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.

Alternative "address types" in PFLAA messages


Author
Message
buzz53
buzz53
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
I’d like to make a plea for Skydemon to accept “Address Type” field values other than 1 & 2 in $PFLAA messages (i.e. in AirConnect and Pilotaware interface modes).

The concept of address types had been adopted by others, notably OGN, who have assigned different values (e.g. OGN use type 3 when transmitting their own, rather than ICAO addresses). When these addresses are passed to Skydemon in PFLAA messages, Skydemon currently rejects them, making it unusable with OGN devices (and possibly others) in this mode.

The specification of these messages originated with Flarm in their Dataport Interface Document, where currently only those 2 values are defined (for ICAO and FLARM addressing) which is, I assume, why SD reject other values. However the current Flarm Dataport Specification states, regarding the PFLAA message: “Data on other proximate aircraft, intended for connected devices with sufficient CPU performance. This sentence should be treated with utmost flexibility and tolerance on a best effort base.”

I suggest this is an invitation or indeed recommendation by FLARM themselves to accept other values. I suggest accepting any value in this field (I don’t think SD does anything with the present values anyway)? The alternative is that devices such as OGN or SoftRF will need to be tweaked to pretend the addresses are ICAO or FLARM when they are not. I have done this, and it works, but I feel the correct solution lies at the SD end.

Alan


Reply
Tim Dawson
Tim Dawson
SkyDemon Team (690K reputation)SkyDemon Team (690K reputation)SkyDemon Team (690K reputation)SkyDemon Team (690K reputation)SkyDemon Team (690K reputation)SkyDemon Team (690K reputation)SkyDemon Team (690K reputation)SkyDemon Team (690K reputation)SkyDemon Team (690K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K, Visits: 9.7K
I can't see why we would wish to accept a different address type there unless we knew (via a protocol specification) what it actually meant. We *could* assume that addresses with the same "address type" number and the same 24bit address number identified the same aircraft - that seems reasonable - but we're not comfortable making assumptions like that, especially in the area of traffic reception. We already cope with other address types through GDL90 and we can't map potentially many more to internal structures without knowing what they mean.

Please try reaching out to FLARM for their comments, and let's take it from there.

GO

Merge Selected

Merge into selected topic...



Merge into merge target...



Merge into a specific topic ID...





Reading This Topic

Login

Explore
Messages
Mentions
Search