RF Board Progress

[Richard]

Is there any update on the progress of a solution to the RF Board or has this now stalled?
Has an alternative been found and currently been tested.

[Admin]

Hi Richard
Investigations are actively underway, the software is being ported to two potential candidates, once there is something to report, I will post something.
Dont confuse silence for inaction, a lot of work is ongoing behind the scenes   

Thx
Lee

[Richard]

Lee,
  Thank you for the update. I Did not mean to offend sorry. I was just curious.

[Admin]

Lee,
  Thank you for the update. I Did not mean to offend sorry. I was just curious.

No problem 

[IainM]

I don't know a lot about the hardware available and what open standards there are in this type of application, but is there a possibility of selecting a generic type that has multiple suppliers, in the same way as the TV dongle where there are multiple suppliers using the same chipset.

Being tied into a proprietary type available from only one supplier looks like it could make the PAW project a bit of a hostage to events.

[JCurtis]

I don't know a lot about the hardware available and what open standards there are in this type of application, but is there a possibility of selecting a generic type that has multiple suppliers, in the same way as the TV dongle where there are multiple suppliers using the same chipset.

Being tied into a proprietary type available from only one supplier looks like it could make the PAW project a bit of a hostage to events.

There is some competition within the packet radio market, and the various chipsets don't play well together.  To get ease of integration with the Pi then a module is the way to go, if you want to roll your own hardware then anything is possible.  There are few generic solutions as underneath they are all based on one chipset or another handling the packet radio element.  The ARF is based on Texas Instrument, F***M uses an NXP set, none of these chipsets were designed to integrate.  Receiving is easy with the likes of the Software Defined Radios (aka the TV dongle) whilst transmittiing is another ballgame and requires some care to get right.

The majority of the really good radio hardware modules would require mounting to be of use to PAW, as the professional modules are designed to be designed into systems.  I suspect that once Lee settles on a radio sub-system he will offer it via the impending webshop on a suitable shield for the Pi.  What is key is what ever the solution is it has to be a high quality unit to get reliable performance, which for me would mean a certified module from one of the big players.  This also has the benefit of production assurance.

I was quoted recently for a fully certified packet radio module in quantities of 10, 100, and 1000 units so availability wouldn't be an issue.  Even the per 10 price was within a few pounds of the ARF so quality modules are available at very competitive price points.  Such suppliers make huge numbers of modules, for worldwide markets, so the risk is low of there being issues for the foreseeable future.

[IainM]

Interesting stuff.  So no compatibility across different hardware even with the right software.  Wonder how many people have bought the ARF module though, might dent confidence in the whole thing if a lot of these are suddenly no good after all the effort being invested in airborne testing, etc. 

[brinzlee]

Just reading an article in Aircraft Owner & Pilot.....talking about Project Eva and a collaboration between AOPA, NATS, Funke Avionics and Trig Avionics and there development of a similar unit to the PAW.....Just a little concerned that if this goes ahead and with FLARM there are too many units starting to appear and no uniformity. This will further fragment the cohesive nature of what we are trying to achieve....Different aircraft will be surely transmitting with different protocols and probably frequencies making it all very messy....

[Mig29fuk]

Lots of ideas and pre-thinking have to be abandoned when going from rough sketch to a Unit that may or may not perform.
I for one have enjoyed the whole process so far and to be brutally honest, the expenditure has been very little and the project feels to me to be moving forward.
I have two Units, both working albeit PAW performance not there yet. If we have to replace ARF....so be it.
For me confidence is increased by the simple number of take ups.
Lee and Team. Keep going!

[Richard]

I have a feeling that the frequencies will remain the same, but what may happen is that they encrypt there system so you have to buy like for like (F***M for example) If PAW stays open protocol at a great price to build your own, it will win above the rest.

[brinzlee]

Don't get me wrong I love the project too....I have built eleven to date.....Three with ARF's and the rest just ADS-B, I think its been a learning curve too...
The only downside is investing over £300 in ARF's to be possibly be ditched is not so palatable...I guess that's R&D though..
As I said, just worried by the dilution of take up from Project Eva and its big backers and different protocols !!

[JCurtis]

Just reading an article in Aircraft Owner & Pilot.....talking about Project Eva and a collaboration between AOPA, NATS, Funke Avionics and Trig Avionics and there development of a similar unit to the PAW.....Just a little concerned that if this goes ahead and with FLARM there are too many units starting to appear and no uniformity. This will further fragment the cohesive nature of what we are trying to achieve....Different aircraft will be surely transmitting with different protocols and probably frequencies making it all very messy....

There is a common format to broadcast this information, which as ADS-B, that is the worldwide standard.  However it requires some expensive gear to be able to handle it in a compatible way with all the other infrastructure.  Project Eva (Electronic Visibility via ADS-B) is based around ADS-B, and how to make that more accessible with more affordable equipment.

As fas as I know there is only one other 'broadcast' protocol for local traffic awareness, which is FLARM, and that is encrypted.  What PAW via the P3i protocol archives is the ability to have a free and open protocol for local traffic awareness.  The PAW box implements this protocol, others may also decide to support P3i as being an open protocol anyone can join in.  It is this openness that should encourage adoption for the benefit of all, at a more affordable price point than the closed FLARM system.

Anything where a fair chunk of development is out in the open will have hurdles to overcome.  What is really good is that with the testing to date issues are being identified quickly, looked into, and Lee and his team are not afraid to take a step back and re-think such a key element.  Congratulations to them for doing that, all too often people will push on and just make things worse for all in the longer term. 

[brinzlee]

Onwards and upwards then...!!! Lets hope the "other guys" see sense in safety and not $$$

[Admin]

Just reading an article in Aircraft Owner & Pilot.....talking about Project Eva and a collaboration between AOPA, NATS, Funke Avionics and Trig Avionics and there development of a similar unit to the PAW.....Just a little concerned that if this goes ahead and with FLARM there are too many units starting to appear and no uniformity. This will further fragment the cohesive nature of what we are trying to achieve....Different aircraft will be surely transmitting with different protocols and probably frequencies making it all very messy....

Hi Brinsley
Can you provide a reference to the article ?
Thx
Lee

Edit.
Are you referring to LPAT ?

[carlp]

Is this the article?

http://www.nats.aero/projecteva/

Carl