Experience with Flarm "Stealth" and Competition modes

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

I flew the Sports Class Nats with Powerflarm Brick (v 3.0), Butterfly 57mm display (v 3.1).

My experience last season was that flarm was a bit of a nuisance: in large gaggles the darned thing made more noise than my audio vario. As well, I found the "radar" tracking feature a useless distraction. So I thought I would fly a contest with Stealth mode enabled by default as well as Competition mode (higher alarm thresholds, enabled using the cflags command in the configuration file, see the dataport specification for details).

It all worked as intended. Warning threshold is "just right" for competition use and overall distraction level is happily low.

The fraction of pilots at this contest using Flarm was happily high. I heard "Thanks Flarm!" and similar on the radio many times.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Jim[_31_]]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 8:08:59 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> I flew the Sports Class Nats with Powerflarm Brick (v 3.0), Butterfly 57mm display (v 3.1).
>
>
>
> My experience last season was that flarm was a bit of a nuisance: in large gaggles the darned thing made more noise than my audio vario. As well, I found the "radar" tracking feature a useless distraction. So I thought I would fly a contest with Stealth mode enabled by default as well as Competition mode (higher alarm thresholds, enabled using the cflags command in the configuration file, see the dataport specification for details).
>
>
>
> It all worked as intended. Warning threshold is "just right" for competition use and overall distraction level is happily low.
>
>
>
> The fraction of pilots at this contest using Flarm was happily high. I heard "Thanks Flarm!" and similar on the radio many times.
>
>
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

I flew this contest too but had Flarm in the standard mode. I thought it worked GREAT! It really didn't distract any. If I already knew someone was there I ignored it; if it was an unexpected alert it made me even more vigilant. I can't say it was a life saver...but maybe it was. I especially like how well integrated the FLARM is with my ClearNav!

-PC

[Sean F (F2)]

I agree with Jim. Virtually no distractions and excellent info when needed in normal mode.

Somebody is lobbying!

[Dave Nadler]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 8:08:59 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> My experience last season was that flarm was a bit of a nuisance:
> in large gaggles the darned thing made more noise than my audio vario.
> As well, I found the "radar" tracking feature a useless distraction.
> So I thought I would fly a contest with Stealth mode enabled by default
> as well as Competition mode (higher alarm thresholds, enabled using the
> cflags command in the configuration file, see the dataport specification
> for details).
>
> It all worked as intended. Warning threshold is "just right" for
> competition use and overall distraction level is happily low.
>
> The fraction of pilots at this contest using Flarm was happily high.
> I heard "Thanks Flarm!" and similar on the radio many times.

Evan, most likely the reason you had a high alert last season
was a number of gliders did not configure PowerFLARM as aircraft
type GLIDER, but left it at the default POWERPLANE. This gives a
different expectation of required separation and likely trajectories,
and consequently LOTS of alarms.

We still have one or two out there. If you always get an alert around
a specific glider (whose flying is shall we say not a problem), this
is likely the problem. Try to track these down and get it corrected !

Stealth: NOT RECOMMENDED.

Competition Mode: Should not be required unless pilots are flying
pretty aggressively. YMMV.

Hope that helps,
Best Regards, Dave

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 2:27:48 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Friday, May 24, 2013 8:08:59 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> > My experience last season was that flarm was a bit of a nuisance:
>
> > in large gaggles the darned thing made more noise than my audio vario.
>
> > As well, I found the "radar" tracking feature a useless distraction.
>
> > So I thought I would fly a contest with Stealth mode enabled by default
>
> > as well as Competition mode (higher alarm thresholds, enabled using the
>
> > cflags command in the configuration file, see the dataport specification
>
> > for details).
>
> >
>
> > It all worked as intended. Warning threshold is "just right" for
>
> > competition use and overall distraction level is happily low.
>
> >
>
> > The fraction of pilots at this contest using Flarm was happily high.
>
> > I heard "Thanks Flarm!" and similar on the radio many times.
>
>
>
> Evan, most likely the reason you had a high alert last season
>
> was a number of gliders did not configure PowerFLARM as aircraft
>
> type GLIDER, but left it at the default POWERPLANE. This gives a
>
> different expectation of required separation and likely trajectories,
>
> and consequently LOTS of alarms.
>
>
>
> We still have one or two out there. If you always get an alert around
>
> a specific glider (whose flying is shall we say not a problem), this
>
> is likely the problem. Try to track these down and get it corrected !
>
>
>
> Stealth: NOT RECOMMENDED.
>
>
>
> Competition Mode: Should not be required unless pilots are flying
>
> pretty aggressively. YMMV.
>
>
>
> Hope that helps,
>
> Best Regards, Dave

No, definitely not "power plane" -- that would have been much worse and limited to specific gliders. This was was endemic at 15s last year and similar though less intense at New Castle. Looking ahead 25 seconds with a reasonable envelope in a packed thermal will result in a lot of overlap and nuisance alarms. I get that. I decided to experiment with available options to deal with the specific issue of contest flying, I report that they work well.

Stealth mode appears to work great if all you want is anti-collision warning. Guess what? All I want from flarm in contest flying is anti-collision warning. Again, it works well. You've said several times 'not recommended' in all caps, but you've never stated a reason. If there is an engineering or safety related reason, please state it. I'm tempted by context to presume the real reason is marketing (the ability to track other pilots....).

T8

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 8:08:59 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> I flew the Sports Class Nats with Powerflarm Brick (v 3.0), Butterfly 57mm display (v 3.1).
>
>
>
> My experience last season was that flarm was a bit of a nuisance: in large gaggles the darned thing made more noise than my audio vario. As well, I found the "radar" tracking feature a useless distraction. So I thought I would fly a contest with Stealth mode enabled by default as well as Competition mode (higher alarm thresholds, enabled using the cflags command in the configuration file, see the dataport specification for details).
>
>
>
> It all worked as intended. Warning threshold is "just right" for competition use and overall distraction level is happily low.
>
>
>
> The fraction of pilots at this contest using Flarm was happily high. I heard "Thanks Flarm!" and similar on the radio many times.
>
>
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

Grrrrrrrummmmble. I've just been informed that my "stealth mode" flarm was routinely trackable at 6 miles at Mifflin. And yes, I'm certain I had stealth engaged (it's in the log files). Guess I won't be doing any more of that.

