toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I spent a bit of time trying different values to get to a value for each which for me makes sense and works.
I am happy with how this works for me, if others also want to use this or any other system, that's good. I think what matters is that we each have a system that we understand and works for our needs.
On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 1:17 PM Frank Standford <dxer2k1@...
So the jump is .3 - .5 - .5 - .6?
The increse of each looks about right. Do you see a way to include both this and the origional way in your program? Some people might want to use one system, the other or a mix of both.
In MWDXerDB, I have used these values for the different signal levels.
Poor = 1.1
Weak = 1.4
Average = 1.9
Good = 2.4
Excellent = 3
The formula I use is: Distance/ Power * SignalLevel = ULDXIndex
These were only some rough figures, I am happy to adjust these to ensure it is a fair system.
On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 12:55 PM Frank Standford <dxer2k1@...
Sorry if I have missed it but what are you using to increase the value? It seems to not be a standard jump between signal levels? The second graph to me seems to make more sense.
Following some discussions on here and my own experiences, I have added an extra value to account for signal level. This rates the signal from poor, weak, average, good and excellent and assigned a value to this. It is weighted so that as the signal level improves, the ULDXIndex also increases. Below are some examples to show how it works.
The last five entries shows how the index value increases as the signal level improves.
This is another example but in this case the jump between the signal levels is greater. Does this better reflect the challenges of "pulling in" signals at greater signal levels?