ARC 396/246/etc software limitation of 200 channels per group (conventional)

[brianfoy]

Gommert,

A question about your software that you could answer for us all if you please:

Q. Why does your ARC software have a limitation of 200 channels per group (conventional) while no such limitation exists in either the scanner itself or the alternate Uniden software? Also, will this artificial limit be removed in future releases?

Why do we ask?

1. Some of us would prefer to NOT have to break up our conventional systems into groups of 200.

2. Clearly Uniden's UASD software allows users to create more then 200 channels per group (conventional).

3. Clearly your ARC software does not allow users to create more then 200 channels per group (conventional).

4. So it appears an ARC only limitation (that being, one that exists in your software and not in the scanner itself) exists and there seems to be some wondering at this stage (See Yahoo 396T group thread "ARC 396 Pro Question") as to why you chose to place an artificial limitation on your software when you did not have to, and perhaps more importantly, will the attention that this issue is getting be a catalyst for you removing this artificial limitation in a future release.

Thanks ahead for the answer,

PS. I'm very interested in what you have to say as I own your ARC 246 which suffers from this ARC only limitation.

Brian.

 

[wolter]

Have you tried contacting him directly?

 

[brianfoy]

Hey Wolter,

Since this topic is obviously of interest to others besides me, I figured a public thread would be better then an IM so that everyone can get the answer at once

I have however sent him an IM letting him knows this support request is up for him to answer. Hopefully next time he checks in he will answer in this thread clear this up for us all.

Brian.

 

[NWTSCL]

Since this topic is obviously of interest to others besides me, I figured a public thread would be better.

If you dislike its operation, too bad you didn't test its demo well enough.

If so many people are that concerned about it, why aren't they asking? Better yet, why do you feel that you must do it for them? Let them ask for themselves and stop being their superhero.

But this isn't really what is behind your question, is it? No, you've had a beef with Gommert for some time and you've publicized it very openly. This is easily found with any search engine.
http://www.radioreference.com/forums/showthread.php?p=297141#post297141

You even changed your own 396 software because of your quarrel. "My original goal was to release it to all of you at a very reasonable price, $5, something like that... but after that comment from GB of Butel... Perhaps now I'll just release it for free." Tell us, why doesn't your software program ANYTHING--let alone have a 200 system limit?

Take your stupid quarrels elsewhere. Stop subjecting us to them and stop trying to publicl humiliate Butel. Its very childish.

 

[brianfoy]

But this isn't really what is behind your question, is it? No, you've had a beef with Gommert for some time

I grow tired of trying to give you personally full out responses and explanation of what's what so lets try this summery style instead:

I've explained to you quite clearly (and at length) in IM that:

1) You are wrong about Butel and I.

2) Hurting Butel is not a reason the software is free. A comment by a Butel employee was the catalyst that caused me to ultimately change my mind and release it for free. Anyone could have made that comment (substitute the Butel name for anyone else and it reads exactly the same), so the only one who made this about Butel was Butel. That is the last time I'm explaining that to you, so I hope you get it this time.

People were debating this topic on the Yahoo 396T group thread "ARC 396 Pro Question" on the day I started this thread. I brought the discussion here not because I was trying to be a superhero but because that discussion got me thinking "hey, I bought that software, and I too wonder why it is that like that, and will it ever be fixed?". It's a valid software support question, I tried to ask it in a way I felt would help others, that is all.

You personally need to find something better to do with your time, I know, try creating some free software that benefits the scanning community, it's fun!

In any event, If you have something to say to me, IM me. Posting any more off topic replies to this thread will result in your being reported to RR as a nuisance.

Brian

 

[wolter]

People were debating this topic on the Yahoo 396T group thread "ARC 396 Pro Question" on the day I started this thread. I brought the discussion here not because I was trying to be a superhero but because that discussion got me thinking "hey, I bought that software, and I too wonder why it is that like that, and will it ever be fixed?". It's a valid software support question, I tried to ask it in a way I felt would help others, that is all.

I don't understand. Gommert also belongs to that Yahoo group and I'm sure he's seen the messages. Why start another thread about it if so many other people are already discussing it? What good does it do?

I have however sent him an IM letting him knows this support request is up for him to answer.

Has he answered? I'm guessing that he's tired of addressing it.

 

[brianfoy]

I don't understand. Gommert also belongs to that Yahoo group and I'm sure he's seen the messages. Why start another thread about it if so many other people are already discussing it? What good does it do?

As for the here vs Yahoo group thing... I could have posted it either place, I just think this interface is better and I know he looks in both places so it was more of a why not.

In that thread he answered technical questions about "what" the software does, but I didn't seen him address the "why" it does what it does and the "if it will be changed/fixed". That's why when I asked here, I asked specific questions to get specific answers so there was no confusion or ambiguity (like there seemed to be in the yahoo group).

Has he answered? I'm guessing that he's tired of addressing it.

If you can point me to a place where he addressed why he chose to make it that way and weather or not it will be changed/fixed in the future please do. I've personalty never seen him address either of those two questions (or I wouldn't have asked). No, my guess is, it's more of a personal thing as to why he is not answering me specifically, so I've given up on seeing answers in this thread. I have learned something though, thanks to the harassment I'm getting from someone less cordial then yourself, next time I need an answer about any Butel software I will just have a friend ask instead.

