23951Re: [aprsisce] RE: Problem with sending message via RF
- Sep 22, 2013But the MAIN POINT of the group MUST BE to provide CLARITY - SPECIFICALLY with respect to the answer to the question posed - without confusion.When I read your response to Lynn, had I been the person who posed the question, I could have been confused - SPECIFICALLY because the statement directly said the answer was "inaccurate", while quoting pretty much the whole answer.>> You really should use the "RF Only" option on the Chat dialog>> to force it to RF and keep APRS-IS Messages enabled. This allows>> lots of capability including continuing an APRS QSO with a station>> that might have left your range but is still within range of another>> message-gating IGate. If you have APRS-IS Messages disabled, you'll>> simply lose the QSO.
> The above is an inaccurate observation. Hundreds of stations with RF> only access successfully send and receive APRS messages with stations> outside of their local RF network by having their messages injected> into the APRS-IS by other i-gates in the area.The assumptions were to make a point about settings, not to "bash or imply inability" of the system. Countering them "could have been done" in a method that was less aggressive to the point being made (and therefore less confusion to the person LOOKING FOR ANSWERS".Don't get me wrong, the banter and comments all have value and are opportunity to learn more about APRS in general and APRSISce/32 specifically. I know I have learned more from those points.BUT the points need to be made without confusion about the original message's question or request for assistance.Robert Giuliano
From: James Ewen <ve6srv@...>
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [aprsisce] RE: Problem with sending message via RF
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Rob Giuliano <kb8rco@...> wrote:
> I don't have full original message, but the point (as I read it) was EVEN WITH "force RF"
> enabled, a user "should" keep APRS-IS messages enabled (don't disable it) because
> "if you lose the RF by the other station leaving your range", you still have the IS system
> (or IS-> RF from another I-Gate.
> That is STILL good advice so the message gets to them.
> Disabling APRS-IS messages when forced RF is check reduces your options,
> especially if IGATE access is limited in the area.
Yes, your options are reduced IF you have internet access. If you are
where there are no i-gates, and you have internet connectivity turned
off, then you would simply lose the QSO when the other station moves
out of RF range.
The point was that there were assumptions being made with the original
statement... it was assumed that there were no i-gates in the area,
and that the user HAD access to the internet. To "simply lose the QSO"
when a station moves out of local RF range requires all internet
access (both internal and provided by others) to be non-existent.
BTW, "local RF range" includes the whole area which an RF signal can
be heard, not only directly, but through ALL accessed digipeaters.
If you have internet access, and RF access, then allowing both methods
to be used to deliver a message is good advice, but losing
connectivity via one port does not necessarily cause the loss of
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>