Author Topic: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers  (Read 47673 times)

Admin

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #120 on: November 07, 2016, 02:00:58 pm »
Hi Ian,

Quote
Do you know how to capture the data from the mouse so that I can save the text, Hype! Terminal is not very good at long sessions?
I will then set up the test again and see if I can capture both streams for comparison

recommend you use 'Realterm', it can capture to a file


Actually Ian, would this be more useful ....
Code: [Select]
[quote](14:03:41) GPS-NMEA  : FLM-USB: $PFLAU,0,1,1,1,0,,0,,*63
(14:03:41) GPS-NMEA  : FLM-USB: $GPRMC,140342.00,A,5223.53299,N,00127.46231,W,0.214,,071116,,,A*61
(14:03:41) GPS-NMEA  : FLM-USB: $GPGGA,140342.00,5223.53299,N,00127.46231,W,1,08,0.90,73.5,M,47.4,M,,*7D
(14:03:41) NAV-TCP   : NAV_SKYDEMON
$GPGGA,140341,5223.533,N,00127.462,W,1,08,0.9,73.5,M,47.4,M,,*63
$GPGSA,A,3,22,09,19,17,31,03,06,01,02,00,00,00,1.92,0.86,1.72*01
$GPRMC,140341,A,5223.533,N,00127.462,W,0.000,0,071116,,,A*78
$PFLAA,0,-10720,-6698,6438,1,406B21!BAW6B,145,,189,-7.6,9*02
$PFLAA,0,-20681,3646,11231,1,4CA855!RYR86UM,133,,239,0.0,9*2E
$PFLAA,0,26283,-14569,7650,1,4D0103!CLX837,148,,275,-9.1,9*5B
$PFLAA,0,-34398,9217,5508,1,3C66A5!DLH9FM,161,,211,10.7,9*18
$PFLAA,0,43929,-20484,8313,1,406D8D!EZY2296,152,,256,-10.7,9*35
$PFLAU,0,1,1,1,0,,0,,*63[/quote]

I can let you have an Eng-beta release which will capture the RAW FLARM Data (FLM-USB) from the flarm mouse
and the data output over TCP to the Navi device as above ?

Thx
Lee
« Last Edit: November 07, 2016, 02:06:23 pm by Admin »

Paul_Sengupta

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #121 on: November 07, 2016, 02:09:39 pm »
Do you know how to capture the data from the mouse so that I can save the text, Hype! Terminal is not very good at long sessions?

PuTTY will also capture serial port stuff to a file.

Ian Melville

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #122 on: November 07, 2016, 09:24:24 pm »
Quite happy to run an engineering version. I can move it to a location with a good view of the sky.

IIRC I had an issue with RealTerm 2.0, cannot remember what it was :-[ PuTTY is worth a try.

exfirepro

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #123 on: November 12, 2016, 07:49:39 pm »
Hi All,

Just back from testing Lee's latest 'Engineering Beta' software. This now allows PAW to use its own GPS source (PilotAware Mouse in my case), with the FLARMMouse configured to supply 'FLARM Data Only', or if you prefer, to use FLARM to supply both GPS and FLARM Traffic Data.

This worked extremely well over 2 flights with gliders detected and displayed accurately on both flights and clear and effective audio alerts. As far as we are concerned, PAW/FLARM Integration is now 'good to go'!

A couple of today's screenshots attached.

Regards

Peter and AlanG
« Last Edit: November 12, 2016, 07:52:44 pm by exfirepro »

Richard

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #124 on: November 27, 2016, 09:41:25 pm »
Finally got to do some ground test of FLARM redbox today. Also by luck there was an aircraft with FLARM installed and in the air.

Just to report, with my (GIRPW) aircraft on the ground with PAW turned on and ADSB transponder turned off. The picture below was taken from my testing PAW from the club house. The picture shows my FLARM working at the top indicating 64ft which is correct for Sherburn, GSOBI was in the air and indicating  1225 ft from his FLARM and  1397ft from his mode CS. Which one is correct?