T8

[FLARM]

Evan,
We have had no complaints about 'Stealth' not doing what it is supposed to do, so far.
Please send your log file to info@flarm with above comment.

Yes, Stealth Mode is silly and should not be used, but it's a lot better to use it than to unplug FLARM for fear of being followed...

Thanks
FLARM

[Rtr]

New to soaring.

The fear is that others will follow you to good lift?

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Saturday, May 25, 2013 1:33:27 AM UTC-4, Rtr wrote:
> New to soaring.
>
>
>
> The fear is that others will follow you to good lift?

Some of us simply feel that tracking competitors via radio isn't really in the spirit of the game, that's all. In practice it's probably moot. Looking out the window generally yields better information.

T8

[Rtr]

I'm curious what is to be gained by knowing where others are.

Is it typical in racing for people to take different paths and use different sources of lift, so transmitting your position might be disadvantageous?

[[email protected]]

The advantage is with power flarm you can see the climb rate of others around you as well as where they are. Imagine seeing 3 gliders 3 miles out with two of them going up 250 fpm and the third going up at 700 fpm. I have a good idea which thermal you will be heading to. :) It is very fun to see how everyone around you is actually climbing.

Bruno - B4

[Jim[_31_]]

On Saturday, May 25, 2013 3:39:14 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> The advantage is with power flarm you can see the climb rate of others around you as well as where they are. Imagine seeing 3 gliders 3 miles out with two of them going up 250 fpm and the third going up at 700 fpm. I have a good idea which thermal you will be heading to. :) It is very fun to see how everyone around you is actually climbing.
>
>
>
> Bruno - B4

I can't count the number of times I dashed over to a climbing sailplane only to NOT find lift below it. LOL! Some say the one above was in a rising "bubble"; I think it more likely I just was off that day.

[Richard[_9_]]

On Saturday, May 25, 2013 4:56:33 AM UTC-7, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Saturday, May 25, 2013 1:33:27 AM UTC-4, Rtr wrote: > New to soaring. > > > > The fear is that others will follow you to good lift? Some of us simply feel that tracking competitors via radio isn't really in the spirit of the game, that's all. In practice it's probably moot. Looking out the window generally yields better information. T8

Some of us feel it is in the spirit of the game and so does Europe and so does Flarm

If you don't want to be seen or see others go to the stealth mode but please don't impose on others.

Richard

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 19:01 24 May 2013, Evan Ludeman wrote:

>
>Stealth mode appears to work great if all you want is anti-collision
>warnin=
>g. Guess what? All I want from flarm in contest flying is
anti-collision
>=
>warning. Again, it works well. You've said several times 'not
>recommended=
>' in all caps, but you've never stated a reason. If there is an
>engineerin=
>g or safety related reason, please state it. I'm tempted by context to
>pre=
>sume the real reason is marketing (the ability to track other
pilots....).
>
>T8
From the Flarm website @
http://www.flarm.com/support/Flarm_Competitions.pdf

Stealth mode inherently reduces some of the benefits of situation awareness
for yourself and surrounding aircraft. Wedo not recommend the use of
Stealth mode, but it is better than turning FLARM® off for tactical
reasons.

The aim of FLARM is to assist you in maintaining good situation awareness.
If you choose deliberately to degrade the information available to you then
you must inevitably reduce your situational awaremess AND just as important
reduce the situational awareness of another pilot, who may not even be
flying your competition, with respect for your. That is why Stealth mode is
not recommended. Like all recomendations it can be ignored but at your own
peril.

[Tim Taylor]

On May 24, 10:36*pm, FLARM > wrote:
> Evan,
> We have had no complaints about 'Stealth' not doing what it is supposed to do, so far.
> Please send your log file to info@flarm with above comment.
>
> Yes, Stealth Mode is silly and should not be used, but it's a lot better to use it than to unplug FLARM for fear of being followed...
>
> Thanks
> FLARM

I agree with Evan on this one. I have found that pilots with less
talent are the main ones wanting to keep full mode in competitions.
The stealth mode provides all the warnings required and non-stealth
mode provides both distraction and crutches to pilots. It is on of
the greatest leaching tools ever invented. The argument that Europe is
not using stealth mode is apples to oranges, we are seeing better than
10 miles (16 km) constantly with PowerFLARM. This is way more than is
needed for situational awareness and safety.


I think PowerFlarm is great for everyday flying, but Stealth mode
should be used in competition. I have flown two nationals with
PowerFlarm and found it interesting and useful but it also is drawing
the pilot's focus back in the cockpit and reducing decision making by
many pilots. They just follow the triangles out in front of them.

TT

[Richard[_9_]]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:24:16 PM UTC-7, Tim Taylor wrote:
> On May 24, 10:36*pm, FLARM > wrote: > Evan, > We have had no complaints about 'Stealth' not doing what it is supposed to do, so far.. > Please send your log file to info@flarm with above comment. > > Yes, Stealth Mode is silly and should not be used, but it's a lot better to use it than to unplug FLARM for fear of being followed... > > Thanks > FLARM I agree with Evan on this one. I have found that pilots with less talent are the main ones wanting to keep full mode in competitions. The stealth mode provides all the warnings required and non-stealth mode provides both distraction and crutches to pilots. It is on of the greatest leaching tools ever invented. The argument that Europe is not using stealth mode is apples to oranges, we are seeing better than 10 miles (16 km) constantly with PowerFLARM.. This is way more than is needed for situational awareness and safety. I think PowerFlarm is great for everyday flying, but Stealth mode should be used in competition. I have flown two nationals with PowerFlarm and found it interesting and useful but it also is drawing the pilot's focus back in the cockpit and reducing decision making by many pilots. They just follow the triangles out in front of them. TT

I beleive it should be on the Racing Pilot opinion questionaire 2013 and go with the majority opinion and the recommendations of the manufacturer.

