A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FLARM releases firmware for ADS-R and TIS-B



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 18th 21, 08:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Matt Herron Jr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default FLARM releases firmware for ADS-R and TIS-B

Question;

The FCC limits the amount of power that can be broadcast on the FLARM frequency. Given that the new fusion FLARM x-mitts on both antennas, does this mean that each antenna is putting out 1/2 the power of the original powerflarm core with a single x-mitting antenna? If so, wouldn't we expect fewer blind spot with the fusion, but less overall range than the core?

Also, would we need to concern ourselves with nodes of poor reception due to the interference of the two x-mitters?

Thanks,
Matt
Ads
  #22  
Old January 18th 21, 10:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default FLARM releases firmware for ADS-R and TIS-B

Matt Herron Jr. wrote on 1/18/2021 11:12 AM:
Question;

The FCC limits the amount of power that can be broadcast on the FLARM frequency. Given that the new fusion FLARM x-mitts on both antennas, does this mean that each antenna is putting out 1/2 the power of the original powerflarm core with a single x-mitting antenna? If so, wouldn't we expect fewer blind spot with the fusion, but less overall range than the core?

Also, would we need to concern ourselves with nodes of poor reception due to the interference of the two x-mitters?

My understanding for Powerflarm (and I assume, Fusion) is there is a transceiver for each
antenna, and that they don't broadcast at the same time, so each transmission could be at full
power and no chance of nodes. Dave will set me straight if that's wrong :^)


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
  #23  
Old January 18th 21, 11:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Matt Herron Jr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default FLARM releases firmware for ADS-R and TIS-B

If true, that's very clever!

On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 1:12:55 PM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Matt Herron Jr. wrote on 1/18/2021 11:12 AM:
Question;

The FCC limits the amount of power that can be broadcast on the FLARM frequency. Given that the new fusion FLARM x-mitts on both antennas, does this mean that each antenna is putting out 1/2 the power of the original powerflarm core with a single x-mitting antenna? If so, wouldn't we expect fewer blind spot with the fusion, but less overall range than the core?

Also, would we need to concern ourselves with nodes of poor reception due to the interference of the two x-mitters?

My understanding for Powerflarm (and I assume, Fusion) is there is a transceiver for each
antenna, and that they don't broadcast at the same time, so each transmission could be at full
power and no chance of nodes. Dave will set me straight if that's wrong :^)


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

  #24  
Old January 19th 21, 01:25 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,403
Default FLARM releases firmware for ADS-R and TIS-B

Not really very clever--it's the only way this would really work and nobody would design a system any other way. You kind of answered this yourself with the "interference of the two x-mitters". Any system that split the RF signal would not work reliably exactly because of this interference, and likewise if the antennas split the received RF signal would have interference issues on receive as well. So FLARM A and B have to be two independent transmitters and receivers. And sure enough if you pull apart one of these units you'll see the separate diversity chip communicating with the main FLARM chip digitally, but with it's own RF stages.

On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 2:23:43 PM UTC-8, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
If true, that's very clever!
On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 1:12:55 PM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Matt Herron Jr. wrote on 1/18/2021 11:12 AM:
Question;

The FCC limits the amount of power that can be broadcast on the FLARM frequency. Given that the new fusion FLARM x-mitts on both antennas, does this mean that each antenna is putting out 1/2 the power of the original powerflarm core with a single x-mitting antenna? If so, wouldn't we expect fewer blind spot with the fusion, but less overall range than the core?

Also, would we need to concern ourselves with nodes of poor reception due to the interference of the two x-mitters?

My understanding for Powerflarm (and I assume, Fusion) is there is a transceiver for each
antenna, and that they don't broadcast at the same time, so each transmission could be at full
power and no chance of nodes. Dave will set me straight if that's wrong :^)


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

  #25  
Old January 19th 21, 09:12 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
krasw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 668
Default FLARM releases firmware for ADS-R and TIS-B

On Friday, 15 January 2021 at 19:47:30 UTC+2, Darryl Ramm wrote:

PowerFLARM Fusion is a nice improvement over existing PowerFLARM units, including for use in the USA. In Europe and the rest of the world it does provide real "Fusion" between FLARM, ADS-B and different display devices but in the USA, with our overly complex ADS-B system not used anywhere else in the world the story is as usual more complicated.


Haha. European system is not complicated because it is from stone age, we have no way uploading data to aircraft. I would take US system in a heartbeat as my country supports only C-mode transponders (better than A-mode though), no-one has in heard the word ADS-B. Grass is truly greener on the other side of the fence.
  #26  
Old January 19th 21, 10:19 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,403
Default FLARM releases firmware for ADS-R and TIS-B

On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 12:12:55 AM UTC-8, krasw wrote:
On Friday, 15 January 2021 at 19:47:30 UTC+2, Darryl Ramm wrote:

PowerFLARM Fusion is a nice improvement over existing PowerFLARM units, including for use in the USA. In Europe and the rest of the world it does provide real "Fusion" between FLARM, ADS-B and different display devices but in the USA, with our overly complex ADS-B system not used anywhere else in the world the story is as usual more complicated.

