- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 1,018
ok thank you
I know it is still the early stages of system
Is 10104 going to be placed in database ?
Is it also OC DES 911
Orange County P25 Trunked System on the air.....
- Thread starter APX8000
- Start date
- Status
I know it is still the early stages of system
Is 10104 going to be placed in database ?
Is it also OC DES 911
Most accurate coverage testing, especially when comparing two systems (and in this case analog vs. digital) starts with properly aligned equipment and "bench marks" of the receive sensitivity of that equipment. Unfortunately, I don't have access to an EDACS radio so I can't measure it, but I've seen some APX HT's go down to -127dbm!
I'm curious what your bench marks were before you went out and did the testing / comparison? When you say "no bars" I'm assuming you mean the ambiguous receive signal meter on the subscriber. For me, I would much rather hear the exact measurements that were seen to really get a good idea as to how good or bad the signal actually is.
I manage a system very similar to the Orange County system. I also have a personal problem with accepting nothing less than perfection when it comes to public safety communications. Unfortunately, perfection is not easy to do especially when working for a State or County entity. I put my system on the air knowing (not happily, hands tied) that certain in building coverage was going to be an issue. Fortunately, while there ARE in building dead spots, I was pleasantly surprised that it works better than I anticipated. Why? Because that APX receiver is as hot as a structure fire and receives very well into the noise. However, (for me anyway) I'm still looking for funding all of the time to add in building enhancements which have shown to be very effective.
I believe (I hope so anyway) that the Orange County system will evolve and get better too, if necessary as time goes on. At least the radio will let you know when it's out of coverage....which is certainly better than not knowing and assuming that you're being heard. By the way, does EDACS do that? I've actually never had any experience with that type of system or that type of Subscriber?
Anyway, if you do have some signal level readings (in dbm), I'd love to have them. That would be very helpful in identifying a major coverage issue that might be able to be addressed with little to no cost (like an antenna pattern change) before an entity fully cuts over. By the way, I say this with no authority or having any say in that particular system as I'm not affiliated at all with Orange County.
Last edited:
APX8000
Sarcastic Member
In an effort to be transparent, the first device used was a Unication G5 programmed three different ways. 1). System ALL which includes the control and alternate controls for both sites with the RFSS and Site for both North and South; 2). North individually; and 3). South individually. System ALL allows for the G5 to roam between sites. However, the Unication will roam differently than an APX. The Unication will lock on to a site based on the initial RSSI meeting a certain threshold. It will then hold that site until BER rises above a certain threshold, then scroll CC's looking for another one that meets the RSSI threshold. So once the G5 locks a site, it holds it based on BER. It does not contantly sample RSSI of other sites and will usually hold a site a little longer than the APX, which is constantly sampling RSSI. This is why I also programmed each site individually. If the site is OOR, the G5 will display an OOR indication similar to an APX. I’ve used the G5 side by side with my APX6000 and 8000’s. The G5 always had the factory stub antenna and the APX’s have the Motorola OEM stubby. The G5 is on par with my APX, both in coverage, in site acquisition and site roaming to about the 90th percentile. As mentioned above, because the G5 holds a site based on BER, I’ve seen it hold a site a little longer than the APX, but not by much. This has been tested on numerous systems I have subscribers on.
Since I don’t have a subscriber on Orange until they are rolled out to the agencies I’m affiliated with...to be fair, I also had an APX6000 programmed RX only conventionally, with the CC frequency for North and South as their own conventional channels and Conventional RSSI Display enabled in CPS. This way I can park on either control channel and constantly monitor the RSSI with the channel selector. And no need to poll RSSI as I can just watch it change as I drive around ! While the G5 does have a diagnostics feature, I was driving so I’m basing my test results simply on RSSI and when I received an OOR from the G5. I did not take notes, this was simply me being the curious soul that I am and always looking for ways to make things better.
