Another vendor in Illinois and I are in the process of linking our IDAS systems (both VHF and UHF) together. Currently i have 2 UHF sites and a VHF site in place, with plans of more to come soon. All sites are 200- 500 ft towers in the central part of Illinois, where it is flat as can be.I am averaging 35 miles of portable operation and 60+ miles on mobiles, on each site. So its been successful in covering a good territory with minimal equipment layout. I am looking at adding a phone patch to the system by using a majicjack and a Zetron Worldpatch. Has anyone tried this or something close? I am curious to see what anyone else has tried. The technololgy available to us today in awesome. I have even been interested in some of the capabilities of inneroperability with smart phones into the system. Anyone tried this? Ive heard of an app called iWalkie. Anyone tried it?
-
To anyone looking to acquire commercial radio programming software:
Please do not make requests for copies of radio programming software which is sold (or was sold) by the manufacturer for any monetary value. All requests will be deleted and a forum infraction issued. Making a request such as this is attempting to engage in software piracy and this forum cannot be involved or associated with this activity. The same goes for any private transaction via Private Message. Even if you attempt to engage in this activity in PM's we will still enforce the forum rules. Your PM's are not private and the administration has the right to read them if there's a hint to criminal activity.
If you are having trouble legally obtaining software please state so. We do not want any hurt feelings when your vague post is mistaken for a free request. It is YOUR responsibility to properly word your request.
To obtain Motorola software see the Sticky in the Motorola forum.
The various other vendors often permit their dealers to sell the software online (i.e., Kenwood). Please use Google or some other search engine to find a dealer that sells the software. Typically each series or individual radio requires its own software package. Often the Kenwood software is less than $100 so don't be a cheapskate; just purchase it.
For M/A Com/Harris/GE, etc: there are two software packages that program all current and past radios. One package is for conventional programming and the other for trunked programming. The trunked package is in upwards of $2,500. The conventional package is more reasonable though is still several hundred dollars. The benefit is you do not need multiple versions for each radio (unlike Motorola).
This is a large and very visible forum. We cannot jeopardize the ability to provide the RadioReference services by allowing this activity to occur. Please respect this.
Any iDAS users out there?
- Thread starter n1das
- Start date
- Status
justin67735
Member
IDAS GPS
What base software are people using for IDAS GPS and how do you like it. Thank you. Justin
What base software are people using for IDAS GPS and how do you like it. Thank you. Justin
Now that there's been a lot of hours logged on the iDas systems that I've been involved in, I'm seeing a lot more than I did before.
Initial impressions are one thing, but long term observation has pointed out the weak points of the system as well.
Here's a brief version of my gripe list:
The F3161/4161 radios are rather fragile. The LCD display driver chips, which are embedded in the display flex, are easily broken if the radio falls face first onto anything harder than a carpeted floor. LCD displays also break. They're one assembly so if either the display or driver IC breaks, you replace the whole assembly.
I see a lot of radios with dented internal shields from being dropped.
I've seen way too many RF PA amp failures for the number of radios deployed and the time they've been in the field.
I've seen ceramic filter issues on a frequent basis, resulting in RX sensitivity problems.
I've seen radios that drift out of alignment, in terms of frequency stability and digital and analog modulation parameters. I can detect digital modulation alignment issues very easily using my
R&S FSIQ spectrum analyzer with vector signal analysis option. This allows me to determine
modulation parameter and frequency errors more easily than with any idas enabled service monitor
I've yet been able to work with. I do have some limitations with the FSIQ but it has certain very
real analysis advantages, too.
Icom's frequency stability specifications are a load of bull. The radios are MUCH less tolerant of
frequency errors (in digital mode) than Icom specifies. This is a 4FSK modulation scheme with the four deviation target frequencies just 700 Hz apart. Even from a theoretical standpoint, no two radios should ever be as much as 350 Hz apart or you start getting into decoder uncertainty.
That means one radio must be less than 175 Hz low and the other must be less than 175 Hz high.
In actual practice, I'm seeing bit error rates climbing at total frequency errors of under 250 Hz.
That reduces the per-radio allowable error to under 125 Hz.
Icom specs 1 PPM frequency stability. In a UHF system that's a 460 Hz error at 460 MHz.
It won't even WORK with a 460 Hz error.
The reference oscillator adjustment is pretty coarse. The steps are about 80 Hz wide. Way too coarse.
The radios recover clean audio down to about -120 dBm IF the radios are connected via attenuators and cables. If the radios are taking over the air. antenna to antenna, the usable lower limit is only -105 dBm . That 15 dB discrepancy is HUGE.