200 or so other people viewed this thread, maybe one them will be curious enough to ask again themselves and see if they get anywhere.

In the end, it's just a software support question, I don't care who gets the answers, I just would like to see the answers

Brian.

 

[wolter]

My apologies. I didn't mean to offend you. But I don't understand the reason behind the extreme concern.

The limit doesn't cause the software to be "broken". Butel decided to implement it for whatever reason, and it doesn't really matter why. Why did Uniden start the whole 200 limit thing in the first place? Because they chose to. They chose to because the 396's processor (or whatever powers it) cannot handle a larger number well. Why'd they chose the processor? Because they chose to -- probably to save money -- but they chose to. This 200 TG limit causes more problems than the 200 conventional limit by wasting a larger amount of memory. But its Uniden's design -- a design we didn't know about until the radio was released. Butel advertised the limit from day one with the demo release. And it isn't like you cannot work around Butel's limit as you cannot with Uniden's. Uniden's is embeded in the firmware.

Point being: Butel knows about the limit. They made it very obvious from the get go, so no one has a real claim of concern. I, perosnally, don't care about it. I'll never need more than 200 channels per conventional system, much like I'll never need more than 200 talkgroups. I'll live.

 

[TedTed]

I'll never need more than 200 channels per conventional system, much like I'll never need more than 200 talkgroups. I'll live.

ARC limit is 200 conv. channels per group, so you can only program 4000 channels per conv. system...

 

[wolter]

ARC limit is 200 conv. channels per group, so you can only program 4000 channels per conv. system...

Wow! So, that's 20 times more than I thought. I have no idea when I'll ever need more than 4000 channels in a system. I don't think the 396's processer will perform well when trying to scan so many channels, especially if Uniden says it can't handle more than 200 TGs well.

 

[UPMan]

I don't think the 396's processer will perform well when trying to scan so many channels, especially if Uniden says it can't handle 200 TGs well.

Not sure where you read that. It handles 200 TGs quite well.

In any case, you cannot compare trunked scanning to conventional scanning in this regard. They are quite different.

With trunked scanning, the scanner sits on a single frequency decoding the control data and comparing active talk groups to those you've stored in the scanner's channels.

With conventional, it steps through multiple frequencies very rapidly checking to see if there is enough signal present to open the carrier.

 

[wolter]

Just a quick clarification for UPMan, then let's get back to the real subject.

Not sure where you read that. It handles 200 TGs quite well.

How would it handle more than 200 talkgroups if it didn't have the limit? Could it chew on 4000 very well?

In any case, you cannot compare trunked scanning to conventional scanning in this regard. They are quite different.

But it is fair to talk about their speed. Both conventional and trunked scan speed are limited by the processor. It will take the scanner a long time to scan through 4000 frequencies, won't it? Speed is why you limited the scanner to just 200 talkgroups per system. That's what I was talking about.

But, this is wandering off the topic of the thread. Sorry.

 

[UPMan]

If it was designed to handle more than 200 trunked talkgroup channels it would take just as long as it does now for 200 channels, and this would be a function of the speed and frequency of the data appearing on the control channel...a factor that is entirely outside of the scanner itself.

Practical point: The BCD996T handles 256 TGID's. It doesn't spend 25% more time on each trunked system than the BCD396T...in fact it spends the same amount of time.

Conventional scan speed is primarily a function of how quickly the scanner can retune and discriminate whether a signal is present on a newly tuned frequency. Most of this is resolved entirely outside of the processor.

Speed comparisons between the two modes are completely meaningless.

 

[wolter]

Paul, this thread is about ARC396 & 246. If you wish to discuss your scanners, you should start a new thread for them instead of hijacking this one.

 

[brianfoy]

My apologies. I didn't mean to offend you. But I don't understand the reason behind the extreme concern.

No offence taken. "Extreme concern" is a little, well, extreme. It's just a couple of questions.

If we don't ask for new features or complain (politely) about the ones that don't work the way we want, they will likely never be added or changed. Yet, clearly there is no point in asking for features which are never going to be implemented. So the "why" part becomes critical to the discussion. Knowing the reasoning behind the unnecessary limit will help in determining if unsatisfied customers should press the issue of removing it. If the answer is because "I can't change it", then we can stop asking. However, if it is because "I don't know how to change it", "I needed to get it out fast" or "I took a shortcut and just made everything 200", then customers who paid for the software (like me) should ask for the software to be modified so that it at least handles what the radio can handle.

Heck, I read the manual, I knew the features up front, I even beta tested the software (being one of the ones who pre ordered). That does not mean once you pay you go quietly into the night and never speak of it's features again. If you bought software that limits you for no apparent reason, the day the limit gets in your way, or preferably the day before, it makes sense to speak up and ask "why". If the answer is anything other then a flat out "I can't", then it's probably a good time to make a request that the software be changed to do something very reasonable, match the capabilities of the radio.

Brian.