Using Smartzone RSSI Thresholds as Acceptable (34-54), Good (40-64), Very Good (46-70) and Excellent (77 and above), there were definitely areas that I was only getting acceptable readings. This is in a vehicle driving around with the units sitting in the cup holders or stationary in parking lots. I’m also limiting this post to mostly the south / east parts of the County. There were areas I got OOR, but that was mostly when I walked in-building. As I said, for on-street portable coverage this will be better that what we have. But I truly believe in-building will be lacking in areas as I drove around various towns monitoring the RSSI on the screen. With the roll-out around the corner, I'm sure the reports will come in as people expect the world. But in all honestly, you and I know that the system was designed for on the street portable coverage.
As examples, I was at TJMaxx in Harriman. I had no signal on North and RSSI of about 35 on south in the parking lot. I was literally getting Rockland at the same RSSI at the same spot. As soon as I walked inside I went OOR on the G5. So my first argument is the loss of Arden is going to leave a noticeable hole in coverage. I also saw this inside the Woodbury Commons. Yes, not designed for in-building coverage. BUT, these are areas where there are large concentrations of people at one time. In this day and age, we obviously want first responders to have the coverage needed in areas of higher concern. From what I'm seeing, I can bet up on Route 6 and 293 there are going to be issues. I posted my recommendation previously of where an alternate site could provide the coverage to fill in this gap previously.
The same was seen inside buildings at Stewart Airport. While by the window, RSSI of 57 on south and 61 on North. Looking at the G5, it actually preferred south most of the time but bounced back and forth a bit. As I moved interior to hallways, significant drop in RSSI. I’d be testing talk-in from the interior of the hotels, terminal, etc. With the Las Vegas hotel shooting, school shootings, mall shootings, etc., this is where we want our portables to work ! I should have been slammed at Stewart by Beacon, Cronomer and Schunnemunk. I just didn’t see it. Outside sure, but inside, eh.
As far as roaming, for the most part, it preferred south for Cornwall, New Windsor, Blooming Grove and Woodbury as expected. Town of Newburgh it was bouncing all over the place between North and South, obviously due to Cronomer and Beacon being on different sites. Cronomer would pull it to North, but Beacon back to south. Same for sections of New Windsor…300 and 17K, I was slammed on North (heck I’m looking at Cronomer), but as I drove down 300 to 207, it would switch over to south, most likely from Beacon and Schunnemunk a bit. I would think Cronomer would have held it longer.
For Cornwall…the section of Route 32 south from 107 I actually had a better signal on North. Beacon is a bit shadowed along that stretch and the site on Schunnemunk ridge doesn’t get down that way too well, but Cronomer has a better line of site. The G5 actually preferred North along that stretch until Schunny kicks in towards Woodbury. 9W going up the mountain has always been tough. Very low RSSI until you get up around the flagpole and Putnam kicks in. Storm King School at 9W and Mountain Rd, I’d check interior coverage there. Same up in the areas of Mineral Springs and Smith Clove for Cornwall and Woodbury.
I saw similar results in Goshen…the site at the 911 center is pretty limited to the Village and doesn’t get out towards the Town that well. When Montgomery was off the air, I was actually surprised that the site pretty much went flat once I got past Sarah Wells trail. Considering that site is in the center of the County, those antennas should be omni at the top of the tower and pumping some juice. I got a lot of bounce between North and South in Town of Goshen and Town of Montgomery…I’m sure Montgomery and Goshen pulling it north and Schunnemunk and Beacon pulling it south. So, my next argument is for allowing subscribers to roam between north and south. Waste of control channel messages and probably a slight delay while affiliating to each site. But, licensing difficulties caused the split and we have to live with it.
Over in Fort Montgomery, Putnam gave great coverage, same down in Highland Falls with some help from Beacon. Once up on the Palisades, I did lose Orange all together at the split over by Anthony Wayne. ISSI should fill that in from Rockland as there is a site right there as you are aware LOL., but based upon my knowledge of EDACS having a subscriber on the system for years, I had coverage up there from Arden. FYSA, the EDACS subscibers will give you and OOS indication with CC SCAN appearing on the display. I didn’t get to test 293 from Town of Highlands to Woodbury, but that site I mentioned as an alternate is used for Town of Highlands UHF P25 conventional system.
