[aprssig] More efficient use of channel capicity through shorterpackets
Ron Stordahl ron.stordahl at digikey.comThu Oct 12 20:50:54 UTC 2006
- Previous message: [aprssig] More efficient use of channel capicity throughshorterpackets
- Next message: [aprssig] More efficient use of channel capicity through shorterpackets
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
scott at opentrac.org wrote: > And after TXD, you've got a minimum of 20 bytes of data - flag (1), > desination (7), source (7), control (1), pid (1), fcs (2), and flag (1). > Each byte is 8 bits, though bit stuffing can increase the number of bits > sent. Ignoring bit stuffing, 20 * 8 = 160. 160 / 1200 bps = 133.3 msec. I > think the tail is hardcoded as two extra flag characters on the OpenTracker. > Never had any trouble with that, at least not on VHF. > I have done some testing with two MFJ1270C's and a Motorola Micor as well as a Kenwood TM261. I am able to establish a link and move data with each side set at a TXD of 90 milliseconds. At 80 milliseconds the link fails. I was a bit surprised to see that the Kenwood TM261 could operate at that short a TXD, I knew the Motorola Micor would get down to 100 milliseconds. In testing I had one side long and kept trimming the other until it failed. I have no control over TXTail, and really don't know how long it is, but I am going to guess it's 100 milliseconds. It's possible if I would repeat this using KISS I could control this. For my calculations I am going to pull a TXD of 100 milliseconds out of my hat. So here are some computed packet lengths for TXD=330 milliseconds which I believe is commonly used, a TXTail = 100 milliseconds. 20 bytes (as listed above by Scott) plus space used in the digipeater address field (adding on the average of 6 bytes times 2 = 12) bringing the 'overhead' to 32 bytes. This 32 bytes will be roughly 32 * 8 / 1200 = about 215 millisecond. So without the information field the total is up to 645 milliseconds. Looking at some raw packets sending only Mic-E I see 14 bytes in the information field. Adding this bring the total to 645 + (14*8/1200) = 645 + 93 = 738 milliseconds. If instead the information field is 40 bytes, the total time becomes 912 milliseconds. Looking at raw packets from Minneapolis mobiles via Findu it appears about half are using Mic-E, mostly without extraneous comments, and the rest are sending uncompressed data in the 40 character range. The average length is thus about 825 milliseconds. This 825 milliseconds is made up of TXD+TXTail of 430 milliseconds and 395 milliseconds of data. If you reduce the data to the bare minimum the corresponding numbers are 430 msec and 308 msec. So TXD and TXTail are apparently eating up more than half of the on the air time. If these could be reduced to 100 ms and 50 ms each, the numbers would be 150 msec (TXD+TXT) and 308 msec (data packet) for a total of 458 msec. It has been suggested that we move to 9600. If we would do so would the 150 msec TXD+TXT be reduced proportionally, thus to 38 ms? This seems highly unlikely. The data packet portion should be however reduced to about 77 msec (for bare minimum Mic-E data). If the TXD+TXT can't be reduced (at 9600) to less than 150 msec, then the 1200 baud vs 9600 baud packets consume 458 msec vs 227 msec, i.e.it requires 4 times the baud rate to reduce the time used by a minimum position packet by half. As things stand now, with 1200 baud on 144.39, reducing TXD+TXT to the bare minimum nearly cuts the typical on air time in half, perhaps efforts should be expended in that direction first? There very easily could be problems with my calculations, fire away, I don't mind in the least! Ron N5IN > Also, I think you'll find that most ham rigs are slower to key up than > commercial mobiles. Some are really bad, at 200 msec or more. Though I > still have no idea what possessed Kenwood to hard-code the TXD at half a > second on the TM-D700 - I know of no radio that REQUIRES such a long TXD. > Unless maybe you're trying to catch a receiver in power save mode or > something... > > Scott > N1VG > >
- Previous message: [aprssig] More efficient use of channel capicity throughshorterpackets
- Next message: [aprssig] More efficient use of channel capicity through shorterpackets
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the aprssig mailing list
