[aprssig] RE: Proportional Pathing and Aprstracker v0.11?

Robert Bruninga bruninga at usna.edu
Wed Nov 29 08:23:02 CST 2006

> Do you think it is principally wrong to enable SmartBeaconing
> Proportional Pathing at the same time?

No, I think that is an excellent combination of features!

But, having said that... My personal preference is for
proportional pathing so that I can be confident that at least
once a minute I will hear any other local mobile within a few
miles.  My concern (maybe unfounded) is the un-deterministic
timing of smart-beaconing settings so that I may pass within
yards of a smart beaconing system and never know it.  Or may
drive though a small town where someone is just loitering along
at 10 MPH and never see his smart beacon until 10 minutes later
after I am long gone.

Smart beaconing had the same goal of proportional pathing, to
minimize QRM on the network, and does an excellent job of that.
But it does so, by sacrificing local updates as well.  And
treating local and distant areas with the same reduced-reporting
load.  I personally like Proportional Pathing because it keeps
the local rate consistent and high enough for good tracking,
while at the same time reducing QRM further out.

The best advantage of combining them is not in the SB "rates"
but in the SB "corner pegging".  So maybe the best combination
would simply add corner pegging to proportional pathing?


More information about the aprssig mailing list