My other two recommendations would be to elevate the antennas on Schunnemunk. That site is one of the best in the County in my opinion. Actually Orange has alot of really great sites. I’d also reconsider moving Cronomer to South from what I’m seeing to cut down on the subscribers site roaming and fill in some gaps as a blanket of the same site. I did not go OOR driving around the south and east areas of the County 95% of the time FWIW. But I was not impressed with the drop in RSSI or OOR when I walked into buildings in various parts of several towns. I know many of the difficult spots in the County on EDACS and I do believe the system will perform better in those areas due to the addition of sites specficially for some of those areas. But there will still be dead spots.
I didn’t get to test out in the north/west part of the County. FYSA, the system was receivable all the way down the Thruway to the NJ State line around the 17/287 split.
Since I don’t have a subscriber on Orange until they are rolled out to the agencies I’m affiliated with...to be fair, I also had an APX6000 programmed RX only conventionally, with the CC frequency for North and South as their own conventional channels and Conventional RSSI Display enabled in CPS. This way I can park on either control channel and constantly monitor the RSSI with the channel selector. And no need to poll RSSI as I can just watch it change as I drive around ! While the G5 does have a diagnostics feature, I was driving so I’m basing my test results simply on RSSI and when I received an OOR from the G5. I did not take notes, this was simply me being the curious soul that I am and always looking for ways to make things better.
Using Smartzone RSSI Thresholds as Acceptable (34-54), Good (40-64), Very Good (46-70) and Excellent (77 and above), there were definitely areas that I was only getting acceptable readings. This is in a vehicle driving around with the units sitting in the cup holders or stationary in parking lots. I’m also limiting this post to mostly the south / east parts of the County. There were areas I got OOR, but that was mostly when I walked in-building. As I said, for on-street portable coverage this will be better that what we have. But I truly believe in-building will be lacking in areas as I drove around various towns monitoring the RSSI on the screen. With the roll-out around the corner, I'm sure the reports will come in as people expect the world. But in all honestly, you and I know that the system was designed for on the street portable coverage.
As examples, I was at TJMaxx in Harriman. I had no signal on North and RSSI of about 35 on south in the parking lot. I was literally getting Rockland at the same RSSI at the same spot. As soon as I walked inside I went OOR on the G5. So my first argument is the loss of Arden is going to leave a noticeable hole in coverage. I also saw this inside the Woodbury Commons. Yes, not designed for in-building coverage. BUT, these are areas where there are large concentrations of people at one time. In this day and age, we obviously want first responders to have the coverage needed in areas of higher concern. From what I'm seeing, I can bet up on Route 6 and 293 there are going to be issues. I posted my recommendation previously of where an alternate site could provide the coverage to fill in this gap previously.
The same was seen inside buildings at Stewart Airport. While by the window, RSSI of 57 on south and 61 on North. Looking at the G5, it actually preferred south most of the time but bounced back and forth a bit. As I moved interior to hallways, significant drop in RSSI. I’d be testing talk-in from the interior of the hotels, terminal, etc. With the Las Vegas hotel shooting, school shootings, mall shootings, etc., this is where we want our portables to work ! I should have been slammed at Stewart by Beacon, Cronomer and Schunnemunk. I just didn’t see it. Outside sure, but inside, eh.
As far as roaming, for the most part, it preferred south for Cornwall, New Windsor, Blooming Grove and Woodbury as expected. Town of Newburgh it was bouncing all over the place between North and South, obviously due to Cronomer and Beacon being on different sites. Cronomer would pull it to North, but Beacon back to south. Same for sections of New Windsor…300 and 17K, I was slammed on North (heck I’m looking at Cronomer), but as I drove down 300 to 207, it would switch over to south, most likely from Beacon and Schunnemunk a bit. I would think Cronomer would have held it longer.
For Cornwall…the section of Route 32 south from 107 I actually had a better signal on North. Beacon is a bit shadowed along that stretch and the site on Schunnemunk ridge doesn’t get down that way too well, but Cronomer has a better line of site. The G5 actually preferred North along that stretch until Schunny kicks in towards Woodbury. 9W going up the mountain has always been tough. Very low RSSI until you get up around the flagpole and Putnam kicks in. Storm King School at 9W and Mountain Rd, I’d check interior coverage there. Same up in the areas of Mineral Springs and Smith Clove for Cornwall and Woodbury.
