The future of DMR...Where is it heading?

[N4KVE]

Good idea. Didn't know you could do that. One of the guys here is considering doing that. He figures it would greatly extend the life of his repeater.

 

[Thunderknight]

It's too bad that TGs have to be slaved to a timeslot, and not "trunked" across the two. But I think that's the way DMR works and we are stuck with it. (Correct me if I'm wrong).
I think I agree with the OP that maybe another option would be all wide areas on TS1 and local or TACs on TS2. Can a repeater owner choose which slot to use for a wide area TG, or do all repeaters have to use the same slot for that TG?

 

[N4KVE]

I agree with the OP that maybe another option would be all wide areas on TS1 and local or TACs on TS2.

I would be against this. I believe the top priority should go to the locals. They should never get a busy bonk on the local TG, & that should have priority over any Tac TG. Of course, this is just my opinion.

 

[SOFA_KING]

But isn't NA a full time TG that never times out?

NA should be left on, as how would you reach out to someone if it is turned off?

You got it right, Gary. If NA were used as suggested by MARC (as a calling Talkgroup, and not a QSO channel) there would be no problem with repeaters burning on fire (laughs), but even today all I heard were QSO's about how great this is...that and failed radio checks.

I still wonder if you can send a quick text message to just alert someone you are trying to reach them. If you could, that could take the place of calling talkgroups...assuming you could get your message over the noise.

And TAC310 on TS2 shouldn't interfere with Local, as it is only called up when a "local" person wants to use it. After they are done it goes back off (PTT timer).

Phil

 

[SOFA_KING]

Help my understanding. Let's say you and I run into each other on North America (a DMR-MARC talkgroup, correct?). I'm near Indianapolis, you are in far northeastern Ohio, so we, obviously, are talking through different repeaters. Is there a talkgroup that we could move our conversation to rather than tie up North America?

Yes...One of the TAC talkgroups or new UA talkgroups on a PTT timer...preferably on a quiet timeslot like TS2. This way you do not light up a whole region worth of repeaters. Only two repeaters have to be involved, yours and the station you want to talk to...and the sandbaggers who just want to listen to what you are saying...or maybe be a part of the QSO. Nothing wrong with that. Much more efficient than lighting up many repeaters for a one-on-one or small group QSO.

Phil

 

[N4KVE]

I don't think text messages are permitted, but I could be wrong. Anyone know?

 

[SOFA_KING]

O

It's too bad that TGs have to be slaved to a timeslot, and not "trunked" across the two. But I think that's the way DMR works and we are stuck with it. (Correct me if I'm wrong).
I think I agree with the OP that maybe another option would be all wide areas on TS1 and local or TACs on TS2. Can a repeater owner choose which slot to use for a wide area TG, or do all repeaters have to use the same slot for that TG?

Yes, repeater owners can, and do. It's all up to them and the C bridge owner/partner.

As to Mike's idea, that is what these wide-area talkgroups are now recommended to be by MARC...calling talkgroups. But your idea of moving to whatever group on an "on demand" basis with a PTT timeout would work with any of the many other groups besides NA, WW, WE, REGIONAL or Statewide groups. Just maybe keep those all on TS1 and put TAC talkgroups and other specialized talkgroups on the Local TS2 with PTT. As soon as "local" people stop using it, it goes away, so no congestion there. After all, their locals!

Phil

 

[AK9R]

Let's try to keep this conversation focused on DMR talkgroups, and how the configuration of various DMR talkgroups on local repeaters and C-bridges and the usage of those talkgroups will impact the future of DMR.

The debates about the performance of various DMR radios and various other digital voice modes are off-topic for this thread. Frankly, the "which digital voice mode is better" topic is a dead horse which has been well beaten already.

I have restored a few on-topic posts.

 

[N8OHU]

It's too bad that TGs have to be slaved to a timeslot, and not "trunked" across the two. But I think that's the way DMR works and we are stuck with it. (Correct me if I'm wrong).
I think I agree with the OP that maybe another option would be all wide areas on TS1 and local or TACs on TS2. Can a repeater owner choose which slot to use for a wide area TG, or do all repeaters have to use the same slot for that TG?

What hams use is Tier 2 DMR; Trunking is part of DMR Tier 3.

 

[AK9R]

Under DMR-MARCs rules and policies, how much freedom does a local repeater operator have when it comes to setting up talkgroups? Is DMR-MARC very restrictive about this? Is it all determined by the configuration of the C-bridge? Does DMR-MARC take input from users about the talkgroups?

 

[N4KVE]

Under DMR-MARCs rules and policies, how much freedom does a local repeater operator have when it comes to setting up talkgroups? Is DMR-MARC very restrictive about this? Is it all determined by the configuration of the C-bridge? Does DMR-MARC take input from users about the talkgroups?

Because many New Yorkers spend the winter in Florida, you will see a Tri State [NY, NJ, PA] TG here. I wish since so many from Montreal spend the winter here, they could get a link with the Montreal [VE2RCM] repeater. Canada wide [302], Quebec [3022], & Ontario [3023] would be nice too. Don't know if that's possible.

 

[SCPD]

Food for thought

My thought is simply: It is what it is for the time being.
The number of DMR users and the number of repeaters have exploded in the last couple years. It may be time to quit thinking of multi-state and worldwide talkgroups as being always available until the number of people getting into it peaks and it starts to wane.