Icom has committed huge planning errors by failing to include a 10 MHz reference frequency input
on the repeaters. This is essential for slaving all repeaters at one site to a GPS master clock,
so as to avoid frequency drift and associated problems on the part of the repeaters.
Icom has not thought to include any internal provisions for telephone interconnect with the FR5/6K repeaters, not in analog mode, and not in digital mode. Idas doesn't even support an interconnect feature. Big mistake.
Nor have they included any provisions for incorporating a voice logger system into idas. The only way to do it on a multi-channel system is by brute force: Set up one monitoring radio for each talkgroup being used, and route its audio output to a voice logging recorder. That's pretty hairy when you're looking at a system with 35 talkgroups!
My considered opinion of this system is that it is not well thought out, certainly does not represent what I describe as "a complete thought", it has had many issues that have been addressed to various levels by many firmware releases, many of which exist only to fix bugs, the subscriber equipment is rather fragile and rather unstable, and in general I say that it's just not that good a
system nor is it ready for deployment as of yet.
I would NOT recommend it for public safety usage under any imaginable conditions.,
It has potential, as a system for commercial applications, but even then, there are so many issues that need to be addressed that I think it can't be fixed to MY standards using the current generation of available repeaters and radios.
No, sir, I don't like it.
That's my honest opinion based on (now) a couple year's worth of hands-on experience with both
the system and the equipment, in every phase of system deployment from initial planning to actual
deployment to problem discovery and resolution to having many failed radios come across my bench for repair and realignment.
Initial impressions are one thing, but long term observation has pointed out the weak points of the system as well.
Here's a brief version of my gripe list:
The F3161/4161 radios are rather fragile. The LCD display driver chips, which are embedded in the display flex, are easily broken if the radio falls face first onto anything harder than a carpeted floor. LCD displays also break. They're one assembly so if either the display or driver IC breaks, you replace the whole assembly.
I see a lot of radios with dented internal shields from being dropped.
I've seen way too many RF PA amp failures for the number of radios deployed and the time they've been in the field.
I've seen ceramic filter issues on a frequent basis, resulting in RX sensitivity problems.
I've seen radios that drift out of alignment, in terms of frequency stability and digital and analog modulation parameters. I can detect digital modulation alignment issues very easily using my
R&S FSIQ spectrum analyzer with vector signal analysis option. This allows me to determine
modulation parameter and frequency errors more easily than with any idas enabled service monitor
I've yet been able to work with. I do have some limitations with the FSIQ but it has certain very
real analysis advantages, too.
Icom's frequency stability specifications are a load of bull. The radios are MUCH less tolerant of
frequency errors (in digital mode) than Icom specifies. This is a 4FSK modulation scheme with the four deviation target frequencies just 700 Hz apart. Even from a theoretical standpoint, no two radios should ever be as much as 350 Hz apart or you start getting into decoder uncertainty.
That means one radio must be less than 175 Hz low and the other must be less than 175 Hz high.
In actual practice, I'm seeing bit error rates climbing at total frequency errors of under 250 Hz.
That reduces the per-radio allowable error to under 125 Hz.
Icom specs 1 PPM frequency stability. In a UHF system that's a 460 Hz error at 460 MHz.
It won't even WORK with a 460 Hz error.
The reference oscillator adjustment is pretty coarse. The steps are about 80 Hz wide. Way too coarse.
The radios recover clean audio down to about -120 dBm IF the radios are connected via attenuators and cables. If the radios are taking over the air. antenna to antenna, the usable lower limit is only -105 dBm . That 15 dB discrepancy is HUGE.
Icom has committed huge planning errors by failing to include a 10 MHz reference frequency input
on the repeaters. This is essential for slaving all repeaters at one site to a GPS master clock,
so as to avoid frequency drift and associated problems on the part of the repeaters.
Icom has not thought to include any internal provisions for telephone interconnect with the FR5/6K repeaters, not in analog mode, and not in digital mode. Idas doesn't even support an interconnect feature. Big mistake.
Nor have they included any provisions for incorporating a voice logger system into idas. The only way to do it on a multi-channel system is by brute force: Set up one monitoring radio for each talkgroup being used, and route its audio output to a voice logging recorder. That's pretty hairy when you're looking at a system with 35 talkgroups!
