[aprssig] "Best" packet decoder solution
Scott Miller scott at opentrac.orgWed Dec 29 18:42:58 UTC 2010
- Previous message: [aprssig] "Best" packet decoder solution
- Next message: [aprssig] "Best" packet decoder solution
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I really wouldn't encourage users running IGates to just turn on PASSALL. Seems like it would be a very bad idea. I think the heuristics are going to get complicated when you have to distinguish mangled lat/lon packets from compressed mode packets and everything else that might be there. Now, if you encoded lat and lon each as 24-bit integers in Gray code, a single-bit error anywhere in your position would only result in a maximum 2.4 meter error, while needing only 6 bytes of payload! ;) Scott N1VG On 12/29/2010 10:22 AM, Robert Bruninga wrote: >> I think if we're going to see any FEC scheme >> succeed for APRS, it needs to be either >> simple to implement or ... > > There is HUGE code redundancy already built into APRS that could > be exploited. Looking at the following standard APRS oosit" > > !DDMM.MMN/DDDMM.MMW$... > > Most all of those digits are decimal digits,(only 4 bits) yet > they are encoded in 8 bit ascii. So a bit error in any digit > only has a 50% chance of messing up the 4 bits needed. > > Further, For the LOWER order bytes, every posit cannot be any > further away from the previuos one by the SPEED times TIME. > Further, even if the error is in a given BYTE, you can at least > convert it to an ambiguous position within the degree of > ambiguity of the messed up byte. > > Further, for the upper order bytes, you can infer the position > on RF because your digipeater has to be within a degree of LAT > or LONG to even hear it. > > So, simply run your TNC with PASSALL ON, and you will then see > packets even with errors. Then use the above huristics to > decide on the best estimated posit. The give it your best shot > and give it the QUESTIONMARK symbol so that you can see that it > is estimated until a solid good packet comes through. > > I would think this can greatly improve the receipt of weak > signals. > Of course, it has been shown that AX.25 errors are rarely single > bit errors but runs of bits and so it is not quite so > simplistic, but it sure is a first step and can be done on ALL > EXISTING PACKETS on the air... > > Bob, WB4APR > > > _______________________________________________ > aprssig mailing list > aprssig at tapr.org > https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig > >
- Previous message: [aprssig] "Best" packet decoder solution
- Next message: [aprssig] "Best" packet decoder solution
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the aprssig mailing list
