want to talk back!!! ON my IC80AD, if two stations are in QSO via callsign routin, in order to break into th conversation, I ahve to go in to menu, selct break-in mode, put a callsign into the UR field, and talk. The only station that will hear me is the one I'm calling. IF you want to do calls directly to a callsign, that's your choice, but it should not be permitted on reflectors or on repeaters that are linked. My understanding is that doing so will make the reflector or link unusable. -- Matt Roberts Port Orange Florida 407-415-5333 Skype: blindbiker Amateur Radio N9GMR IRLP Node 4515 Echolink 45153 Your life experience is what you create! You can be do or have anything you want! Email services provided by the System Access Mobile Network. Visit www.serotek.com to learn more about accessibility anywhere.
[DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Wouldn't It Be Nice ?
Right now, driving down the road I don't know if our local repeater is linked unless I send UR=K5CTX^^I and the repeater play back Not Currently Linked. I cannot at all tell if the user at the far end is on a linked repeater or not. I am not even sure what repeater that person last used. So set UR=W1FJM to call Fran announcing 'Please One Touch to Reply. (My own call progress tone). I either get UR* if the call reached destination, or RPT? if the far end was busy or my radio is mis-programmed. This works AOK with a light use system with 2 repeaters and 2 users. Now suppose Fran were using a reflector with 31 linked repeaters tied in. From my end, mobile, I don't know which repeater Fran is using. Neither do I know if his repeater is linked to a reflector. I know call sign routing will send my call to the last repeater he used (plus every other repeater in the linked set). Enter Dplus Linking. I now have to shoot blind into a nest of 31 different repeaters hoping in the blind to make my call in between keyups from the different users. Remember, I cannot hear what is happening at the reflector end to time my transmission. Also some folks leave little or no pause between transmissions, and then there are the one or two folks who camp out on a reflector for hours at a time (minus toilet breaks). Sessions that run on for hours on end between 2 or 3 users don't belong on a linked system tying up 20 or 30 repeaters. At the very least, the two or 3 folks tying up the system could call sign route and only tie up their own repeaters, or move to an un-used reflector (unless they need an audience). After 5 or 10 RPT? attempts I just give up and go elsewhere. So, I certainly don't want to take away from anyone else's enjoyment, but a few simple changes (simple from my perspective - maybe not simple for a programmer) could make DSTAR much better for everyone by adding to and not taking away any features. Please don't throw too many rocks at me for my comments. 73, steve --- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, Fran Miele f...@... wrote: Nate, I understand what you are saying. My problem is that what is being proposed creates a situation where a conversation would be taking place on one linked repeater; no one would hear it and then a second conversation could be started on another linked repeater and disrupt the first.
Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Wouldn't It Be Nice ?
Matt Roberts wrote: So what! They can't push a couple of buttons IF they want to talk back!!! ON my IC80AD, if two stations are in QSO via callsign routin, in order to break into th conversation, I ahve to go in to menu, selct break-in mode, put a callsign into the UR field, and talk. The only station that will hear me is the one I'm calling. IF you want to do calls directly to a callsign, that's your choice, but it should not be permitted on reflectors or on repeaters that are linked. My understanding is that doing so will make the reflector or link unusable. -- Matt Roberts One of these stations must be on a linked gateway, so you wont have to worry about routing to that one, as he/she will hear you anyway via dplus, and the other you can one touch (or cant the ic-80 do that, dead easy on the 92AD) If people want to join in they can route ok and it works, I do it all the time, because I have to as Dplus wont pass my audio out here on VK4RWN (another story). Remember only one person speaks at a time, successfully, within the linked system. Its not a party line. vk4tux
Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Wouldn't It Be Nice ?