And please send your Powerflarm back to me and I will exchange for one that operates correctly. In over 250 hours of testing I have never seen 10 Miles. The PowerFlarm on steriods you have will go in my glider.


Richard

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:24:16 PM UTC-4, Tim Taylor wrote:
> On May 24, 10:36*pm, FLARM > wrote: > Evan, > We have had no complaints about 'Stealth' not doing what it is supposed to do, so far.. > Please send your log file to info@flarm with above comment. > > Yes, Stealth Mode is silly and should not be used, but it's a lot better to use it than to unplug FLARM for fear of being followed... > > Thanks > FLARM I agree with Evan on this one. I have found that pilots with less talent are the main ones wanting to keep full mode in competitions. The stealth mode provides all the warnings required and non-stealth mode provides both distraction and crutches to pilots. It is on of the greatest leaching tools ever invented. The argument that Europe is not using stealth mode is apples to oranges, we are seeing better than 10 miles (16 km) constantly with PowerFLARM.. This is way more than is needed for situational awareness and safety. I think PowerFlarm is great for everyday flying, but Stealth mode should be used in competition. I have flown two nationals with PowerFlarm and found it interesting and useful but it also is drawing the pilot's focus back in the cockpit and reducing decision making by many pilots. They just follow the triangles out in front of them. TT

Agree completely
One more way to enable leeches.
UH

[[email protected]]

My experience with US power flarm radar consists of one contest at Perry, where I hooked my flarm brick to my Clearnav. (Other gliders seem to have disappeared from the Clearnav screen with recent updates, which I hope will be fixed.)

Yes, you can see other gliders and Flarm's idea of their climb rates, at distances of a few miles. In my experience, I was never able to successfully join one of them in a thermal. But I guess the potential is there.

On the other hand, I found the greater situational awareness of the Flarm radar, that would not be provided by collision warnings alone, of great benefit, both for safety and for contest enjoyment.

Pre-start gaggles in misty conditions (start height was not set well below cloudbase) showed up very nicely. It was a great benefit to know there were 10 gliders I couldn't see in the cloud ahead, before the collision warnings started going nuts. Collision warning means look down, see where Flarm thinks the glider is, look up, find the glider, avoid it, try not to run in to another one.

A similar thing happened in cruise. I went one way, another half of the gaggle went another way. 15 miles later I could see on the flarm radar that we were converging again, at exactly the same altitude. I like to think we all look 90 degrees to the left and right frequently enough to pick up gliders converging to the cloud ahead. But it sure was nice to know about it all well before collision warnings started going off.

I found it enjoyable too. I would not have known where the other half of the gaggle went. Seeing where they went and where I went in real time, realizing we made exactly the same speed to the next cloud was interesting. It didn't make any difference to the race, but it's fun to know where people are..

Similarly, on one long leg with no turns, it seemed to me looking out the window that I was completely alone. I would not have known about the 10 gliders just behind me without the Flarm radar. Useful for safety, and interesting if not very valuable in the contest.

I see a strong chance that Flarm radar will lead to a bit less gaggling. Now, if you want to fly with the gaggle, you must stay in visual contact which is quite close. If it works to join other gliders by flarm, you can afford to go off a bit more on your own and not worry you'll be alone all day.

In sum, with this experience, I see flarm radar as possibly having a very slight competitive benefit. It has a slight, but definite, enjoyment benefit.. And it has, a substantial safety benefit. Knowing where they are before the collision alarm goes off and I have a Big Problem Right Now is a good thing.

In any case, fear that this is the End Of Soaring As We Know It, that a new generation of techies will take over who just watch screens and leech along like a big video game, seems highly overstated, at least based on my experience with current equipment in this contest.

John Cochrane

[Steve Koerner]

This discussion reminds me of the one we had about whether GPS should be allowed in racing. The argument in con was that we would eliminate the testing of ones navigating skills if we allowed GPS in the cockpit. That turned out to be true -- but so what. GPS has greatly enhanced the sport by ensuring that we know where we are and that is a darn good thing to know.

Now the idea of knowing about nearby thermal locations and strengths is a similar kind of game changer. I'll be looking forward to the day when my computer is automatically analizing all the nearby climb reports and sorting for those that are task relevant with voice advisement like: "Tango Tango climbing six knots, 3 miles 12 starboard at seven point four". The computer could even map the air ahead of me and remember about the strength and location of thermals that may be recently vacated and steer me through them and away from the sink. Done right, there may be no heads down time and minimal distraction -- just soaring goodness. It will be like having a generational improvement in your glider at the cost of some software that is yet to be written. Not to worry, the computer will be listening to the radio and won't step on that important radio gibber.

For now, folks that want to extract tidbits with quick glances to the little display can do so while those that prefer to play stealth can exercise that option. Stealth mode is quite a clever resolution. I see nothing to complain about from either camp.

[Mike the Strike]

The ability to locate gliders climbing in thermals some distance away may prove to be less useful than many might imagine. Many thermals are cyclical and I have ended up sinking below gliders climbing above me in a nice warm bubble of ascending air more times than I care to think about.