Haha. European system is not complicated because it is from stone age, we have no way uploading data to aircraft. I would take US system in a heartbeat as my country supports only C-mode transponders (better than A-mode though), no-one has in heard the word ADS-B. Grass is truly greener on the other side of the fence.


I'm not sure you really have much of an idea what you are saying. Especially I doubt you appreciate the limitations of using dual-link ADS-B for traffic. What data do you want transmitted to aircraft? FIS-B data? That can be done on UAT with no dependence on UAT for traffic awareness or surveillance , as has been done already in trials in the UK. You folks outside the USA could hopefully get the FIS-B data benefits without any of the dual-link traffic disadvantages.

I'm not sure where you are but, but Mode-C is pretty dead in Europe. EUROCONTROL managed to drive broader adoption of Mode-S based surveillance (initially for IFR flights). And there is nothing "stone age" about much of the Mode-S and 1090ES capable surveillance system across Europe. That use of Mode-S in Europe, including displacing/end of life of many Mode-C transponders, helped reduce RF congestion in the busiest airspace, and to plant a foundation for 1090ES ADS-B, and was likely a better long term surveillance and traffic avoidance move than what the USA did with preserving Mode-C use and pushing to go dual-link ADS-B.

And the end result? We have an ADS-B system in the USA that is very complex, could have achieved things like traffic awareness much simpler and better on a single link layer, but it is very nice for some things, like increased surveillance coverage, (but again that could have been done on a single link layer), but it cannot deliver many of the hyped past claims, likely can't allow safe reduction in the number of approach SSR systems for example, and is so fundamentally insecure that it may represent a serious national security risk.



  #27  
Old January 19th 21, 02:59 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
krasw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 668
Default FLARM releases firmware for ADS-R and TIS-B

On Tuesday, 19 January 2021 at 11:19:41 UTC+2, Darryl Ramm wrote:
I'm not sure you really have much of an idea what you are saying.


I think you are wrong. I know for a fact that my country can not do anything with mode-s data, infrastructure supports only mode-c.
  #28  
Old January 19th 21, 05:06 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Charles Gillespie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default FLARM releases firmware for ADS-R and TIS-B

On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 5:24:35 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
I’ve been flying with the beta version for several month and it works very well. This is also an opportunity to save by buying the powerflarm fusion in the discounted price of about $1500 which includes all licenses and save on the $160 license fee, then sell your old core when the price goes up.
On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 9:34:59 AM UTC-8, wrote:
Hi All - FLARM has announced release of firmware supporting ADS-R and
TIS-B reception. This feature is included in new firmware for Core
Fusion. For original PowerFLARM core and portable, this requires a
license available he
https://flarm.com/shop/ads-r-and-tis-b-reception-adsr/

Firmware is available he
https://flarm.com/support/firmware-u...nload-firmware.

Additional info about this feature he
https://flarm.com/products/product-add-ons/ads-r-tis-b.

Enjoy!
Best Regards, Dave


Ramy, do you have a Flarm B antenna, and if so, have you run the Flarm Range Analyzer on any of your flights with the Fusion? I'm curious to see how your coverage has improved.

Charlie
  #29  
Old January 19th 21, 06:25 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,403
Default FLARM releases firmware for ADS-R and TIS-B

On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 5:59:45 AM UTC-8, krasw wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 January 2021 at 11:19:41 UTC+2, Darryl Ramm wrote:
I'm not sure you really have much of an idea what you are saying.

I think you are wrong. I know for a fact that my country can not do anything with mode-s data, infrastructure supports only mode-c.


And what exact country is this? Even if you manage to be in a European country with not a single Mode-S interrogator, you likely are covered by EUROCONTROL1090ES Out mandates, helping enable aircraft within your airspace to be able to utilize 1090ES for traffic awareness, and that should increasingly help complement FLARM use. The fundamental thing of ADS-B being *autonomous* and useful between aircraft without relying on interrogators or ground infrastructure got lost in the USA system. Nobody should want that in other countries, and so far no other country seems silly enough to follow that approach.
  #30  
Old January 19th 21, 07:06 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Matt Herron Jr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default FLARM releases firmware for ADS-R and TIS-B

Ramy;

I am curious to know what your experience with fusion is also. What is your antenna set-up? Range get better or worse? coverage get better or worse? Did you have the same antenna set-up with the core prior to fusion (so we can compare the two boxes)?

Thanks,

Matt H
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
trying to work out how you connect the flarm view 57 to mini box flarm running a V7 and Oudie Michael Marshall[_2_] Soaring 3 April 10th 16 04:13 AM
Information for all users of Flarm, OEM FLARM supplier and Flarm PowerFlarm [email protected] Soaring 28 March 12th 16 05:31 AM
IGC Flight Recorders using Flarm firmware - New DLL file forvalidating IGC flight data files Ian Strachan Soaring 0 July 20th 14 07:28 PM
Flarm with Firmware 1.20 update Robert Fidler[_3_] Soaring 49 January 31st 12 04:40 PM
FLARM firmware release schedule Andy[_1_] Soaring 11 January 5th 11 07:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.