Hi Andy (and others),

I got one of these units yesterday from Mike Carris. Have only done a little testing so far. However, current observations:
1. Can be seen by PowerFlarms and yes they do warn you if one of these gets too close
2. Can see other PowerFlarms
2. As Mike and others have said, it works with XCSoar
3. Have gotten it to connect via Bluetooth LE (BLE) to iSoar which seems to process the PF sentences just as it does from other devices
4. Have gotten it to connect via Bluetooth SPP to Oudie and it DEFINITELY was processing the PF sentences. "Traffic 3 O'Clock Below!!" over and over and over again. :-)
4. Can be seen by OGN receivers just fine (we have them setup here in Moriarty for tracking) with decent range.
5. Uses a decent sized rechargeable battery so it should run for quite some time on it's own.
6. Has the ubiquitous micro USB port that can both power the device and also recharges the battery.
7. Mike found a local "maker" to 3D print the cases using the provided STL files. IT was cheap ($10ish), look nice and do a great job protecting the SoftRF yet allowing access to ports, switch, lights, etc.

Only issue I've seen so far (and it's minor) is that since it's using V6 of the air protocol it doesn't output gps speed/direction of travel when using the "Legacy"/Flarm mode. So it's essentially seen as a place in space that moves periodically. Is that bad? No not really I think. Would it be better to have cse/spd? Sure. And I know it can send it out as it does via NMEA via the GPRMC sentence and if you shift it over to "OGN Tracker" mode instead it sends it. So it appears it's just a matter of the spec version not supporting it. But as you said, "Flarm is a closed system". And why is that?

I've always been confused as to why they have chosen that path. Most "specs" that I know of these days seem to work out best when they are "open" which means they are open to analysis, critique and improvement. Does that mean it sometimes take a bit longer to get updates fully approved and in place? Yup. To me, closed systems just seem to invite hacking...if for no other reason than because it's a challenge. So it would seem to make more sense to open the spec/system to allow for wide analysis providing even more confidence in the end product.

As was stated in this very long and old thread, we "believe" and "trust" (me included) the PF folks to do the right thing and produce as safe a product as possible and I believe that is the case. But there's nothing definitive that proves it, that I know of. No independent testing, etc. Should there be? Maybe...maybe not. But if not then making any claims that one system is "more accurate" or "more safe" than another, can not be fully supported.

Also, if it is desired by the soaring community at large for the concept of Flarm/PowerFlarm to be adopted as wide as possible, then it is my feeling at least that that won't occur with a "closed system". I believe allowing "others" to fully interoperate with the current Flarms/PowerFlarms is not going to make things any less safe. The more of these we can get in the air the better, from collision avoidance perspective. In fact, it could provide the opposite result. It likely will foster innovation in both the software and hardware I believe though. This SoftRF device is a good example and there are other similar initiatives out there as well. If that drives the overall price down and/or increases the overall utilization is that a bad thing?

Alot of my own feelings here I admit but thought I'd throw them out. I can't remember the last time I posted anything on RAS. However, this SoftRF device seems to be a stable and capable platform and to me seems to be the kind of innovation and creativity we should be applauding and supporting in the soaring community. As you said, it is impressive. So thanks to Linar for his work and results. I'm looking forward to seeing where it goes.

-Mark