I understand what you are saying. My problem is that what is being proposed creates a situation where a conversation would be taking place on one linked repeater; no one would hear it and then a second conversation could be started on another linked repeater and disrupt the first. Believe me; I am not trying to be argumentative. I think this whole need for a solution has come about because people think call routing creates one-sided conversations on a reflector and it doesn’t. Fran Very good point Fran, really the onus is on the operator to unlink before undertaking a routed session. Thats probably the reason Robin did not adopt the idea and implement it. Another idea may be perhaps an automatic unlink by dplus when it detects a non cqcqcq call within the gateway. Unlinking will be the only solution to stop incoming dplus streams during a routed qso as you described. I have heard reflector sessions where a Japanese station routed in, and every one got excited working out the return routed call (helping each other)and a good qso session was had by all. I think reflector nets are one area where the incoming routed call would be disruptive, and most good ops only call a couple of times if there is no reply. I like you, have no issue with the current routing/dplus format. vk4tux Please TRIM your replies or set your email program not to include the original message in reply unless needed for clarity. ThanksYahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dstar_digital/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dstar_digital/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:dstar_digital-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:dstar_digital-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: dstar_digital-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Farifax VA
Hi Scott. Yes, the NVFMA gateway is down with a bad DSL modem. Plus we have desense on our 70cm RF deck. My August and September projects. 73, Tom n4zpt NVFMA D-STAR Admin Scott Bellefeuillle wrote: Please check out the below listed page and you will learn about the fairly newly created National Capitol Region D-Star Association, which is comprised of several metropolitan DC area D-Star groups. http://d-star.mit.edu/index.php?title=Main_Page There are are approximately six working D-Star stacks in the area. However, I believe the NVFMA stack currently has their Gateway in a 'down' status. Alexandria, Bull Run and Stafford currently have working Gateways that are open.
RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Wouldn't It Be Nice ?
Your assumption is wrong. It works fine. Fran http://weather.miele-family.com/ _ From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Matt Roberts Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 8:38 AM To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Wouldn't It Be Nice ? So what! They can't push a couple of buttons IF they want to talk back!!! ON my IC80AD, if two stations are in QSO via callsign routin, in order to break into th conversation, I ahve to go in to menu, selct break-in mode, put a callsign into the UR field, and talk. The only station that will hear me is the one I'm calling. IF you want to do calls directly to a callsign, that's your choice, but it should not be permitted on reflectors or on repeaters that are linked. My understanding is that doing so will make the reflector or link unusable. -- Matt Roberts Port Orange Florida 407-415-5333 Skype: blindbiker Amateur Radio N9GMR IRLP Node 4515 Echolink 45153 Your life experience is what you create! You can be do or have anything you want! Email services provided by the System Access Mobile Network. Visit www.serotek.com to learn more about accessibility anywhere. image001.gif
RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Wouldn't It Be Nice ?
Well I guess we all have our opinions based on our experiences and that's fine. The unlinking/linking scenario doesn't work for us because we don't allow our users to link. I guess we can beat this horse to death and It is almost there. I hope what the fix turns out to be, if any, that it is an option and not a one size fits all fix. Fran _ From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 11:31 AM To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Wouldn't It Be Nice ? On Aug 10, 2009, at 6:05 AM, Fran Miele wrote: I understand what you are saying. My problem is that what is being proposed creates a situation where a conversation would be taking place on one linked repeater; no one would hear it and then a second conversation could be started on another linked repeater and disrupt the first. Continually saying it works fine doesn't make it so. It also doesn't fix the problems. We wouldn't be discussing it if ALL of us hadn't had the experience of this screwing up somewhere, sometime. I know I have. People using the side channel of a callsign route should a) expect interference from the Reflector traffic, or b) unlink from it to handle the call and then reconnect. That seems obvious and stupid simple. If Reflector traffic overrides or interferes with that short of a conversation, so be it. But at least the callsign routed traffic doesn't interfere with the 31 repeaters (someone else used that number, so I'll use it going forward) going the other direction. Only one. Problem is -- there's no way for any of us to have any effect on the outcome other than to do years of work to get to where Robin is with reverse-engineering and insider information. He's more than welcome to that mess, really. I hope it's worth it for him. All I really know is this: When I dial someone on my phone, I don't expect that call to be heard by 20 other people. I only expect than when I DIAL the conferencing bridge. Same thing on my digital radios. D-STAR, P-25, whatever. If I put your unique identifier into my rig, and your local repeater copies that traffic and chooses to forward my transmission on to 31 other repeaters, that's wrong. Flat wrong. I know... I know... I'm in the minority who want it to work as people would EXPECT it to from every other digital system they've learned. Sure, let's just break the principal of least surprise and route any user making a call to any other INDIVIDUAL, to EVERY REPEATER ON THE PLANET. Why not?... Just to give a ridiculous example to prove the point. Like I've said before, I have zero power to change it, other than to ask nicely. And the powers that be aren't all that interested. So who cares? You know how to avoid having your transmissions routed to 31 other repeaters without your knowledge when you key up? DON'T BUY D-STAR. :-) No vote, no representation by anyone in authority, not even people engaged in public conversation about it, very often. People think D- Plus *is* D-STAR. It's not. But here in the U.S., woe to the Gateway admin who decides not to run it. You'd be buried in a mountain of local whiners who would want it. I understand that if an admin doesn't like what Robin built, their only choice is not to run D-PLUS -- and that'll cause you more headaches in complaints from users, than just ignoring its problems like everyone else does. So I'm going back into my hole and will continue to ignore its problems, just so we can have an all digital network-wide chit chat, at the expense of trashing the original callsign-routed design completely. Who needs it? Fran's right... all we need is giant D-PLUS links. And they all work PERFECTLY from what I hear. Never a single problem. (Give me a break, Fran. The thing can't even gracefully handle a double, pick up a second stream where the first left off, implement a digital capture effect, etc. It's not THAT good. And please don't tell me digital audio streams can't be mixed... since that's what I've earned a living working on, is systems that have done that since 1991... D-Plus just isn't all that smart yet. Maybe it will be someday, maybe it won't. I don't know.) Personally, I'd just like to see it not route people who are callsign routing to places they never intended. That seems a reasonable enough request, doesn't it? Back to you. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech. mailto:nate%40natetech.com com
[DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Wouldn't It Be Nice ?
