On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 11:13:56 AM UTC-4, Richard Pfiffner wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 5:18:36 PM UTC-7, Dan Daly wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 3:13:09 PM UTC-4, wrote:
I just updated my PowerFlarm to v6.80 and after the update I'm now getting a solid "red" LED rather than the usual "Green". PowerFlarm feeds Butterfly display and LXNav S80/Oudie 2. All show reception of GPS signal from Flarm and Flarm targets are displayed on all. I've looked at the .TXT file and it indicates update successfully to 6.80 and no obvious (to me) errors.

Does anyone have any suggestions on what is causing the red LED indicating error condition?

I have updated my PowerFLARM and Butterfly to 6.80; all indications are normal, though I reloaded my flarmcfg.txt file, which used to be recommended; if you have not, you might try to do that. My ranges, according to KTrax range analysis, are significantly less than with 6.67 (I keep a good eye on ranges), based on two flights with a lot of targets (21 club and private gliders, plus those at outlying fields). I will be reloading 6.67 and seeing if the behaviour changes back to the larger 10 and 10-20 db circles there. I'm in North America, therefore, no antenna diversity, though I'm grandfathered (SN000169).
Dan

Dan,

What do you mean by no antenna diversity?

Richard

Transmit diversity. I'm aware FLARM A and B both receive (if properly licenced and present).

From release notes of FW 6.40:
"Version 6.40 Published 23 August 2017
PlatformsAll PowerFLARM- and Classic FLARM-based devices Build 00cecdb Expiration: Not operational after 31 January 2019
Changes since 6.09:
Enhancements:
PowerFLARM: New intuitive obstacle warning behavior
PowerFLARM: Fully symmetric antenna diversity, dynamic receive and transmit on both antennas (except USA and Canada)
[more in the notes but not applicable to this topic]"

I believe that symmetric antenna diversity means, that anywhere else in the world, that FLARM A and B both transmit and receive.

I'd love to be wrong on that. Though I imagine both the FCC and Industry Canada (now Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada) would want to redo the expensive and slow testing...).

Dan