Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

23940RE: [aprsisce] RE: Problem with sending message via RF

Expand Messages
  • Steve Daniels
    Sep 21 3:52 PM
    • 0 Attachment

      What James says is true about APRSISCE/32 being a bit internet relient, but to be fair the original software was designed as a IS stream viewing client.

      The RF was added on. That’s admittedly a simplistic view.

      Lynn has stated that he intends to do a redesign of APRSIS32. I know he has had thoughts on how to change things. Obviously a lot has been learnt over the time APRSIS32 has been going.

       

      And of course someone keeps distracting him, with other projects. Sorry

       

      Steve Daniels

      Amateur Radio Callsign G6UIM

      Torbay Freecycle  Owner

      http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/torbay_freecycle

      APRSISCE/32 Beta tester and WIKI editor http://aprsisce.wikidot.com

       


      From: aprsisce@yahoogroups.com [mailto: aprsisce@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of g.isringhaus@...
      Sent: 21 September 2013 23:16
      To: aprsisce@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [aprsisce] RE: Problem with sending message via RF

       

       

       Well said James.  I try not to rely too much on the internet for this particular SSID because I want to make sure that it is 100% running on RF when a disaster strikes.  Everybody has preferences and different ways of doing things.  That is what makes the hobby fun!



      --- In aprsisce@yahoogroups.com , <ve6srv@...> wrote:

      On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Rob Giuliano <kb8rco@...> wrote:

      > James,

      > I think you are reading more into this than the intent. It is NOT
      > inaccurate.


      Nope, I didn't add extra words like you have...

      >> If you have APRS-IS Messages disabled, you'll simply lose the QSO.

      >
      > There was NO mention of a definite loss of communication, but increasing
      the
      > probability by keeping both paths open - if the other path is lost - not
      > saying it WOULD BE LOST, but it could be lost. Included in that is the
      > IGATE messaging gating.


      The statement was "you'll simply lose the QSO", you are adding in
      "definite" and "increasing probability" into the statement.

      Lynn and I butt heads a lot about how APRSISCE/32 works because we
      come from opposite sides of the concept of APRS.

      Lynn built the program based on 100% internet connectivity, and added
      in RF connectivity after the fact. A lot of the thought process he
      uses, and concepts built into APRSISCE/32 are rooted in being tethered
      to the internet.

      I come at APRS from an RF based implementation, where I use APRS with
      RF as the primary connection, and occasionally have access to the
      internet.

      So, keeping that in mind, let's look at the concept above.

      I am sitting at home, with the ability to send APRS packets out via RF
      and IS simultaneously. I am sending APRS messages to you (you are on
      RF only), and you are located well beyond the reach of the local RF
      network. Therefore, to be able to get messages to you, my messages
      have to enter the APRS-IS, then get gated back out to RF for delivery
      to you.

      Obviously if I can inject directly to the APRS-IS, my message will
      travel across the internet, and then get gated to you. With my message
      also being sent via RF, it will be heard locally as well. Should the
      internet connectivity drop out, then that RF packet could be heard by
      another i-gate, and enter the APRS-IS that way. I will not simply lose
      the QSO, the messages will automatically find an alternate route.

      If however the software being used to send those messages makes
      assumptions about the "best" path to use, and shuts off alternate
      routes, then it could disrupt the QSO.

      This isn't about starting a war... I'm just offering different
      observations about the assumptions being made.

      When you work very close to a project, you can get locked into a
      specific mindset, and it is helpful to have differing points of view
      brought out.

      I enjoy discussions like this because I too end up with a narrow focus
      on different ideas and concepts, and by listening to what others have
      to say, I can gain more insight into the concept, learn more than I
      new before, and possibly change my conceptualization of the whole
      idea.

      --
      James
      VE6SRV

    • Show all 28 messages in this topic