Mike

[Ramy]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 2:49:39 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> My experience with US power flarm radar consists of one contest at Perry, where I hooked my flarm brick to my Clearnav. (Other gliders seem to have disappeared from the Clearnav screen with recent updates, which I hope will be fixed.)
>
>
>
> Yes, you can see other gliders and Flarm's idea of their climb rates, at distances of a few miles. In my experience, I was never able to successfully join one of them in a thermal. But I guess the potential is there.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, I found the greater situational awareness of the Flarm radar, that would not be provided by collision warnings alone, of great benefit, both for safety and for contest enjoyment.
>
>
>
> Pre-start gaggles in misty conditions (start height was not set well below cloudbase) showed up very nicely. It was a great benefit to know there were 10 gliders I couldn't see in the cloud ahead, before the collision warnings started going nuts. Collision warning means look down, see where Flarm thinks the glider is, look up, find the glider, avoid it, try not to run in to another one.
>
>
>
> A similar thing happened in cruise. I went one way, another half of the gaggle went another way. 15 miles later I could see on the flarm radar that we were converging again, at exactly the same altitude. I like to think we all look 90 degrees to the left and right frequently enough to pick up gliders converging to the cloud ahead. But it sure was nice to know about it all well before collision warnings started going off.
>
>
>
> I found it enjoyable too. I would not have known where the other half of the gaggle went. Seeing where they went and where I went in real time, realizing we made exactly the same speed to the next cloud was interesting. It didn't make any difference to the race, but it's fun to know where people are.
>
>
>
> Similarly, on one long leg with no turns, it seemed to me looking out the window that I was completely alone. I would not have known about the 10 gliders just behind me without the Flarm radar. Useful for safety, and interesting if not very valuable in the contest.
>
>
>
> I see a strong chance that Flarm radar will lead to a bit less gaggling. Now, if you want to fly with the gaggle, you must stay in visual contact which is quite close. If it works to join other gliders by flarm, you can afford to go off a bit more on your own and not worry you'll be alone all day.
>
>
>
> In sum, with this experience, I see flarm radar as possibly having a very slight competitive benefit. It has a slight, but definite, enjoyment benefit. And it has, a substantial safety benefit. Knowing where they are before the collision alarm goes off and I have a Big Problem Right Now is a good thing.
>
>
>
> In any case, fear that this is the End Of Soaring As We Know It, that a new generation of techies will take over who just watch screens and leech along like a big video game, seems highly overstated, at least based on my experience with current equipment in this contest.
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

As always John is right on. Stealth mode eliminates the increase situational awareness that Flarm provides. Normal mode does not provide much if any benefit in contests. More than half the time I followed a flarm target which appeared to climb well did not pay off and I wish I didnt. Also the climb rate which flarm shows is not compensated nor a good averager. I often see 9.9 knots when the glider is only climbing at 1-2 knots on average. Totally misleading. But it is sure helpful for team flying to know where your buddy is.
Also the original poster claimed that he reduced flarm alerts in gaggles by turning stealth mode. I am not sure how this will be possible. Flarm collision alerts are not suppressed by stealth mode.

Ramy

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:52:20 AM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:

> Also the original poster claimed that he reduced flarm alerts in gaggles by turning stealth mode. I am not sure how this will be possible. Flarm collision alerts are not suppressed by stealth mode.

Read it again. Competition mode and stealth mode are two completely different things.

T8

[Steve Koerner]

> Also the climb rate which flarm shows is not compensated nor a good averager. I often see 9.9 knots when the glider is only climbing at 1-2 knots on average. Totally misleading.

Flarm knows groundspeed which is usually close enough to airspeed to allow a first order TE compensation calculation. I think we should expect Flarm to get that on their To-Do list. Also, Flarm should not pass any number for climb rate until enough integration time has passed that the number has become usefully stable and meaningful (until the reading stabilizes, we should just see two dashes in the display).

Now that all of the basic functions of PowerFlarm are working, this is the time to do refinement. The ability to read a meaningful climb rate for other gliders is potentially a very nice feature. When this is working right, I suspect that folks will be less likely to choose stealth mode.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:06:45 PM UTC-4, Steve Koerner wrote:
> > Also the climb rate which flarm shows is not compensated nor a good averager. I often see 9.9 knots when the glider is only climbing at 1-2 knots on average. Totally misleading. Flarm knows groundspeed which is usually close enough to airspeed to allow a first order TE compensation calculation. I think we should expect Flarm to get that on their To-Do list. Also, Flarm should not pass any number for climb rate until enough integration time has passed that the number has become usefully stable and meaningful (until the reading stabilizes, we should just see two dashes in the display). Now that all of the basic functions of PowerFlarm are working, this is the time to do refinement. The ability to read a meaningful climb rate for other gliders is potentially a very nice feature. When this is working right, I suspect that folks will be less likely to choose stealth mode.

So now that Flarm folks have finally provided the deliverables promised, i.e reliable collision avoidance and flight logging, both of which are/were needed, and were the selling points, they should get to work and make it a better leeching tool than it already is, which more than a few of us think we do not need.
Hopefully they will be as slow in that effort as they were on the primary product.
More work will be needed by "someone" to develop a way to get information without giving it. That would be the obvious next step in Flarm Radar wars.
The "situational awareness" argument is simply a canard to get people to buy this device in order to try to remain competitive. Collision avoidance as currently provided, is a good improvement to our safety margins. That is all we really need.
One guy's opinion.
UH

[Steve Koerner]

The holy grail of glider technology is the ability to read the strength of thermals at a distance. So far, accomplishing that has evaded all those who have tried. PowerFlarm offers the best hope for doing just that on a limited scale when there are other gliders in a cooperating network. If you want to view that as a leeching tool, so be it. Glider racing is inherently a cooperating process.

There are folks now that are advocating voice cooperation between racers. Certainly the subject PowerFlarm functionality is fairer and more benign than having guys off on a separate frequency discussing strategies.

[Gary Ittner[_3_]]

"Evan Ludeman" > wrote in message
...
I flew the Sports Class Nats with Powerflarm Brick (v 3.0), Butterfly 57mm
display (v 3.1).

My experience last season was that flarm was a bit of a nuisance: in large
gaggles the darned thing made more noise than my audio vario. As well, I
found the "radar" tracking feature a useless distraction. So I thought I
would fly a contest with Stealth mode enabled by default as well as
Competition mode >>(higher alarm thresholds, enabled using the cflags
command in the configuration file, see the dataport specification for
details).

It all worked as intended. Warning threshold is "just right" for
competition use and overall distraction level is happily low.

The fraction of pilots at this contest using Flarm was happily high. I
heard "Thanks Flarm!" and similar on the radio many times.

Evan Ludeman / T8


Thanks, Evan, for your review of competition and stealth modes. I would like
to set my PowerFlarms to competition mode, but am unsure how to proceed.

The Data Port Specifications, version 6.00E, page 16, gives a value of
"0x02" to Enable Competition Mode, but the examples immediately below show
integer values. So, is the proper sub-sentence: $PFLAC,S,CFLAGS,0x02 or
$PFLAC,S,CFLAGS,2 or something else?

