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

Re: [aprsisce] Re: Crop Circles? NOT!

Expand Messages
  • James Ewen
    ... Well, a directional DF report is not the same as a DFS report. I understand your point though, you are assuming that when one points at a specific
    Message 1 of 22 , Oct 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Lynn W Deffenbaugh (Mr) <kj4erj@...> wrote:

      >> I was using the right-click|lat/long|New DF here menu item...
      >
      > DF is not the same as DFS.

      Well, a directional DF report is not the same as a DFS report. I
      understand your point though, you are assuming that when one points at
      a specific location, that they are going to enter BRG/NRQ information.
      Stay with me though...

      >> When you create a "New DF Here", what information is placed in the
      >> comment? Is it just random, or is there some method to the madness? It
      >> looks like New DF Here assumes a DF bearing, and not a DFS report.
      >
      > Yes, that is the case. And the range and bearing from the center of the
      > map (with the assumption that's likely to be ME) to where you said "New
      > DF HERE" is what is pre-populated into the range and bearing, hence
      > giving you the initial comment.

      That's not what I am seeing happen though.

      In the right click menu, you can choose New DF @ Center, and the
      bearing/range pre-populated in the comment will be pointing at the
      location that you clicked on the map, and set to the distance closest
      to the range circle for the zoom level you are using. ie the bearing
      inherits the bearing from center TO the location clicked, and distance
      based on your map zoom (As per Bob's conceptualization).

      When I click on a location on the map and select new DF here, I don't
      yet see a correlation as to the values in BRG/NRQ. I thought you might
      have pointed back towards the center of the crosshairs, but that's not
      it.

      >> If
      >> it's just random noise, leave it blank and then the DF and DFS buttons
      >> would be available. It is very nice to have the object name and icon
      >> auto-populated.
      >
      > Nope, not random noise, but an interpretation of center vs HERE for DF
      > objects.

      I'll keep poking to see if I can find that correlation.


      >> That populates the comment, and thus makes the DFS button unavailable.
      >> If you do the same sequence but select Create Object Here, you get the
      >> DF and DFS buttons, but the object name/icon aren't auto-populated.
      >
      > What would you propose the name/icon be for a generic "Create Object
      > HERE"? There's no indication that you're doing anything special so no
      > matter what I pick, I'm as likely to be wrong as right.

      Nope, leave Create Object Here as it is... I'm looking for a way to be
      able to right click on the map and be able to create either a DF or
      DFS object.

      I think the easiest solution would be to utilize the Create New DF
      Here dialog to do this. From what I see, I have to click on the DF
      button to adjust the BRG and NRQ data to get it pointed where I want.
      If the comment was left empty, and the user had the DF and DFS buttons
      available, you'd be good to go.

      >> I'm refreshing my knowledge of the DF reports portion of the program,
      >> and adding information to the Wiki on DF reports.
      >
      > I'm glad you remotely remember how it works, because me, being a
      > non-hunter of foxes, have no clue. I'm just the coder here!

      I'm digging through the grey matter to remember... As I play with it,
      it's coming back. And as an added bonus, I'm creating documentation in
      the wiki this time! That means that the next time I have to try and
      remember I can look it up...

      This is just making me realize just how long it has been since I have
      been out playing with my radios on a Radio Direction Finding
      Exercise...

      We should see if we can get you out from behind that Mountain Dew
      occasionally... 8)

      I keep being amazed at how much functionality there is in
      APRSISCE/32... we have an amazing program available here! I only use a
      fraction of what is available.

      --
      James
      VE6SRV
    • James Ewen
      ... Using an S-Units value of 1 for a non-reception report would be better than what we have now. In reality, the non-reception area should be bigger than the
      Message 2 of 22 , Oct 2, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Lynn W Deffenbaugh (Mr) <kj4erj@...> wrote:

        >> A non-reception report should equate to at least the same distance as a
        >> signal strength of 1.
        >
        > Ok, so if I calculate the non-reception (0 S-units) range the same as a
        > signal strength of 1, I'll get close enough?

        >> The routines used to generate PHG circles should be pretty similar to
        >> the DFS reports.
        >>
        >> PHG uses Output Power, HAAT, Antenna Gain and Directivity to create a circle.
        >>
        >> DFS uses Input Signal Level, HAAT, Antenna Gain, Directivity to create a circle.
        >
        > Yes, the only difference in the calculation is where the power/s-units
        > go. One is power divided by 10 and the other is 10 divided by S units
        > which is why zero s-units is totally not a good idea.

        > I'm a software engineer, not an RF engineer. If I use 1 for the s-units
        > in the range calculation for a non-reception (zero) report, I'll be
        > good, right? A simple "yes" or "no" (and a note to that effect in the
        > Wiki) would be appreciated.

        Using an S-Units value of 1 for a non-reception report would be better
        than what we have now. In reality, the non-reception area should be
        bigger than the S1 reception area, but making them the same is close
        enough.

        What about splitting the difference between S1 and S0? S0.5 or such?
        Just a thought...

        To keep you happy though...

        YES.

        --
        James
        VE6SRV

        PS You missed a good chance at a meme from way back with this:

        > I'm a software engineer, not an RF engineer.

        It should have been "Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not an RF engineer!"
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.