PowerFLARM Core secondary FLARM antenna

I was really surprised to see this in the PowerFLARM Core manual:

'CORE has two separate FLARM radio transceivers FLARM A and FLARM B. FLARM A is used to receive and transmit and must always be connected to an antenna. FLARM B is only used to receive, an optional antenna may be used for better reception performance. Usage of FLARM B requires purchase of the respective feature licence.'

Feature licence? Turns out it's a 44EUR charge http://www.air-avionics.com/support/...rflarm_lic.pdf to enable this feature. My understanding is that this fee is just a software activation; the hardware (antenna and cables) seems to be extra.

Later in the manual:

'The primary antenna (FLARM A) should have good view into the direction of flight. FLARM B (if used) should be placed to complement the field of view of FLARM A.'

... So, if you're following the recommended install, the secondary FLARM B antenna should be configured solely to reduce your radio reception blind spot.

On Monday, September 29, 2014 10:41:45 AM UTC-7, wrote:
I was really surprised to see this in the PowerFLARM Core manual:



'CORE has two separate FLARM radio transceivers FLARM A and FLARM B. FLARM A is used to receive and transmit and must always be connected to an antenna. FLARM B is only used to receive, an optional antenna may be used for better reception performance. Usage of FLARM B requires purchase of the respective feature licence.'



Feature licence? Turns out it's a 44EUR charge http://www.air-avionics.com/support/...rflarm_lic.pdf to enable this feature. My understanding is that this fee is just a software activation; the hardware (antenna and cables) seems to be extra.



Later in the manual:



'The primary antenna (FLARM A) should have good view into the direction of flight. FLARM B (if used) should be placed to complement the field of view of FLARM A.'



.. So, if you're following the recommended install, the secondary FLARM B antenna should be configured solely to reduce your radio reception blind spot.



From the description, it looks like this functionality is entirely safety related; assuming you follow the recommended install, it won't provide any real advantage for the more frivolous functions of FLARM (ie being able to track traffic way ahead of you)



Hopefully I've completely misunderstood the situation, because this seems like a really odd decision by FLARM. What's a feature charge going to do except actively discourage users from fitting the ideal antenna configuration for their aircraft?

I am also surprised to hear about it, especially that I just installed a Flarm B antenna. I agree it doesn't sound right to charge for this, and I dont recall reading anything about an additional charge or a way to enable this in the original manual which came with the original brick. Perhaps this does not apply to the original units?

Ramy

The Canadian dealer asked me to post the price list on the Soaring Association of Canada FORUM classified pages in March 2014, with the list date Feb 1 2014 (I had attachment posting privileges, he didn't)... Additional charges for 2nd FLARM radio, audio output (new style CORE), IGC, ENL, and Garmin TIS output. This also had the CORE Pure (FLARM only, not transponder/ADS-B) announcement, and a price increase in the Portable (though 2nd FLARM radio and audio-out were included).

I see Paul Remde posted about this here on Jan 25: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.aviation.soaring/powerflarm$20pure/rec.aviation.soaring/KepsmmJns0U/VV7n_Mr1MJMJ There is a link to his webpage, where the actual costs of the licences is... (I did a ras search on "PowerFLARM Pure" and this popped up).

I was in the middle of a group buy for my club when all this happened, and it increased the complexity (some new model COREs, some old, different features and prices).

I am surprised that no one has submitted the new, non-IGC flarms to be position recorders, good up to Gold badges, to save the $US 92 licence fee...

I am happy with the range of my original PowerFLARM CORE using only the FLARM A antenna (I get an average of about 4 km according to the FLARM RF Range analysis page at http://www.flarm.com/support/analyze/index_en.html ), but my SZD-55 is not carbon...

2D

On Monday, September 29, 2014 10:41:45 AM UTC-7, wrote:
From the description, it looks like this functionality is entirely safety related; assuming you follow the recommended install, it won't provide any real advantage for the more frivolous functions of FLARM (ie being able to track traffic way ahead of you)

Hopefully I've completely misunderstood the situation, because this seems like a really odd decision by FLARM. What's a feature charge going to do except actively discourage users from fitting the ideal antenna configuration for their aircraft?

Having done extensive testing with both 'A' and 'B' antennas of various types in various locations and combinations I have come to the conclusion that the 'B' antenna is mostly for extending range at the limit. Very few gliders have blind spots that are so directional that a 'B' antenna will add materially to collision avoidance functionality. To the extent that they do have very specific blinds spots it is likely due to poor placement of the 'A' antenna and/or RFI in the cockpit which can be remedied without a 'B' antenna. I conclude the 'B' antenna is mostly for pilots who want the absolute maximum range limit for better tactical situational awareness in contests or buddy flying.

As to pricing models - it's a software world where much, most, or even all of the value of products is attributable to the intellectual property that goes into a product (embodied in software), rather than means of delivering that intellectual property - including the hardware. You should expect that pricing will increasingly be based on customer value, rather than COGS (Cost of Goods Sold). Deleting ADS-B, PCAS, the 'B' antenna and other features are what allowed Flarm to dramatically reduce the price to reach new customers who don't value the full-featured version to the tune of $1500. Price elasticity of demand and market segmentation, pure and simple.