I am unwilling to experiment because it also says, "If you do not understand
the concept of bit flags, do not use this command!"

It is clear that the sub-sentence for stealth mode is: $PFLAC,S,PRIV,1
but I am not yet ready to try that.

Thanks in advance for your help in this. It would be nice if the PF folks
added these options to their web-based Configurator tool.

Gary Ittner P7
"Have glider, will race"

[Gary Ittner[_3_]]

"Steve Koerner" > wrote in message
...

>The ability to read a meaningful climb rate for other gliders is
>potentially a very >nice feature.

It would be a disastrous feature, causing every glider in the area to
converge on the One Best Thermal. Ironically, people would then be using an
anti-collision technology to reduce their separation from other aircraft and
thereby increase their chance of collisions.

Gary Ittner P7
"Have glider, will race"

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:10:27 PM UTC-4, Gary Ittner wrote:
> "Evan Ludeman" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> I flew the Sports Class Nats with Powerflarm Brick (v 3.0), Butterfly 57mm
>
> display (v 3.1).
>
>
>
> My experience last season was that flarm was a bit of a nuisance: in large
>
> gaggles the darned thing made more noise than my audio vario. As well, I
>
> found the "radar" tracking feature a useless distraction. So I thought I
>
> would fly a contest with Stealth mode enabled by default as well as
>
> Competition mode >>(higher alarm thresholds, enabled using the cflags
>
> command in the configuration file, see the dataport specification for
>
> details).
>
>
>
> It all worked as intended. Warning threshold is "just right" for
>
> competition use and overall distraction level is happily low.
>
>
>
> The fraction of pilots at this contest using Flarm was happily high. I
>
> heard "Thanks Flarm!" and similar on the radio many times.
>
>
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks, Evan, for your review of competition and stealth modes. I would like
>
> to set my PowerFlarms to competition mode, but am unsure how to proceed.
>
>
>
> The Data Port Specifications, version 6.00E, page 16, gives a value of
>
> "0x02" to Enable Competition Mode, but the examples immediately below show
>
> integer values. So, is the proper sub-sentence: $PFLAC,S,CFLAGS,0x02 or
>
> $PFLAC,S,CFLAGS,2 or something else?
>
>
>
> I am unwilling to experiment because it also says, "If you do not understand
>
> the concept of bit flags, do not use this command!"
>
>
>
> It is clear that the sub-sentence for stealth mode is: $PFLAC,S,PRIV,1
>
> but I am not yet ready to try that.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for your help in this. It would be nice if the PF folks
>
> added these options to their web-based Configurator tool.
>
>
>
> Gary Ittner P7
>
> "Have glider, will race"

Hi Gary,

From my flarmcfg.txt file


################################################## ######################
# stealth & competition configuration
################################################## ######################

# set stealth mode on
$PFLAC,S,PRIV,1

# set competition mode (ON = 2, OFF = 0)
$PFLAC,S,CFLAGS,2



If flarm starts using other bits of cflags to manipulate other settings, then it will get a little more complicated. For now this should work.


T8

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:09:07 PM UTC-5, Steve Koerner wrote:
> The holy grail of glider technology is the ability to read the strength of thermals at a distance. So far, accomplishing that has evaded all those who have tried. PowerFlarm offers the best hope for doing just that on a limited scale when there are other gliders in a cooperating network. If you want to view that as a leeching tool, so be it. Glider racing is inherently a cooperating process.
>
>
>
> There are folks now that are advocating voice cooperation between racers. Certainly the subject PowerFlarm functionality is fairer and more benign than having guys off on a separate frequency discussing strategies.

Cooperating network and racing used in the same sentence? We're going down the road of bicycle racing team type strategy? My "go racing fund" just became my extra tows, go to Hawaii fund. Ya'll have fun out there racing/cooperating. WR

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:40:28 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:06:45 PM UTC-4, Steve Koerner wrote:
>
> > > Also the climb rate which flarm shows is not compensated nor a good averager. I often see 9.9 knots when the glider is only climbing at 1-2 knots on average. Totally misleading. Flarm knows groundspeed which is usually close enough to airspeed to allow a first order TE compensation calculation.. I think we should expect Flarm to get that on their To-Do list. Also, Flarm should not pass any number for climb rate until enough integration time has passed that the number has become usefully stable and meaningful (until the reading stabilizes, we should just see two dashes in the display). Now that all of the basic functions of PowerFlarm are working, this is the time to do refinement. The ability to read a meaningful climb rate for other gliders is potentially a very nice feature. When this is working right, I suspect that folks will be less likely to choose stealth mode.
>
>
>
> So now that Flarm folks have finally provided the deliverables promised, i.e reliable collision avoidance and flight logging, both of which are/were needed, and were the selling points, they should get to work and make it a better leeching tool than it already is, which more than a few of us think we do not need.
>
> Hopefully they will be as slow in that effort as they were on the primary product.
>
> More work will be needed by "someone" to develop a way to get information without giving it. That would be the obvious next step in Flarm Radar wars..
>
> The "situational awareness" argument is simply a canard to get people to buy this device in order to try to remain competitive. Collision avoidance as currently provided, is a good improvement to our safety margins. That is all we really need.
>
> One guy's opinion.
>
> UH

FWIW...

We have to look at this problem in chunks:

- Data acquisition
- Data transmission
- Data analysis
- Presentation

Today, FLARM has clearly done a great job on all of these with the primary focus of collision avoidance. I get that. We all need to applaud them for that.

However, as this thread illustrates, once the primary purpose is refined, we're naturally asking "so what's next"?

The key to a real Tactical Leaching Tool (TLT) is whether or not the data acquisition and transmission are controlled. Frankly, once anyone has 5-7 data elements delivered at some relatively high refresh rate (aircraft, position, altitude and time being all that's really required), anyone else with access to that could easily build some pretty nice tools into the current and next generation of Flight Displays. Everything from smoothing algorithms to averaging the calculated lift from multiple targets in the same thermal to a "hot key" to highlight 5 pre-identified competitors are all on the horizon. I don't at all buy the arguments that "it hasn't happened in Europe" or "the information isn't meaningful because of x,y, or z." Once real focus is put on massaging the data for a new purpose, these arguments will go away.

