Topics

Fw: 2000BW frames


Ugo Poddine
 

Hello dear Developers,
 
thank-you very much for any help you will be able to give and of course to your appreciated effort in improving ARDOP, and especially for the Linux version, that will open so many interesting possibilities.

I’m currently using ARDOP as Winlink TNC on RaspberryPI3 (on Raspbian Stretch up to date), usually using pat as client.
I would like to share with you the logs of a successful data exchange with HB9AK CMS (my favorite one : 250Km far from my test QTH), on 80m, in good propagation conditions, in order to share a behavior that is always happening not only with HB9AK but also with other CMS that I can join.
As you can see, the handshaking terminates with a nice :
 
STATUS ARQ CONNECTION ESTABLISHED WITH HB9AK, SESSION BW = 2000 HZ
 
My expectation is consequently, in good propagation conditions, that ARDOP could try to use “fast” modulation types frames, like :
 
4PSK.2000.100.E     
8PSK.2000.100.E     
16QAM.2000.100.E
 
In a four months of use of this configuration, I never seen my ARDOP trying connections using these frames types. The maximum has been 4PSK.1000, and of course, when noise increases, 4PSK.500 or 4FSK.500 (especially – as expected – with far CMS, in Slovenia or Finland).
 
 
Is this behavior expected ?
Any help will be appreciated
Best regards
73 IU1IPB Ugo
 
 
 



John G8BPQ
 

Ugo,

The signal quality reported for your transmissions is too low to shift up to
the next mode. For example

05:25:13.898 [ARDOPprotocol.ComputeQualityAvg] Reported Quality= 68 New Avg
Quality= 68
05:25:13.898 [ARDOPprotocol.SendData] DataToSend = 118 bytes, In
ProtocolState ISS
05:25:13.898 [ARDOPprotocol.GetNextFrameData] No shift, Frame Type:
4PSK.1000.100.O

The quality required to shift up depends on the mode, but is generally in
the range 75 to 85.

73,
John

________________________________________
From: developers@ardop.groups.io [mailto:developers@ardop.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Ugo Poddine via Groups.Io
Sent: 13 June 2018 10:07
To: developers@ardop.groups.io
Subject: [ardop_developers] Fw: 2000BW frames

Hello dear Developers,
 
thank-you very much for any help you will be able to give and of course to
your appreciated effort in improving ARDOP, and especially for the Linux
version, that will open so many interesting possibilities.

I’m currently using ARDOP as Winlink TNC on RaspberryPI3 (on Raspbian
Stretch up to date), usually using pat as client.
I would like to share with you the logs of a successful data exchange with
HB9AK CMS (my favorite one : 250Km far from my test QTH), on 80m, in good
propagation conditions, in order to share a behavior that is always
happening not only with HB9AK but also with other CMS that I can join.
As you can see, the handshaking terminates with a nice :
 
STATUS ARQ CONNECTION ESTABLISHED WITH HB9AK, SESSION BW = 2000 HZ
 
My expectation is consequently, in good propagation conditions, that ARDOP
could try to use “fast” modulation types frames, like :
 
4PSK.2000.100.E     
8PSK.2000.100.E     
16QAM.2000.100.E
 
In a four months of use of this configuration, I never seen my ARDOP trying
connections using these frames types. The maximum has been 4PSK.1000, and of
course, when noise increases, 4PSK.500 or 4FSK.500 (especially – as expected
– with far CMS, in Slovenia or Finland).
 
 
Is this behavior expected ?
Any help will be appreciated
Best regards
73 IU1IPB Ugo


Ugo Poddine
 

Hello John,

thank-you very much. Clear explanation.

I will try to check other cases considering the "quality" parameter.

Can you explain to me how it's calculated (or pointing me to the related documentation paragraph) ? In any case it's a bit surprising: at the moment of the test I exchanged 59+20 traditional reports with Austria (with the same transceiver and the same antenna) and the S/N of the handshaking frames seemed not so bad (-3.4 / -4 , if I'm not wrong)....

 73 Ugo





On Wednesday, June 13, 2018, 3:44:02 PM GMT+2, John Wiseman <john.wiseman@...> wrote:


Ugo,

The signal quality reported for your transmissions is too low to shift up to
the next mode. For example

05:25:13.898 [ARDOPprotocol.ComputeQualityAvg] Reported Quality= 68  New Avg
Quality= 68
05:25:13.898 [ARDOPprotocol.SendData] DataToSend = 118 bytes, In
ProtocolState ISS
05:25:13.898 [ARDOPprotocol.GetNextFrameData] No shift, Frame Type:
4PSK.1000.100.O

The quality required to shift up depends on the mode, but is generally in
the range 75 to 85.