I saw similar results in Goshen…the site at the 911 center is pretty limited to the Village and doesn’t get out towards the Town that well. When Montgomery was off the air, I was actually surprised that the site pretty much went flat once I got past Sarah Wells trail. Considering that site is in the center of the County, those antennas should be omni at the top of the tower and pumping some juice. I got a lot of bounce between North and South in Town of Goshen and Town of Montgomery…I’m sure Montgomery and Goshen pulling it north and Schunnemunk and Beacon pulling it south. So, my next argument is for allowing subscribers to roam between north and south. Waste of control channel messages and probably a slight delay while affiliating to each site. But, licensing difficulties caused the split and we have to live with it.
Over in Fort Montgomery, Putnam gave great coverage, same down in Highland Falls with some help from Beacon. Once up on the Palisades, I did lose Orange all together at the split over by Anthony Wayne. ISSI should fill that in from Rockland as there is a site right there as you are aware LOL., but based upon my knowledge of EDACS having a subscriber on the system for years, I had coverage up there from Arden. FYSA, the EDACS subscibers will give you and OOS indication with CC SCAN appearing on the display. I didn’t get to test 293 from Town of Highlands to Woodbury, but that site I mentioned as an alternate is used for Town of Highlands UHF P25 conventional system.
My other two recommendations would be to elevate the antennas on Schunnemunk. That site is one of the best in the County in my opinion. Actually Orange has alot of really great sites. I’d also reconsider moving Cronomer to South from what I’m seeing to cut down on the subscribers site roaming and fill in some gaps as a blanket of the same site. I did not go OOR driving around the south and east areas of the County 95% of the time FWIW. But I was not impressed with the drop in RSSI or OOR when I walked into buildings in various parts of several towns. I know many of the difficult spots in the County on EDACS and I do believe the system will perform better in those areas due to the addition of sites specficially for some of those areas. But there will still be dead spots.
I didn’t get to test out in the north/west part of the County. FYSA, the system was receivable all the way down the Thruway to the NJ State line around the 17/287 split.
Last edited by a moderator:
Orange County Sheriff Patrol has started operating on the new system as of this morning. I haven't heard any activity on the EDACS talkgroup over the past hour or so.
There is a patch in place between EDACS/VHF 911 Priority and the P25 911 Priority talkgroup.
There is a patch in place between EDACS/VHF 911 Priority and the P25 911 Priority talkgroup.
TG 2002 West Response - Mount Hope PD heard this afternoon communicating with 911.
For anyone wondering, the EDACS Police 800 talkgroup is going to become three separate zoned talkgroups on the P25 system: Response East, Response West, Response South (they will each have a corresponding Tactical talkgroup)
I assume that eventually VHF MRD is going away, and agencies dispatched by the county will use one of those three new talkgroups instead.
I assume that eventually VHF MRD is going away, and agencies dispatched by the county will use one of those three new talkgroups instead.
But we still have a separate polling TG?
So units will have to answer on polling then switch to response then to tac if it becomes big enough?
I would have a primary and secondary on each zone. Poll over the zone primary (anyone monitoring the others are too far away).
So units will have to answer on polling then switch to response then to tac if it becomes big enough?
I would have a primary and secondary on each zone. Poll over the zone primary (anyone monitoring the others are too far away).
APX8000
Sarcastic Member
While that may work if EVERYONE was dispatched over these primary (i.e. response talkgroups), you have multiple agencies that are not and maintain their own talkgroups and dispatch. In your example, the SO unit or SP unit would have to constantly change channels to the area of coverage for each priority talkgroup as they drive around the County, instead of just answering on one. Keep it simple.