My test PAW is using the latest version, the one in the aircraft is using the FLARM engineering version for testing.
Richard.
Europa XS

Admin

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #125 on: November 29, 2016, 02:39:57 pm »
Finally got to do some ground test of FLARM redbox today. Also by luck there was an aircraft with FLARM installed and in the air.

Just to report, with my (GIRPW) aircraft on the ground with PAW turned on and ADSB transponder turned off. The picture below was taken from my testing PAW from the club house. The picture shows my FLARM working at the top indicating 64ft which is correct for Sherburn, GSOBI was in the air and indicating  1225 ft from his FLARM and  1397ft from his mode CS. Which one is correct?

My test PAW is using the latest version, the one in the aircraft is using the FLARM engineering version for testing.

Hi Richard,
(sorry for late reply)

There was a height issue we observed when Peter was doing his testing - I believe we fixed this, just looking back through my software commits and saw this comment
Quote
Fixed Relative height issue with Flarm-In, 11/Nov/16

but difficult to know whether you have this same version because you say
Quote
My test PAW is using the latest version, the one in the aircraft is using the FLARM engineering version for testing.
the engineering version is always moving (by definition), so depends when you took the download

the fact that the FLARM is reading 1225ft, sounds like it is the barometric rounded to 25ft increments, but not adjusted for your own pressure altitude, this sounds like the issue Peter reported which was fixed.


Thx
Lee

exfirepro

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #126 on: November 29, 2016, 03:58:00 pm »
Hi Guys,

I thought I must have missed this post first time round, but reading it now, I remember meaning to go back to it as I had initially read it on my phone and was somewhat confused as I couldn't make out the screengrab clearly. Much clearer now reading it on a big screen.

Firstly, the top two entries show PilotAware (PAW) signals not FLARM signals - the entry in the 'Mode' column is a 'P'. not an 'F' and the Squawk column for both clearly shows the default 'PAWGRP'.

Looking at the 2 entries for G-SOBI, they both have different Hex Addresses - the one for his Mode S transponder is correct for the aircraft, the PAW one looks like a system derived default - i.e. the hex address has not been set in the PAW configure screen - hence why you have two reports from the same aircraft.

So we have 2 entries for the same aircraft with differing altitudes - the PAW one (1225 feet) is GPS derived, whereas the Mode S one (1397 feet) is derived from the Barometric Sensor in the aircraft transponder and then compared with the barometric sensor on your PAW bridge. The difference (172 feet) would normally be due to known inaccuracies with GPS derived altitude compared to barometrically derived altitudes, though 172 feet appears to be a bigger difference than I would normally expect. It's possible that the barometric sensor in your colleague's plane is 'out' compared to the one in your test PAW, which would also account for this. The PAW (i.e.GPS) derived altitude of G-IRPW by the way is actually showing as -64, i.e. 64 feet below your test PAW in the club house. Would that be about right - seems a bit out to me. You can check your PAW barometric setting on the ground against the airfield reference pressure, provided both units are at the same actual altitude and you remember to check QNH against QNH, though looking at the entry for G-CGWD, which is reporting as 3 feet below your position in the clubhouse, I would suggest that your unit is probably about right on this occasion.

Regards

Peter

Admin

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #127 on: November 29, 2016, 04:24:06 pm »
Sorry Peter - you are right, I was reading an 'F' where it is in fact a 'P'
So there is NO Flarm detection here.
Only PilotAware and Mode-CS, (unless this is not the most upto date eng release)

in any case
G-IRPW/ PAW at relative -64ft
G-SOBI / PAW at relative +1225ft (GPS Comparison)
G-SOBI / ModeC at relative +1397ft (Barometric Comparison)

It would hae been good to know what PilotAware was reporting on the front page for its Barometric reading, and how that compared to the QNH on the day.

Thx
Lee

Richard

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #128 on: November 29, 2016, 06:29:19 pm »
Lee/Peter,
      Sorry for the contusion over the "P" & "F" I have just booked an appointment at the local opticians Results to follow......

All your comments have been noted. GSOBI fly's very regular I will try to repeat the situation and record more Info.

