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: 23, Visits: 52
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
pilot-byom
p
Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)Too Much Forum (3.1K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 323, Visits: 388
My personal opinion: for now (!) separating just ICAO from non-ICAO targets is ok and necessary and 'good enough', as this is the least common data separation all the different protocols will deliver. Flarm is just another protocol of questionable long turn relevance and yes, there are some nice functions in it, but they are no common features for all protocols. As Skydemon takes the leanest feasible way, I am ok with holding back expenses to implement software features 'because they are 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