Fran; If you could tell me how to make it work with a couple of buttons on my IC-2200 I would certainly appreciate it. Thanks Andy
RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Wouldn't It Be Nice ?
Andy, Sorry, I don't know anything about the 2200. Fran _ From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Hart Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 12:09 PM To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com Subject: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Wouldn't It Be Nice ? Fran; If you could tell me how to make it work with a couple of buttons on my IC-2200 I would certainly appreciate it. Thanks Andy
RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Wouldn't It Be Nice ?
Ahhh... now it all makes sense why you argue to allow both to mix. You guys don't let your users actually *USE* D-Plus! Interesting. You must have a lot of time on your hands. We're exactly the opposite here. Personally I won't sign up to be anyone's hall monitor and run things for them on a repeater. I have a full-time job and a life. In fact, I'm typing this from work, and need to get back to it... but just wanted to make sure to stay engaged while it's fresh in everyone's minds. Linking and unlinking (or even writing/copying scripts to do it) is just a waste of time for the admins, if the users can link/unlink and do what they please. So... if we add a linking feature, we add it for everyone equally if at all possible. The reality is, only a handful have even bothered to learn how to link/unlink D-Plus, let alone do callsign routes. But... I'm not their radio mommy. They can link/unlink whatever and whenever they want. It's not rocket science. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech.com
RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Wouldn't It Be Nice ?
Adrian VK4TUX shaped the electrons to say: Very good point Fran, really the onus is on the operator to unlink before undertaking a routed session. Thats probably the reason Robin did not adopt the idea and implement it. OK - but what if the admins / trustees don't want people to unlink? Or if they do unlink - are they going to put the link back after they are done? Running a cron job to do this (restore linking) is a hack IMO ... Another idea may be perhaps an automatic unlink by dplus when it detects a non cqcqcq call within the gateway. Unlinking will be the only solution to stop incoming dplus streams during a routed qso as you described. OK - I would accept that if the linking could be automatically re-established, for example, after a certain amount of inactivity after being unlinked (because of the non UR=CQCQCQ) ... Still: Let's say you have two, three or four repeaters that are connected to a regional reflector - to make in effect a regional repeater covering a larger area. And then assume you have users that communicate across the reflector - some users use system A and some users use system B - and rely on the dplus reflector support to seamlessly link the systems together. If one of the repeaters becomes unlinked from the reflector (either through command or software detection) ... one would likely find users on the remaining (still connected) repeaters not knowing that the other system is unconnected. To me (as a user) that would be very frustrating ... especially if I made use of the fact that I could talk (use) my local D-STAR system to regularly speak with other D-STAR users that can't necessarily reach/access my local system. Does this make sense? My personal opinion: Although on the onset I was sold on the standard ICOM gateway callsign routing capabilities ... as we have built out our sites I am much more interested in the dplus and reflector capabilities. And this is being mentioned by someone who does do a fair amount of travel. Hopefully the ideas and comments in this thread are being captured by those working in the background on new, improved D-STAR capabilities! Bob W1QA
RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Wouldn't It Be Nice ?
At 09:57 PM 8/10/2009, you wrote: Ok, well here is the problem. The misconception that the call routing creates a one sided conversation across a reflector. It does not. We tested this last Saturday and all repeaters hear both side of the conversation. That's why I don't understand why anyone would want to block the call routed call. Does this include the case where one of the parties in the call routed QSO is not linked to the reflector? 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Wouldn't It Be Nice ?