73,
John

________________________________________
From: developers@ardop.groups.io [mailto:developers@ardop.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Ugo Poddine via Groups.Io

Sent: 13 June 2018 10:07
To: developers@ardop.groups.io
Subject: [ardop_developers] Fw: 2000BW frames

Hello dear Developers,
 
thank-you very much for any help you will be able to give and of course to
your appreciated effort in improving ARDOP, and especially for the Linux
version, that will open so many interesting possibilities.

I’m currently using ARDOP as Winlink TNC on RaspberryPI3 (on Raspbian
Stretch up to date), usually using pat as client.
I would like to share with you the logs of a successful data exchange with
HB9AK CMS (my favorite one : 250Km far from my test QTH), on 80m, in good
propagation conditions, in order to share a behavior that is always
happening not only with HB9AK but also with other CMS that I can join.
As you can see, the handshaking terminates with a nice :
 
STATUS ARQ CONNECTION ESTABLISHED WITH HB9AK, SESSION BW = 2000 HZ
 
My expectation is consequently, in good propagation conditions, that ARDOP
could try to use “fast” modulation types frames, like :
 
4PSK.2000.100.E     
8PSK.2000.100.E     
16QAM.2000.100.E
 
In a four months of use of this configuration, I never seen my ARDOP trying
connections using these frames types. The maximum has been 4PSK.1000, and of
course, when noise increases, 4PSK.500 or 4FSK.500 (especially – as expected
– with far CMS, in Slovenia or Finland).
 
 
Is this behavior expected ?
Any help will be appreciated
Best regards
73 IU1IPB Ugo

 
 
 





John G8BPQ
 

Ugo,

The quality is derived from the spread of the phase changes from the ideal,
but you’d need to look at the code to see exactly how it is calculated
(UpdatePhaseConstellation). It would be helpful to see the log from the
other end to see how well he is decoding your signals.

73,
John

________________________________________
From: developers@ardop.groups.io [mailto:developers@ardop.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Ugo Poddine via Groups.Io
Sent: 13 June 2018 15:27
To: developers@ardop.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ardop_developers] Fw: 2000BW frames

Hello John,

thank-you very much. Clear explanation.
I will try to check other cases considering the "quality" parameter.
Can you explain to me how it's calculated (or pointing me to the related
documentation paragraph) ? In any case it's a bit surprising: at the moment
of the test I exchanged 59+20 traditional reports with Austria (with the
same transceiver and the same antenna) and the S/N of the handshaking frames
seemed not so bad (-3.4 / -4 , if I'm not wrong)....
 73 Ugo

On Wednesday, June 13, 2018, 3:44:02 PM GMT+2, John Wiseman
<john.wiseman@cantab.net> wrote:


Ugo,

The signal quality reported for your transmissions is too low to shift up to
the next mode. For example

05:25:13.898 [ARDOPprotocol.ComputeQualityAvg] Reported Quality= 68  New Avg
Quality= 68
05:25:13.898 [ARDOPprotocol.SendData] DataToSend = 118 bytes, In
ProtocolState ISS
05:25:13.898 [ARDOPprotocol.GetNextFrameData] No shift, Frame Type:
4PSK.1000.100.O

The quality required to shift up depends on the mode, but is generally in
the range 75 to 85.

73,
John

________________________________________
From: developers@ardop.groups.io [mailto:developers@ardop.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Ugo Poddine via Groups.Io

Sent: 13 June 2018 10:07
To: developers@ardop.groups.io
Subject: [ardop_developers] Fw: 2000BW frames

Hello dear Developers,
 
thank-you very much for any help you will be able to give and of course to
your appreciated effort in improving ARDOP, and especially for the Linux
version, that will open so many interesting possibilities.

I’m currently using ARDOP as Winlink TNC on RaspberryPI3 (on Raspbian
Stretch up to date), usually using pat as client.
I would like to share with you the logs of a successful data exchange with
HB9AK CMS (my favorite one : 250Km far from my test QTH), on 80m, in good
propagation conditions, in order to share a behavior that is always
happening not only with HB9AK but also with other CMS that I can join.
As you can see, the handshaking terminates with a nice :
 
STATUS ARQ CONNECTION ESTABLISHED WITH HB9AK, SESSION BW = 2000 HZ
 
My expectation is consequently, in good propagation conditions, that ARDOP
could try to use “fast” modulation types frames, like :
 
4PSK.2000.100.E     
8PSK.2000.100.E     
16QAM.2000.100.E
 
In a four months of use of this configuration, I never seen my ARDOP trying
connections using these frames types. The maximum has been 4PSK.1000, and of
course, when noise increases, 4PSK.500 or 4FSK.500 (especially – as expected
– with far CMS, in Slovenia or Finland).
 
 
Is this behavior expected ?
Any help will be appreciated
Best regards
73 IU1IPB Ugo


Loring Kutchins
 

Ugo,

You also will see more activity at higher throughput ‘gears’ if you send a lengthy payload. Short messages will never get the chance to advance to higher speeds under good conditions.