APX8000
Sarcastic Member
Yes. Just be aware of the limitations of LSM.
the system is becoming more active on. i am hearing mostly sheriffs office and now 911 priority tg is starting come alive
APX8000
Sarcastic Member
Yep, slow progression but it’s coming alive. And personally, I just love the sound of pure P25. Once your ear gets used to the clarity of digital, analog is never the same.
Must be a pleasure vs. the old low band simplex that we had years ago. The static and weak calls alone drove you crazy after 8 hours listening in your patrol car
APX8000
Sarcastic Member
Ok it’s official...I have to get on my soapbox....this mostly applies to the Police side of the radio, particularly the SO and SP units.
“Orange” / “911” / “Orange 911” / “County” - how many different call signs are we going to use. I won’t even comment on the retired NYPD SSD guys calling it “Base” or “Radio” or “Central” (I wish we could actually go back to Central, lol).....I believe the policy is “Orange 911” and yes, I know it’s a mouthful. But can we all just stick to one. I honestly prefer “County” as it’s quick, less syllables and easily spoken but I’m not the policy maker. But just pick one ! The less syllabus the better.
Also, you are not in a fire truck or ambulance. It’s YOUR identifier first. Example, “2F-34, Orange 911” would be the unit calling the County. The County should acknowledge “2F-34.” Then “in service, shield 1234.” There is no reason to say “2F-34 in service....they acknowledged your identifier so just send the message, no need to repeat your identifier again...you are wasting airtime. Also, no need to say “State Police 2F-34”...we know you are State Police, no one else in the County or the State for that matter has that identifier. Wasting air time again. And the Sheriff’s guys are the same...no need to say “Sheriff’s Car 28” you can say 28, especially on the sheriffs talkgroup ! And it’s not “Orange 911, Car 28”...again, YOUR identifier first....”28, 911, vehicle stop.”
The less the better.
And the dispatchers are just as bad. Example
Unit: “911, Car 28” (yes i said it backwards like they do)
911: “Orangeis on Sheriffs Car 28”
Unit: “Show car 28 in service, SOG 123, I’ll be unavailable in training.”
911: “Received Sheriff’s Car 28, I’ll show you in service unavailable for training.”
Now my way:
Unit: “28 County”
911: “28”
Unit: “SOG123 in service, unavailable, training.”
911: 1735 (time stamp)
See my point boys and girls. Please relay to the troops. Thanks.
“Orange” / “911” / “Orange 911” / “County” - how many different call signs are we going to use. I won’t even comment on the retired NYPD SSD guys calling it “Base” or “Radio” or “Central” (I wish we could actually go back to Central, lol).....I believe the policy is “Orange 911” and yes, I know it’s a mouthful. But can we all just stick to one. I honestly prefer “County” as it’s quick, less syllables and easily spoken but I’m not the policy maker. But just pick one ! The less syllabus the better.
Also, you are not in a fire truck or ambulance. It’s YOUR identifier first. Example, “2F-34, Orange 911” would be the unit calling the County. The County should acknowledge “2F-34.” Then “in service, shield 1234.” There is no reason to say “2F-34 in service....they acknowledged your identifier so just send the message, no need to repeat your identifier again...you are wasting airtime. Also, no need to say “State Police 2F-34”...we know you are State Police, no one else in the County or the State for that matter has that identifier. Wasting air time again. And the Sheriff’s guys are the same...no need to say “Sheriff’s Car 28” you can say 28, especially on the sheriffs talkgroup ! And it’s not “Orange 911, Car 28”...again, YOUR identifier first....”28, 911, vehicle stop.”
The less the better.
And the dispatchers are just as bad. Example
Unit: “911, Car 28” (yes i said it backwards like they do)
911: “Orangeis on Sheriffs Car 28”
Unit: “Show car 28 in service, SOG 123, I’ll be unavailable in training.”
911: “Received Sheriff’s Car 28, I’ll show you in service unavailable for training.”
Now my way:
Unit: “28 County”
911: “28”
Unit: “SOG123 in service, unavailable, training.”
911: 1735 (time stamp)
See my point boys and girls. Please relay to the troops. Thanks.
Another agency on the system - Greenville EMS heard today on the EMS Response 1 TG.
- Status
Similar threads
