Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing
On Apr 7, 2010, at 5:54 PM, ki4umx wrote: Hi Nick, I see several have answered the technical side of your question, so I'll limit myself to why I WOULD NOT use source routing except in emergencies. With source routing, you have no idea what is going on at the target repeater, and you stand the chance of BLASTING into a QSO or net that is going on. I've heard this more than once! If the target repeater is linked at the time, you would BLAST into ALL linked repeaters! Multicast is just as bad - on more than one occasion I have heard 1/2 of a QSO coming over Reflector 1C because one of the Hams was using Multicast (probably forgot to turn it off) and the other was not. The worst part - they probably weren't even talking on the repeater that was linked to 1C, but a repeater that was part of the Multicast Programming WAS linked to 1C. 73 Hank-KI4UMX This is more a sign of really poor integration of the regular features vs. the add-on features, than anything. If the two were aware of each other in any way, a message could be sent back to the user who is barging in saying the remote system is linked somewhere. Easy to fix, if Icom were really interested. They're not. And D-PLUS can't do it all alone so to speak. It would require a new release of Gateway software that had been built with linking in mind. As it stands today, two things must happen... 1. Users MUST be aware of what they're putting in the fields, and transmitting. While no one's perfect, putting a standard CQCQCQ route for your local GW into the memory channel and making sure you bump OFF of it and then back on, before transmitting locally (or through a D-PLUS link) is the best practice. All the current Icom rigs reset the four callsign fields anytime you tune to a new memory channel. 2. ANNOUNCE what you're doing. There's absolutely no reason to go so far as to AVOID callsign routing. Instead just SAY OUT LOUD that you're doing it. No ham in their right minds is going to be upset with you for barging in if you SAY that you're callsign routing and they know what that means and realize you can't hear what's going on at the far end. Callsign routing obviously is a fully-workable system all by itself (without D-PLUS linking) -- Japan's been using it, and ONLY it, for the entire time D-STAR has been deployed there. Over here, D-PLUS is virtually a requirement so a private company can sell and offer DV-Dongle... gateway operators don't really get a choice as to whether or not they want that particular add-on. And I'm not saying it isn't useful... it is... but I'd almost wish people HAD to learn the Icom way FIRST so they FULLY understand how the system was DESIGNED to work, prior to getting the keys to drive the D-PLUS links... THE ONLY REASON you find callsign routing a problem is because people refuse to learn it. Anyone that understands it, can deal with it... including hitting their One-Touch button to route back to the interloper and tell them what's happening. Trying to treat D-STAR like it wasn't source-routed and adding software to make it act like an analog system, is what got us to this so-called problem in the first place, not the other way around. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech.com
Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] DSTAR communication
On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:19 PM, James Earl Wells wrote: Ed, Writing here is leg work. I do not understand you. James, He's just saying that when you hit reply on a mailing list, it's good practice to DELETE most of the text from the other person in your reply, like I've done here on this reply to you, to keep the reply short. We all received both messages, so if we need to refer to the original, we already have it. Leaving a little text for context is okay, even good. But hitting reply and leaving all of the original text if the reply doesn't require it to understand your message, is considered bad form. It'd be like repeating the last guy's transmission back to him on-air, then saying your part, then he replies on his mic by saying everything he said, everything you added, and then added more, and back and forth like that. Don't worry about it too much, you're doing fine for someone new to mailing lists. A lot of this is a mixture of Internet lore, and e-mail etiquette... or so-called Netiquette. Read along for a while and you'll see all sorts of styles. Just like listening to operators on the air. Pick the best ones to emulate, just like on-air... :-) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech.com
Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing
At 05:59 AM 4/9/2010, you wrote: This is more a sign of really poor integration of the regular features vs. the add-on features, than anything. If the two were aware of each other in any way, a message could be sent back to the user who is barging in saying the remote system is linked somewhere. There's still the issue of local QSOs, source routing is still rather blind that way. Being one who did have to source route for a few months, as the only way to get out of the local area, I did get to learn that method. Also, things got tricky when we had people source routing from two different places, so which do you reply to? ;) Often this was because source routing was already in use with a couple of locals talking to one station, then someone else drops in. They get no busi indication, because they actually manage to time it for the break between transmissions (Murphy's Law). So, not all routing conflicts are with DPlus. Some are with local users, and some are with other source routed traffic, and sometimes you coincidentally time it so you manage to cause a bit of confusion. :D That said, there are a few scenarios