Back to SkyDemon Website
Important: These forums are for discussions between SkyDemon users. They are not routinely monitored by SkyDemon staff so any urgent issues should be sent directly to our Customer Support.

Skydemon SoftRF compatibility


Skydemon SoftRF compatibility
View
Options
Author
Message
buzz53
buzz53
buzz53
posted 12/16/2020 10:17:03 AM
Too Much Forum (1.2K reputation)Too Much Forum (1.2K reputation)Too Much Forum (1.2K reputation)Too Much Forum (1.2K reputation)Too Much Forum (1.2K reputation)Too Much Forum (1.2K reputation)Too Much Forum (1.2K reputation)Too Much Forum (1.2K reputation)Too Much Forum (1.2K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 27, Visits: 57
Skydemon and SoftRF (an open source EC device) are no longer fully compatible. The issue arises when SoftRF is operated in Pilotaware mode, and with Airconnect/FLARM protocol. After some experimenting it seems this is because SoftRF emits an IDtype parameter of ‘3’ in the $PFLAA sentence, and Skydemon rejects this with the dialogue “Unexpected GPS data”. Values 0/1/2 are accepted. I’m pretty sure SoftRF has not changed since December 2019 (when this worked OK).

I think this needs fixing at the SoftRF end but just be 100% sure, I'd be grateful if you could tell me:

1) Please confirm IDtype values > 2 in $PFLAA are rejected by Skydemon ?
2) Has this changed at the Skydemon end since Dec 2019?
3) The only public version of the FLARM dataport spec shows ‘3’ as a valid value (“Anonymous mode”) but I think this mode was abandoned by FLARM. Can you confirm it is no longer a valid value in the latest spec (which I guess you must have)?

TIA, Alan


Edited 12/16/2020 10:20:47 AM by buzz53
Reply Like 6
Reply
pilot-byom
p
pilot-byom
posted 12/18/2020 5:50:31 PM
Too Much Forum (3.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.5K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.5K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 323, Visits: 388
 
Tim Dawson - 12/18/2020 2:44:22 PM
Please make sure that the addresses being sent by SoftRF actually ARE ICAO addresses in that case. If they're not, there is a risk of address collisions with another aircraft. The Flarm protocol ONLY supports ICAO addresses and Flarm addresses.

Just to add to the plea, please make absolutely sure HEX data from SoftRF devices is never fed backwards into one of the other traffic networks or merged with other sources without an explicit flag that this is a SoftRF address. Keep in mind, there are only 16,777,214 distinct aircraft addresses possible in the whole world and the assignment of ICAO address to aircraft call sign is regulatory set in ICAO Annex 10.

Edited 12/18/2020 7:20:57 PM by pilot-byom
Reply Like 5
GO

Merge Selected

Merge into selected topic...



Merge into merge target...



Merge into a specific topic ID...



Submit

Threaded View
Threaded View
Skydemon SoftRF compatibility
buzz53 - 12/16/2020 10:17:03 AM
     It looks like SkyDemon has never supported anything other than 0, 1 or...
Tim Dawson - 12/16/2020 4:03:35 PM
     I am confused, isn't ID = 3 mode <reserved>/<only used>...
pilot-byom - 12/16/2020 4:44:34 PM
     Tim: thanks for confirming, I don't know how I persuaded myself it was...
buzz53 - 12/18/2020 2:38:12 PM
     Please make sure that the addresses being sent by SoftRF actually ARE...
Tim Dawson - 12/18/2020 2:44:22 PM
             Just to add to the plea, please make absolutely sure HEX data from...
pilot-byom - 12/18/2020 5:50:31 PM

Post Quoted Reply
Reading This Topic

Powered by InstantForum 2017-0 Final © 2025
Execution: 0.000. 2 queries. Compression Enabled.

Login

Explore
Messages
Mentions
Search