See Gary Ittner's post immediately below this one. The implications of a real TLT are significant, and it would be nice to have thought this out before we have to deal with a new set of unintended consequences.

[John Firth[_4_]]

At 10:13 28 May 2013, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:52:20 AM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
>
>> Also the original poster claimed that he reduced flarm alerts in
gaggles
>by turning stealth mode. I am not sure how this will be possible. Flarm
>collision alerts are not suppressed by stealth mode.
>
>Read it again. Competition mode and stealth mode are two completely
>different things.
>
>T8
>
Evan, Iam not yet Flarm enabled but my airspace is pretty
uncrowded.

However, you seem to be behind Butterfly on audio deadband.
I sure would like to have this.

John Firth

An old no longer bold pilot.

[Tim Taylor]

On May 28, 12:20*pm, Papa3 > wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:40:28 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:06:45 PM UTC-4, Steve Koerner wrote:
>
> > > > Also the climb rate which flarm shows is not compensated nor a good averager. I often see 9.9 knots when the glider is only climbing at 1-2 knots on average. Totally misleading. Flarm knows groundspeed which is usually close enough to airspeed to allow a first order TE compensation calculation. I think we should expect Flarm to get that on their To-Do list. Also, Flarm should not pass any number for climb rate until enough integration time has passed that the number has become usefully stable and meaningful (until the reading stabilizes, we should just see two dashes in the display). Now that all of the basic functions of PowerFlarm are working, this is the time to do refinement. The ability to read a meaningful climb rate for other gliders is potentially a very nice feature. When this is working right, I suspect that folks will be less likely to choose stealth mode.
>
> > So now that Flarm folks have finally provided the deliverables promised, i.e reliable collision avoidance and flight logging, both of which are/were needed, and were the selling points, they should get to work and make it a better leeching tool than it already is, which more than a few of us think we do not need.
>
> > Hopefully they will be as slow in that effort as they were on the primary product.
>
> > More work will be needed by "someone" to develop a way to get information without giving it. That would be the obvious next step in Flarm Radar wars.
>
> > The "situational awareness" argument is simply a canard to get people to buy this device in order to try to remain competitive. Collision avoidance as currently provided, is a good improvement to our safety margins. That is all we really need.
>
> > One guy's opinion.
>
> > UH
>
> FWIW...
>
> We have to look at this problem in chunks:
>
> - *Data acquisition
> - *Data transmission
> - *Data analysis
> - *Presentation
>
> Today, FLARM has clearly done a great job on all of these with the primary focus of collision avoidance. * I get that. *We all need to applaud them for that.
>
> However, as this thread illustrates, once the primary purpose is refined, we're naturally asking "so what's next"?
>
> The key to a real Tactical Leaching Tool (TLT) is whether or not the data acquisition and transmission are controlled. * Frankly, once anyone has 5-7 data elements delivered at some relatively high refresh rate (aircraft, position, altitude and time being all that's really required), * anyone else with access to that could easily build some pretty nice tools into the current and next generation of Flight Displays. *Everything from smoothing algorithms to averaging the calculated lift from multiple targets in the same thermal to a "hot key" to highlight 5 pre-identified competitors are all on the horizon. * I don't at all buy the arguments that "it hasn't happened in Europe" or "the information isn't meaningful because of x,y, or z.." * Once real focus is put on massaging the data for a new purpose, these arguments will go away.
>

TLT is the best descriptor so far, thanks P3. Once the software
writers start to catch up it will be a real interesting world. John,
I respectfully disagree with your arguments for open mode during
contests. You wrote the review of the FAI rules system and why it
increases gaggling, this will do the same and will discourage anyone
taking the lead out of the gate.

From personal experience I spent 15 to 20% more time head down during
the contest at Mifflin and Parowan last year. Yes, in a video game
way it was fun to watch the screen but it does nothing to help safety
to have six to ten miles of situational awareness.

Once the software gurus catch up the information available will be
amazing. Some of the potential has been mentioned, here are my list:

1. Thermals marked ahead with strength, arrival height and ETE. It
will estimate the drift from the position drift of each glider
thermalling and winds aloft.
2. Lift and sink bands while in cruise. My onboard computer will be
estimating lift and sink rates of cruising gliders, back calculating
the air mass movements from the polar and speed data of each glider.
It will be displaying lift and sink in colored bands in front of me
and if I want I can turn on the autopilot and let it follow the best
path.
3. Tracking of specific targets; at Uvalde I would set my targets such
as WR, MK, P7, A8, etc. and anytime I get a lock on them I will get
vectors to where they are. Many of us have worked hard to learn how
to slip quietly out the start gate, to maneuver behind a leech and
then slip away or to scrape them off on some rocks. There are many
pilots I enjoy flying with during a contest day because they have the
skill and personality to truly provide mutual benefit on a task, but I
don't want to provide additional tools so those that can only follow,
never lead, and can not make decisions to latch on and leech all day.

Can all this information be feed to the users so there is no
additional heads down time? Will the Bitch'n Betty be talking to us
all the time giving us information? If you think this is not already
happening talk to the open source guys working on XCSoar.

Imagine the increased penalty for being an early starter. The start
gate games will get even better than they are now.

We have access to satellite weather and artificial horizons, we chose
not to allow them in the cockpit, we can still decide what we allow
with PowerFLARM. Who will control the hardware add-ons? A nice
antenna with an big amplifier would pull the signals in even better.
You can see me at four miles but I can see you at twenty.

The PowerFLARM systems are great for fun flying, I love PowerFLARM for
local flying and flying a course with friends. We had a group of five
flying yesterday, there with FLARM and it was nice to know the B4 was
4.5 miles away and 300 feet higher.

The basic warning functions of PowerFLARM work well and in a contest
we need no further situational awareness, in fact I would argue that
it decreases safety because more time will be spent looking down at
all the neat displays.