73,
Lor W3QA
WInlink Development Team

On Jun 13, 2018, at 11:55 AM, John Wiseman <john.wiseman@cantab.net> wrote:

Ugo,

The quality is derived from the spread of the phase changes from the ideal,
but you’d need to look at the code to see exactly how it is calculated
(UpdatePhaseConstellation). It would be helpful to see the log from the
other end to see how well he is decoding your signals.

73,
John

________________________________________
From: developers@ardop.groups.io [mailto:developers@ardop.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Ugo Poddine via Groups.Io
Sent: 13 June 2018 15:27
To: developers@ardop.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ardop_developers] Fw: 2000BW frames

Hello John,

thank-you very much. Clear explanation.
I will try to check other cases considering the "quality" parameter.
Can you explain to me how it's calculated (or pointing me to the related
documentation paragraph) ? In any case it's a bit surprising: at the moment
of the test I exchanged 59+20 traditional reports with Austria (with the
same transceiver and the same antenna) and the S/N of the handshaking frames
seemed not so bad (-3.4 / -4 , if I'm not wrong)....
73 Ugo




On Wednesday, June 13, 2018, 3:44:02 PM GMT+2, John Wiseman
<john.wiseman@cantab.net> wrote:


Ugo,

The signal quality reported for your transmissions is too low to shift up to
the next mode. For example

05:25:13.898 [ARDOPprotocol.ComputeQualityAvg] Reported Quality= 68 New Avg
Quality= 68
05:25:13.898 [ARDOPprotocol.SendData] DataToSend = 118 bytes, In
ProtocolState ISS
05:25:13.898 [ARDOPprotocol.GetNextFrameData] No shift, Frame Type:
4PSK.1000.100.O

The quality required to shift up depends on the mode, but is generally in
the range 75 to 85.

73,
John

________________________________________
From: developers@ardop.groups.io [mailto:developers@ardop.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Ugo Poddine via Groups.Io

Sent: 13 June 2018 10:07
To: developers@ardop.groups.io
Subject: [ardop_developers] Fw: 2000BW frames

Hello dear Developers,

thank-you very much for any help you will be able to give and of course to
your appreciated effort in improving ARDOP, and especially for the Linux
version, that will open so many interesting possibilities.

I’m currently using ARDOP as Winlink TNC on RaspberryPI3 (on Raspbian
Stretch up to date), usually using pat as client.
I would like to share with you the logs of a successful data exchange with
HB9AK CMS (my favorite one : 250Km far from my test QTH), on 80m, in good
propagation conditions, in order to share a behavior that is always
happening not only with HB9AK but also with other CMS that I can join.
As you can see, the handshaking terminates with a nice :

STATUS ARQ CONNECTION ESTABLISHED WITH HB9AK, SESSION BW = 2000 HZ

My expectation is consequently, in good propagation conditions, that ARDOP
could try to use “fast” modulation types frames, like :

4PSK.2000.100.E
8PSK.2000.100.E
16QAM.2000.100.E

In a four months of use of this configuration, I never seen my ARDOP trying
connections using these frames types. The maximum has been 4PSK.1000, and of
course, when noise increases, 4PSK.500 or 4FSK.500 (especially – as expected
– with far CMS, in Slovenia or Finland).


Is this behavior expected ?
Any help will be appreciated
Best regards
73 IU1IPB Ugo










Ugo Poddine
 

Thank-you Lor,

 but if you check the logs you can see that a 7KB attachment (of randomly generated characters for avoiding compression) was there.
In any case :

- I have kindly asked Martin, the sysop of HB9AK, for the logs;
- I will share a new example happened yesterday evening in the same good (or better) conditions
- I will try to read the code, as suggested by John

Thank-you very much for help
73, Ugo




Ugo Poddine
 

Hello John, developers,
 
Martin, the sysop of HB9AK, has shared the logs of this exchange.
I will attach consequently again my side logs and the same exchange log seen from the Swiss side.
HB9AK works on Windows and with BPQ32.
What I have remarked is that :
 
a) the SNR on the handshake frames is lower than the from my side. It can be possible because my power was about 40W PEP
b) [ARDOPprotocol.ComputeQualityAvg] seen from RMS side is surely higher than from my side and greater then the limit reported by John for trying a large BW frame exchange
 
You can see also a second attachment, from few days ago, with very good propagation conditions (59+20db from Israel, Austria and Finland, same band, same time, same TX and same antenna) : the situation seems to be the same. Better SNR seen from my side, low  [ARDOPprotocol.ComputeQualityAvg] from my side, high  [ARDOPprotocol.ComputeQualityAvg] seen from HB9AK side.
In both case 7KB of random chars as attachment.
This for common interest.
In any case, just for my personal knowledge, is the part of ARDOP that performs handshake and frame type choice, common also to the coming soon ARDOP2 ?
 
Thank-you for any suggestion
Best regards, 73
Ugo IU1IPB