Folks, There are basically three options A) Use the Icom Gateway Software and Robin's DPLUS Software B) Use the Icom Gateway Software only C) Don't use any gateway software There are probably a million other ways that different people want things to work, but, they aren't available right now. I personally wish that the Icom software never implemented call sign routing and did linking instead, but I get what they want to deliver. Same with Robin, I can make suggestions, but since he wrote it, he gets to control it, that's just the way that life works, and I'm fine with it. For all of those who don't want the DPLUS software to route call sign routed packets into the network, there's just as many of us who think that it is working they way it should. So no matter what Robin does, a number of people are going to think that it is wrong, he can't win. We got what we got, instead of complaining about how bad it works, why don't we think of ways, using the existing system, that we can do things to make it better? This thread/discussion has popped up probably a dozen times now, it's getting quite boring and wasting people's time. Ed WA4YIH From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob McCormick W1QA Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 8:07 PM To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Wouldn't It Be Nice ? Adrian VK4TUX shaped the electrons to say: Very good point Fran, really the onus is on the operator to unlink before undertaking a routed session. Thats probably the reason Robin did not adopt the idea and implement it. OK - but what if the admins / trustees don't want people to unlink? Or if they do unlink - are they going to put the link back after they are done? Running a cron job to do this (restore linking) is a hack IMO ... Another idea may be perhaps an automatic unlink by dplus when it detects a non cqcqcq call within the gateway. Unlinking will be the only solution to stop incoming dplus streams during a routed qso as you described. OK - I would accept that if the linking could be automatically re-established, for example, after a certain amount of inactivity after being unlinked (because of the non UR=CQCQCQ) ... Still: Let's say you have two, three or four repeaters that are connected to a regional reflector - to make in effect a regional repeater covering a larger area. And then assume you have users that communicate across the reflector - some users use system A and some users use system B - and rely on the dplus reflector support to seamlessly link the systems together. If one of the repeaters becomes unlinked from the reflector (either through command or software detection) ... one would likely find users on the remaining (still connected) repeaters not knowing that the other system is unconnected. To me (as a user) that would be very frustrating ... especially if I made use of the fact that I could talk (use) my local D-STAR system to regularly speak with other D-STAR users that can't necessarily reach/access my local system. Does this make sense? My personal opinion: Although on the onset I was sold on the standard ICOM gateway callsign routing capabilities ... as we have built out our sites I am much more interested in the dplus and reflector capabilities. And this is being mentioned by someone who does do a fair amount of travel. Hopefully the ideas and comments in this thread are being captured by those working in the background on new, improved D-STAR capabilities! Bob W1QA
Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Wouldn't It Be Nice ?
Callsign routing is part of the D-STAR protocol, linking is not. Linking is an application at this point, perhaps in the future there will be a D-STAR protocol definition for linking and hopefully it will be engineered for good interoperability with the existing standard protocol. Woodrick, Ed wrote I personally wish that the Icom software never implemented call sign routing and did linking instead, -- John D. Hays Amateur Radio Station K7VE http://k7ve.org PO Box 1223 Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 VOIP/SIP: j...@hays.org sip:j...@hays.org Email: j...@hays.org mailto:j...@hays.org
Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Wouldn't It Be Nice ?
And let's not forget the new thing that G2 brought to us with multicasting. when's the last time you used that ? Dan Thompson d...@waycom.com Callsign routing is part of the D-STAR protocol, linking is not. Linking is an application at this point, perhaps in the future there will be a D-STAR protocol definition for linking and hopefully it will be engineered for good interoperability with the existing standard protocol. Woodrick, Ed wrote I personally wish that the Icom software never implemented call sign routing and did linking instead, -- John D. Hays Amateur Radio Station K7VE http://k7ve.org PO Box 1223 Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 VOIP/SIP: j...@hays.org sip:j...@hays.org Email: j...@hays.org mailto:j...@hays.org
Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Wouldn't It Be Nice ?
Ah, yes, the Icom add-on application. Decent idea, bad implementation. Daniel G. Thompson wrote: And let's not forget the new thing that G2 brought to us with multicasting. when's the last time you used that ? Dan Thompson d...@waycom.com mailto:dan%40waycom.com Callsign routing is part of the D-STAR protocol, linking is not. Linking is an application at this point, perhaps in the future there will be a D-STAR protocol definition for linking and hopefully it will be engineered for good interoperability with the existing standard protocol. Woodrick, Ed wrote -- John D. Hays Amateur Radio Station K7VE http://k7ve.org PO Box 1223 Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 VOIP/SIP: j...@hays.org sip:j...@hays.org Email: j...@hays.org mailto:j...@hays.org