Lee, What is the best way to capture the data from my FLARM redbox when flying for looking at when landed to see if the info is being  received correctly to PAW? Currently two flights to known glide areas have not displayed any FLARM gliders so far but both days where not good gliding weather.
Richard.
Europa XS

exfirepro

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #129 on: November 29, 2016, 07:39:38 pm »
Richard,

Unlike PAW's 500 milliWatts, FLARM only transmits 10 milliWatts or so. This means that you need to be pretty close to receive them. Assuming perfect antenna positioning, I would expect to be within 2Km of a glider or less before it appears, though we have seen them further out but only in ideal conditions. I found the best thing was to fly parallel to a known glider soaring ridge, with the PAW traffic screen displayed and close the distance slowly. It's then reasonably easy to see when FLARM contacts appear as (like PAW ones) they usually appear at the top of the Traffic screen.

Hope this helps

Peter

« Last Edit: November 29, 2016, 07:52:45 pm by exfirepro »

Richard

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #130 on: November 29, 2016, 10:20:44 pm »
Peter
   Thank you. I don't want to fly too close to a know glider site but passing at safe distance. I will enquirer at our club to see if anyone has a FLARM device as a starting point. As for perfect antenna location, the supply FLARM antenna with the redbox is not Upto the job so I have now gone to an external under side mounted on a ground plane along side the PAW antenna see pic. All ready for some flight testing. The ground plane plate has replace the composite inspection cover so was easy to do without making any unnecessary holes for the antennas.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2016, 10:24:00 pm by Richard »
Richard.
Europa XS

exfirepro

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #131 on: November 29, 2016, 10:37:34 pm »
Hi Richard,

Looks like a really good antenna setup to me. Are you coming to Telford? I will be on the PAW stand, so can talk you through how to check your FLARM transmission pattern via OGN and Kisstech. You can access a plot of your radiation (and hence reception) pattern following cumulative test flights, though from what I see, I suspect your setup will show very positively just from looking at it.

FWIW, I made contact in advance with my local gliding clubs to let them know what I was doing, then as long as you make yourself obvious (strobes etc on),  don't sneak up on them and don't get in the way of their flight pattern -.which is usually pretty obvious if you observe for a bit before moving in close, the gliders will generally accept your presence. We even had several deliberately coming out off the ridge to fly round us. Remember you are transmitting FLARM so they should be able to see and follow you on their FLARM displays.

Regards

Peter

Richard

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #132 on: November 30, 2016, 08:28:19 am »
Peter
    Sadly work stops a trip to the show this year. Thank you for your offer. I will look into contacting the local glider club and see there response to to a test in there area. Lee talked about a bug with FLARM mouse in the GPS data passing to PAW. I have not notesed any problems with FLARM redbox supplying GPS data to PAW. How did you test for this?
« Last Edit: November 30, 2016, 11:29:16 am by Richard »
Richard.
Europa XS

exfirepro

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #133 on: November 30, 2016, 07:43:22 pm »
Richard,

The problem was intermittent GPS data coming through when the FlarmMouse was configured to supply GPS to PilotAware. It originally manifested itself as inability to obtain a GPS lock on PAW and on that first occasion we had to abort the FLARM test and plug the PAW GPS back in instead. AlanG did the initial work afterwards, going through the PAW track log where he found that the FLARM $GPGGA GPS sentences were received every second for 5 seconds, then completely missing for the next 15 seconds before coming back again for 5 and so on repeating on a 20 second cycle. Lee sent my logs off to LX Nav in Slovenia to see if they could provide any explanation, but I don't know if he has got anything back from them yet.

Lee subsequently revised the engineering test software to allow either a standard PAW GPS to be used, with FLARM configured to provide FLARM data only, or FLARM configured to provide both GPS and FLARM data. I have had no problems on several flights since.

Regards

Peter
« Last Edit: November 30, 2016, 10:40:28 pm by exfirepro »

ianfallon

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #134 on: December 06, 2016, 11:52:45 am »
Anyone got any idea where to buy a FLARM mouse at a reasonable price ?
I can only find one place online selling them for £643 not £450.

Good job the GPS dongle can be removed as we've run out of USB ports (if you have ADS-OUT)  :)