TT






2.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Richard wrote, On 5/26/2013 1:16 PM:
> On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:24:16 PM UTC-7, Tim Taylor wrote:
The argument that Europe is not using
>> stealth mode is apples to oranges, we are seeing better than 10
>> miles (16 km) constantly with PowerFLARM. This is way more than is
>> needed for situational awareness and safety.
>
> I beleive it should be on the Racing Pilot opinion questionaire 2013
> and go with the majority opinion and the recommendations of the
> manufacturer.
>
> And please send your Powerflarm back to me and I will exchange for
> one that operates correctly. In over 250 hours of testing I have
> never seen 10 Miles. The PowerFlarm on steriods you have will go in
> my glider.

It was a common experience at Ephrata over the weekend, where several of
us with Cores saw other Cores 10+ SM away. Not in all directions or
attitudes, of course, but typically when both glider had the other ahead
of them within plus/minus 60 degrees or so. Most of us had the antennas
in the nose; one pilot had them in the fin, and reported excellent
reception in all directions.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

[[email protected]]

Steve,

> The holy grail of glider technology is the ability to read the strength of thermals at a distance. So far, accomplishing that has evaded all those who have tried. PowerFlarm offers the best hope for doing just that on a limited scale when there are other gliders in a cooperating network. If you want to view that as a leeching tool, so be it. Glider racing is inherently a cooperating process.

This holy grail has been working for decades already: Look
out and see how fast the others climb. If they're up faster than yourself,
join them.

Works for me (well, on a moderate scale proportional to my training level).

Having my eyes inside the cockpit and trying to match little dots
with associated numbers on a display with gliders out there does not help
particularly. Neither does it improve safety.


WRT Stealth mode: I reiterate, we do *not* recommend it. Neither does it
make you intrackable. What it does: It removes some information: Ground
speed, track and in particular, vertical speed. It also 'obfuscates' altitude
by adding some random numbers.

Best
--Gerhard (FLARM dev mgr)

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 5:53:34 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Steve,
>
>
>
> > The holy grail of glider technology is the ability to read the strength of thermals at a distance. So far, accomplishing that has evaded all those who have tried. PowerFlarm offers the best hope for doing just that on a limited scale when there are other gliders in a cooperating network. If you want to view that as a leeching tool, so be it. Glider racing is inherently a cooperating process.
>
>
>
> This holy grail has been working for decades already: Look
>
> out and see how fast the others climb. If they're up faster than yourself,
>
> join them.
>
>
>
> Works for me (well, on a moderate scale proportional to my training level).
>
>
>
> Having my eyes inside the cockpit and trying to match little dots
>
> with associated numbers on a display with gliders out there does not help
>
> particularly. Neither does it improve safety.
>
>
>
>
>
> WRT Stealth mode: I reiterate, we do *not* recommend it. Neither does it
>
> make you intrackable. What it does: It removes some information: Ground
>
> speed, track and in particular, vertical speed. It also 'obfuscates' altitude
>
> by adding some random numbers.
>
>
>
> Best
>
> --Gerhard (FLARM dev mgr)

Thanks for clearing this up Gerhard. I was under the impression that the position reporting (or lack of) was a bit more symmetric in stealth mode... and I would strongly encourage you to make it so.

It may seem silly in Europe, but US racing puts a premium on independent action. (Speaking to Steve' point) The day that Pez D. Spencer can plot thermal strength and location via flarm data at 6 miles or more is not one I personally look forward to. That's no more "holy grail" to competition soaring than "Guitar Hero" is to performance music.

The hope here is that "lone wolf" US competitors will see enough value in stealth mode used *voluntarily* that we won't see either a drop in racing participation or a push for mandatory stealth mode.

Best,

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Mike the Strike]

Everyone seems to assume that less able pilots will want to leech off of the faster ones. Not so! I am not one of the fastest cross-country pilots, but have long abandoned any idea of leeching - I find it easier to locate my own thermals, thank you very much!

There are, however, a few pilots whose presence in the same thermal make me uncomfortable - I'll be using Flarm to steer clear of them!

Mike

[Richard[_9_]]

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 4:11:35 AM UTC-7, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 5:53:34 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>
> > Steve,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > The holy grail of glider technology is the ability to read the strength of thermals at a distance. So far, accomplishing that has evaded all those who have tried. PowerFlarm offers the best hope for doing just that on a limited scale when there are other gliders in a cooperating network. If you want to view that as a leeching tool, so be it. Glider racing is inherently a cooperating process.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > This holy grail has been working for decades already: Look
>
> >
>
> > out and see how fast the others climb. If they're up faster than yourself,
>
> >
>
> > join them.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Works for me (well, on a moderate scale proportional to my training level).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Having my eyes inside the cockpit and trying to match little dots
>
> >
>
> > with associated numbers on a display with gliders out there does not help
>
> >
>
> > particularly. Neither does it improve safety.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > WRT Stealth mode: I reiterate, we do *not* recommend it. Neither does it
>
> >
>
> > make you intrackable. What it does: It removes some information: Ground
>
> >
>
> > speed, track and in particular, vertical speed. It also 'obfuscates' altitude
>
> >
>
> > by adding some random numbers.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Best
>
> >
>
> > --Gerhard (FLARM dev mgr)
>
>
>
> Thanks for clearing this up Gerhard. I was under the impression that the position reporting (or lack of) was a bit more symmetric in stealth mode.... and I would strongly encourage you to make it so.
>
>
>
> It may seem silly in Europe, but US racing puts a premium on independent action. (Speaking to Steve' point) The day that Pez D. Spencer can plot thermal strength and location via flarm data at 6 miles or more is not one I personally look forward to. That's no more "holy grail" to competition soaring than "Guitar Hero" is to performance music.
>
>
>
> The hope here is that "lone wolf" US competitors will see enough value in stealth mode used *voluntarily* that we won't see either a drop in racing participation or a push for mandatory stealth mode.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

I would have to say that some racing pilot feel as Evan does but not all nor do I believe a majority.