My considered opinion of this system is that it is not well thought out, certainly does not represent what I describe as "a complete thought", it has had many issues that have been addressed to various levels by many firmware releases, many of which exist only to fix bugs, the subscriber equipment is rather fragile and rather unstable, and in general I say that it's just not that good a
system nor is it ready for deployment as of yet.
I would NOT recommend it for public safety usage under any imaginable conditions.,
It has potential, as a system for commercial applications, but even then, there are so many issues that need to be addressed that I think it can't be fixed to MY standards using the current generation of available repeaters and radios.
No, sir, I don't like it.
That's my honest opinion based on (now) a couple year's worth of hands-on experience with both
the system and the equipment, in every phase of system deployment from initial planning to actual
deployment to problem discovery and resolution to having many failed radios come across my bench for repair and realignment.
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
Elroy, this is a great write-up.
From what I have heard from Kenwood NexEDGE systems rolled out in similar topology, Icom clearly just threw iDAS out there.
Kenwood seems to be polishing and perfecting NexEDGE, while iDAS is stagnant.
I personally have never cared for their subscriber radios, the F70/F80 left a bad taste in my mouth. Getting firmware updates for Icom P25 radios is worse than Solutions. I have an F1821 sitting on my desk that doesn't even do MDC, and I've called Icom support and they keep referring me to Bearcomm, who I wouldn't trust with a roll of my used toilet paper.
Anyway, glad to hear a good honest write up from a system manager. (Been a long running joke about Icom's in the ham community that Icom is an acronym that equates to I Can Only Monitor)
From what I have heard from Kenwood NexEDGE systems rolled out in similar topology, Icom clearly just threw iDAS out there.
Kenwood seems to be polishing and perfecting NexEDGE, while iDAS is stagnant.
I personally have never cared for their subscriber radios, the F70/F80 left a bad taste in my mouth. Getting firmware updates for Icom P25 radios is worse than Solutions. I have an F1821 sitting on my desk that doesn't even do MDC, and I've called Icom support and they keep referring me to Bearcomm, who I wouldn't trust with a roll of my used toilet paper.
Anyway, glad to hear a good honest write up from a system manager. (Been a long running joke about Icom's in the ham community that Icom is an acronym that equates to I Can Only Monitor)
rapidcharger
Member
Elroy,
How would you say that compares to Nexedge radios and MotoTRBO radios?
How would you say that compares to Nexedge radios and MotoTRBO radios?
I have no direct basis for comparison between Nexedge and MotoTRBO. I have no TRBO experience at all.
rapidcharger
Member
Ok thanks.
The reason I ask is because after reading your observations would be ready to throw their icoms out with the bathwater. MTS2000DES himself likes to give me an earful about my I.Can.Only.Monitors and I have 3 IDAS radios. I also have Kenwoods and an XPR and I could tell you just from my experience that I've had problems like you've described with the others as well. You have to be careful how you drop an XPR too and I've required warranty service on my kenwood portables and accessories too. I used to be a real big kenwood fan but frankly I wouldn't rush to buy another kenwood anymore. I'm in no way trying to invalidate your post.... I'm just sayin.
My experience-based criticism of one format, implementation, or brand should not be construed to be an endorsement or condemnation of any OTHER format, implementation, or brand.
At this point I don't have enough Kenwood/Nexedge experience to render any significant relevant comparisons, other than noting that in basic testing I found the audio quality of an NX-300 to be dramatically superior to that of the Icom F3161D. Other than that I don't have a comparative opinion to offer.
Even Motorola screws up. They put out some radios with their name on them that are an embarrassment to Motorola. (Ahem...BPR40.) I've seen HYT/Hytera radios that are much better than
that particular kind of radio.
No brand is perfect, no brand is always best, no brand is always worst.
At this point I don't have enough Kenwood/Nexedge experience to render any significant relevant comparisons, other than noting that in basic testing I found the audio quality of an NX-300 to be dramatically superior to that of the Icom F3161D. Other than that I don't have a comparative opinion to offer.
Even Motorola screws up. They put out some radios with their name on them that are an embarrassment to Motorola. (Ahem...BPR40.) I've seen HYT/Hytera radios that are much better than
that particular kind of radio.
No brand is perfect, no brand is always best, no brand is always worst.
Vizwar
Member
Not saying your concerns aren't valid, but I'm pretty sure a lot of the service bulletins over the last two years will help you out. Our shop saw some of these things too, like the antenna to antenna issues you talked about for example are resolved with a little flux remover. I guess am early run of the radios left Japan with excess flux preventing a proper ground contact when the case was closed.
- Status
Similar threads