where I will still use source routing. It's low overhead (no need to tear down a default link, establish a new link, then tear that down when you're done) and has some smarts for finding people. Easy to fix, if Icom were really interested. They're not. And D-PLUS can't do it all alone so to speak. It would require a new release of Gateway software that had been built with linking in mind. That would help too, though being able to source route while a system is linked has its advantages too, like for that quick call - a couple of overs and you're gone type of thing (assuming the link itself is idle at the time). As it stands today, two things must happen... Both common sense and basically what I do. THE ONLY REASON you find callsign routing a problem is because people refuse to learn it. Anyone that understands it, can deal with it... including hitting their One-Touch button to route back to the interloper and tell them what's happening. I agree here. Trying to treat D-STAR like it wasn't source-routed and adding software to make it act like an analog system, is what got us to this so-called problem in the first place, not the other way around. Both methods have their place. Source routing works well for some scenarios, not for others. In particular, it doesn't handle large scale nets well (the multicast feature requires administrative intervention, and concentrates bandwidth use where it's least appropriate - at the end nodes). It does handle point to point traffic very well. 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing
Hello all!!! Okay, so I got some great info. To follow up, when I am using our local repeater, in the middle of a QSO, the repeater will vacillate between linkking and unlinking. I'm not controlling anything. It really gets my hackles up when it knocks me out of my QSO and my transmissions is continuously lost! this has been a big source of frustration. I don't know if the others can hear me, and I asl them to atleast let me finish my QSO! wonder if there is a way for others even if they are not registered for everyone to hear so they don't key up and knock my transmission! That is what really makes me want to throw the !** radio in the toilet! Is it time for us revolt and set up a new system? it is simply not going to work in heavily populated areas if it continues this way! I know others share my frustration too. If they made the registration process uncomplicated by just typing in your name, call sign and password, instead of registering with a club, and putting in the necessary sp aces, asterisks and #'s, everything would be much simpler and less confusion for un non- technical folks. Make everything so there is no need for a users manual just to !*#$* sign up. Surly someone agrees, si? 73- cat
Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing
interpreter...@gmail.com wrote: If they made the registration process uncomplicated by just typing in your name, call sign and password, instead of registering with a club, and putting in the necessary sp aces, asterisks and #'s, everything would be much simpler and less confusion for un non- technical folks. Make everything so there is no need for a users manual just to !*#$* sign up. Surly someone agrees, si? 73- cat Registration of user radios shouldn't even be required, but that's how Icom designed it. Until a new gateway system is written that abandons it, we're stuck with it. -- 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] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing
At 03:59 PM 4/8/2010, Nate Duehr wrote: ... All the current Icom rigs reset the four callsign fields anytime you tune to a new memory channel. A small correction - they don't reset the MY CALL field - that one stays put until you change it. ...Callsign routing obviously is a fully-workable system all by itself (without D-PLUS linking)... Over here, D-PLUS is virtually a requirement so a private company can sell and offer DV-Dongle... gateway operators don't really get a choice as to whether or not they want that particular add-on. And I'm not saying it isn't useful... it is... but I'd almost wish people HAD to learn the Icom way FIRST so they FULLY understand how the system was DESIGNED to work, prior to getting the keys to drive the D-PLUS links -- Nate Duehr, WY0X If I had to choose between call sign routing or DPLUS linking, it would be a no-brainer for DPLUS. Call sign routing has it's uses, but it's too convoluted and complicated. DPLUS does 95% of what we wanted D-STAR to do, but the Japanese engineers just didn't understand. Well, I don't mean to scare you new D-STAR users off of call sign routing. It exists. It's not THAT complicated. And it is useful. But I won't be surprised if most of you never bother to learn it, because most of the time, DPLUS does exactly what you want. I don't expect that call sign routed Barge-Ins will be much of a problem, simply because so few of us will be doing it. One use: alerting the users of a repeater that's busy with DPLUS that you'd like to reach somebody there. Hmmm... maybe DPLUS needs Call Waiting. Unless you prefer an expensive repeater system that carries almost no traffic, DPLUS and the reflectors make D-STAR worth having. Thanks you, Robin! 73, Gary KN4AQ ARVN: Amateur Radio//Video News Gary Pearce KN4AQ 508 Spencer Crest Ct. Cary, NC 27513 mailto:kn...@arvidionews.comkn...@arvideonews.com 919-380-9944 www.ARVideoNews.com
[DSTAR_DIGITAL] transceiver output spectrum
Dear all, i am searching for some real measured data of the output spectrum of different D-Star radio's. I am wondering how the spectrum looks like in real world. In theory it's clear i think ;) The purpose is to compare some homemade solutions with the commercial radio's in terms of the TX signal. regards Mario, DH5YM