So:

I have said this before put it on the pilot opinion poll as see what shakes out.

Richard.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:09:09 PM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 4:11:35 AM UTC-7, Evan Ludeman wrote: > On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 5:53:34 AM UTC-4, wrote: > > > Steve, > > > > > > > > > > > > > The holy grail of glider technology is the ability to read the strength of thermals at a distance. So far, accomplishing that has evaded all those who have tried. PowerFlarm offers the best hope for doing just that on a limited scale when there are other gliders in a cooperating network. If you want to view that as a leeching tool, so be it. Glider racing is inherently a cooperating process. > > > > > > > > > > > > This holy grail has been working for decades already: Look > > > > > > out and see how fast the others climb. If they're up faster than yourself, > > > > > > join them. > > > > > > > > > > > > Works for me (well, on a moderate scale proportional to my training level). > > > > > > > > > > > > Having my eyes inside the cockpit and trying to match little dots > > > > > > with associated numbers on a display with gliders out there does not help > > > > > > particularly. Neither does it improve safety. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WRT Stealth mode: I reiterate, we do *not* recommend it. Neither does it > > > > > > make you intrackable. What it does: It removes some information: Ground > > > > > > speed, track and in particular, vertical speed. It also 'obfuscates' altitude > > > > > > by adding some random numbers. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best > > > > > > --Gerhard (FLARM dev mgr) > > > > Thanks for clearing this up Gerhard. I was under the impression that the position reporting (or lack of) was a bit more symmetric in stealth mode.... and I would strongly encourage you to make it so. > > > > It may seem silly in Europe, but US racing puts a premium on independent action. (Speaking to Steve' point) The day that Pez D. Spencer can plot thermal strength and location via flarm data at 6 miles or more is not one I personally look forward to. That's no more "holy grail" to competition soaring than "Guitar Hero" is to performance music. > > > > The hope here is that "lone wolf" US competitors will see enough value in stealth mode used *voluntarily* that we won't see either a drop in racing participation or a push for mandatory stealth mode. > > > > Best, > > > > Evan Ludeman / T8 I would have to say that some racing pilot feel as Evan does but not all nor do I believe a majority. So: I have said this before put it on the pilot opinion poll as see what shakes out. Richard.

The RC took to position of strongly encouraging the voluntary implementation of Flarm in the contest community. The sporting considerations like those mentioned in this thread were well known and anticipated. It was agreed that at some point after Flarm is well accepted, that these issues could, and would be raised. Part of the logic in this was that real world experience is a much better guide to decision making than speculation.
It is technically possible and practical, occording to Flarm representatives, to create a version that removes the avilablity of much tactical information,such as climb rates, and the ability to export such information to external devices, while preserving the anti collision aspects. It is also possible to do so such that this can be locked in for the period of a contest such that no monitoring other than a one time check would be required. This was described during our exchages as "US Stealth".
There will need to be a considerable amount of discussion on this and very well written, balanced poll questions for the RC to determine the path forward for US competition.
UH - Former RC member and Chair

[Morgan[_2_]]

I am flying with a portable unit and the range is 2-4nm and usually the 4nm in a direction I'm not looking.

I find the data useful for situational awareness, but far less useful for tactical decision making during a contest. Primarily because I typically have seen a circling glider well before they are visible on Flarm. If they were ten miles out, that would seem to be essentially useless information for me. That's 6-7 minutes at a pretty fast pace before I'm going to reach where they were. Assuming I saw them on flarm climbing at 10knots. Before I could reach them, they'd be topped out and gone and I'm left hoping that I can find that same thermal either recycling or miraculously still working..

Additionally, we are all leeches to some degree. If you spot a glider out in front of you or near your course line and they appear to be climbing well (or are confirmed by Flarm) I don't think any competitive pilot is going to avoid their thermal to be a sport and find their own lift. If they are a slower pilot you're going to probably leave them behind, a slightly faster pilot may end up marking lift for you. A much faster pilot will leave you behind.

My personal experience with Flarm in a contest is that I did not use it at all for competitor analysis. I always spotted a glider visually before getting an Alert to new traffic. If they were climbing and looked to be marking a good climb, I was heading that way based on visual cues, not Flarm cues.

I was team flying with a partner and kept it locked on him as long as he was closest. For that it was hugely valuable. When he was on my 5,6,7 position, I knew and it reduced the radio calls needed to alert each other to our position when tight and in a blind spot. For all of the other aspects of team flying, it was really a non factor as we used radio calls for more accurate info on lines and climb rate.

Non competition use I find that the buddy flying aspect is really only valuable for giving a higher degree of precision to what you can see with the eyeball. You're on glide with a friend, separated by 1/2 a mile. You know they are above or below you. You can see that change faster than inspect the Flarm. The Flarm just tells you that they are 150ft and now 160ft higher. It's interesting, but I just don't see it as more useful than what you get by looking outside.

Morgan

[FLARM]

Short explanation again of how the 'Stealth' mode works:
Please also see: http://www.flarm.com/support/Flarm_Competitions.pdf

'Stealth' mode shows other aircraft (but never their climb rate, track or speed) if they fulfill one of the requirements below:
- generate an Alert
- are within 100m horizontal and 50m vertical
- are within 2000m horizontal and 300m vertical and +-45 degrees of the direction of travel of my aircraft (which means you should see them well anyway)

If none of these conditions is met, no data about that aircraft is displayed or sent over the serial port.

'Stealth' mode applies only to other aircraft which have stealth mode enabled, unless I enable my own stealth mode after which it applies to *all* other aircraft.
There are timeouts to prevent fast toggeling of 'Stealth' mode by evildoers.

Some comments:
1) Don't confuse 'Competition' and 'Stealth' mode
2) Yes, 'Stealth mode' is a horrible contraption and should not be used unless the alternative is pilots unplugging their FLARM
3) Transponders and especially ADS-B make the whole leeching discussion pretty pointless?!
4a) Unless you tie us all up and do some repeated waterboarding, we will not modify/change/extend/customize this feature. It is what it is.
4b) Can we get back to more relevant topics?