Imagine for a moment that every 5th analog ham radio repeater was linked by RoIP. Would it be practical to assume you should be able to jump on and have an uninterrupted qso with a friend anytime you want? Right now I think that's a fair analogy of what DMR is right now. So an owner can try to please everyone and have more talkgroups per slot, which means people get the "bonk" more often.
Or scale back to a select few talkgroups until the novelty wears off.

 

[SOFA_KING]

Under DMR-MARCs rules and policies, how much freedom does a local repeater operator have when it comes to setting up talkgroups? Is DMR-MARC very restrictive about this? Is it all determined by the configuration of the C-bridge? Does DMR-MARC take input from users about the talkgroups?

I just had a great conversation with my local repeater owner that runs his own C bridge. He gets it, and we all agree. What he just told me is that MARC just feeds his C bridge. He called it a "big hose". He sets it up anyway he wants to. He doesn't even use it for PTT timer functions. That he is doing with software after the bridge. We were also discussing the possibility of setting priority levels on each timeslot so the more important talkgroups would override the lesser important talkgroups. That was something I could only dream of, but he has the talent to make something like that possible. I'm lucky to have him as my local host!

So there are definite ways to set this up as you wish. Will MARC hold people to standards? It doesn't appear so from what is happening out there. It would appear repeater owners can do what they want as long as it doesn't harm the MARC specific talkgroups.

I'll shut up now.

P

 

[SOFA_KING]

My thought is simply: It is what it is for the time being.
The number of DMR users and the number of repeaters have exploded in the last couple years. It may be time to quit thinking of multi-state and worldwide talkgroups as being always available until the number of people getting into it peaks and it starts to wane.

Imagine for a moment that every 5th analog ham radio repeater was linked by RoIP. Would it be practical to assume you should be able to jump on and have an uninterrupted qso with a friend anytime you want? Right now I think that's a fair analogy of what DMR is right now. So an owner can try to please everyone and have more talkgroups per slot, which means people get the "bonk" more often.
Or scale back to a select few talkgroups until the novelty wears off.

With two available timeslots, you could have it both ways. No need to sacrifice if you set it up right. I guess my other big concern is what is about to be unleashed when all the DV4mini thingy devices get on the network. If it is going out of control now, that will compound the congestion even more. Much more, I suspect. I like the idea of that device, and will purchase one soon, but let's hope it doesn't make things worse. It all comes down to organization and good practices.

Ok...now I'll shut up.

P

 

[N4KVE]

Rick will definitely not allow one of those things on his system.

 

[N8OHU]

Rick will definitely not allow one of those things on his system.

Given that they (DV4 Mini's) are only able to connect to "reflectors" on the DMR+ network (Hytera DMR), and only one of those has been bridged across to DMR-MARC (TS 2 TG 4639 is DMR+ Reflector 4639), he doesn't have to worry much about them getting on his system.

 

[SOFA_KING]

Given that they (DV4 Mini's) are only able to connect to "reflectors" on the DMR+ network (Hytera DMR), and only one of those has been bridged across to DMR-MARC (TS 2 TG 4639 is DMR+ Reflector 4639), he doesn't have to worry much about them getting on his system.

I'm hearing that this "rule" may change soon. If the current packet loss issues get fixed, we may indeed see "dongles" show up on MARC talkgroups. It's going crazy out there.

Phil

 

[N4IRS]

DV4Mini Network access

As Phil says, this will be changing as soon as the software catches up with the DV4Mini hardware.
The replacement software is being tested now and will be released as open source.

See FAQ
..
The DMR-MARC Network has a few items that we'd like your help on developing.

3. Homebrewed, inexpensive access point dongles with excellent digital audio.
7... Or any other good ideas you have!

73, Steve N4IRS

 

[N9NRA]

re, improving DMR

Not on our repeaters:

Talkgroups

Perhaps making more groups on-demand would help.

Have a calling group which is permanent across all repeaters and meant only for making the initial contact. After that, you move to an on-demand group.

Mike, your suggestion is EXACTLY what i`ve been wanting to suggest myself (you just beat me to it, thanx ). I would do this, not only make NA a calling only TG, but add to the channel alias (or alpha tag if you prefer) the following, ether CALLING ONLY or the letters CO (notice the all caps, that way all know that that TG is for calling only). Also folks, we need to remember that the ham DMR thingy is still kinda in the "infancy", or "learning to crawl" stage yet, and we need to work some thingies out yet, with luck all this will shake out in the end and DMR will be a really fun mode to use, i know i found it a blast when i first used it last year at Dayton after getting help setting up my radio, and i still think it`s the cat`s meaow . N9NRA

 

[N8OHU]

Mike, your suggestion is EXACTLY what i`ve been wanting to suggest myself (you just beat me to it, thanx ). I would do this, not only make NA a calling only TG, but add to the channel alias (or alpha tag if you prefer) the following, ether CALLING ONLY or the letters CO (notice the all caps, that way all know that that TG is for calling only). Also folks, we need to remember that the ham DMR thingy is still kinda in the "infancy", or "learning to crawl" stage yet, and we need to work some thingies out yet, with luck all this will shake out in the end and DMR will be a really fun mode to use, i know i found it a blast when i first used it last year at Dayton after getting help setting up my radio, and i still think it`s the cat`s meaow . N9NRA

And that is the problem; DMR-MARC has stated that NA and WW should only be used as calling channels (it's in the Best Practices document link on their website, by the way), but most users either don't know about it, don't have access to the UA talk groups needed because the talk groups aren't in the code plug , or simply do not care to change how they have operated for years.