Even calibration - which is expensive because it is labor-intensive - is a feature that you can argue some customers don't need. In 12 years of flying and racing gliders I have never (0 times total) needed a logger calibration. If I could pay $25 or $50 less for an uncalibrated product I probably would - that's just me of course - other's might pay extra to have it included and it may not be the best strategy to have too many different versions of a product floating around just for inventory reasons and making the customers who want it have to send a product back out to get what they need (calibration) may not be the best approach.

9B

On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:28:46 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, September 29, 2014 10:41:45 AM UTC-7, wrote:

From the description, it looks like this functionality is entirely safety related; assuming you follow the recommended install, it won't provide any real advantage for the more frivolous functions of FLARM (ie being able to track traffic way ahead of you)



Hopefully I've completely misunderstood the situation, because this seems like a really odd decision by FLARM. What's a feature charge going to do except actively discourage users from fitting the ideal antenna configuration for their aircraft?



Having done extensive testing with both 'A' and 'B' antennas of various types in various locations and combinations I have come to the conclusion that the 'B' antenna is mostly for extending range at the limit. Very few gliders have blind spots that are so directional that a 'B' antenna will add materially to collision avoidance functionality. To the extent that they do have very specific blinds spots it is likely due to poor placement of the 'A' antenna and/or RFI in the cockpit which can be remedied without a 'B' antenna. I conclude the 'B' antenna is mostly for pilots who want the absolute maximum range limit for better tactical situational awareness in contests or buddy flying.



As to pricing models - it's a software world where much, most, or even all of the value of products is attributable to the intellectual property that goes into a product (embodied in software), rather than means of delivering that intellectual property - including the hardware. You should expect that pricing will increasingly be based on customer value, rather than COGS (Cost of Goods Sold). Deleting ADS-B, PCAS, the 'B' antenna and other features are what allowed Flarm to dramatically reduce the price to reach new customers who don't value the full-featured version to the tune of $1500. Price elasticity of demand and market segmentation, pure and simple.



Even calibration - which is expensive because it is labor-intensive - is a feature that you can argue some customers don't need. In 12 years of flying and racing gliders I have never (0 times total) needed a logger calibration. If I could pay $25 or $50 less for an uncalibrated product I probably would - that's just me of course - other's might pay extra to have it included and it may not be the best strategy to have too many different versions of a product floating around just for inventory reasons and making the customers who want it have to send a product back out to get what they need (calibration) may not be the best approach.



9B

How much extra range do you typically expect with the B antenna?

This would be to enhance its primary value to me, which is as an inflight entertainment system. If the range enhancement is substantial, it would be well worth it.

I am pretty sure that the original brick did not require additional fee for flarm B antenna. how do you enable this feature anyway once you purchase a license?

Ramy

On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 4:23:43 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
I am pretty sure that the original brick did not require additional fee for flarm B antenna. how do you enable this feature anyway once you purchase a license?



Ramy

I think it is like the ENL - they give you a code, you put it in the config file, and it is supposed to be good for the duration. Code is hashed to the unit ID so only works on that one.

Have you noticed any difference since you installed it? I really want greater leeching range....

On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 4:43:29 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 4:23:43 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:

I think it is like the ENL - they give you a code, you put it in the config file, and it is supposed to be good for the duration. Code is hashed to the unit ID so only works on that one.

That's correct - I've done it. The higher-price variants have more features enabled then the newer, lower-price variants like PF Core Pure. Pay more, get more capability.

Have you noticed any difference since you installed it? I really want greater leeching range....

No. For more than a year I've run multiple antenna types beyond the standard quarter-wave dipole and at multiple locations and a second antenna didn't seem to help nearly as much as getting the 'A' antenna up high and away from the instruments and other metal/carbon clutter.

Maybe it would help in the situation where you have a strongly asymmetric radiation pattern AND a place to mount a second antenna to specifically fill the gap. I suppose mounting in the tail could help seeing behind you - but I don't know many pilots who worry a lot about range on overtaking scenarios. Also, keep in mind that Flarm recommends keeping multiple Flarm antennae well separated.

Load some log files into the Flarm range analysis tool to find out where your coverage gaps a http://www.flarm.com/support/analyze/index_en.html

I'd be curious to know if others have tried two antennae - where they mounted them and to what effect.

9B

On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:28:46 PM UTC+1, wrote:
Having done extensive testing with both 'A' and 'B' antennas of various types in various locations and combinations I have come to the conclusion that the 'B' antenna is mostly for extending range at the limit. Very few gliders have blind spots that are so directional that a 'B' antenna will add materially to collision avoidance functionality. To the extent that they do have very specific blinds spots it is likely due to poor placement of the 'A' antenna and/or RFI in the cockpit which can be remedied without a 'B' antenna.

Can't argue with practical testing, but I can't reach the same conclusion. If there are attenuating items in the aircraft, a single antenna must have diminished performance in their direction, just as individuals lit by a single candle in the middle of a room must throw a shadow. Moving the antenna away from the attenuating items may reduce the areas affected, but there will still be specific areas of reduced performance. A second antenna should bring the coverage closer to the ideal.

As for the significance of attenuated areas / blind spots: I think I recall FLARM using the example of the steady-state collision course scenario where both aircraft maintain constant heading, speed and climb rate. In this situation there is effectively no movement of the conflicting aircraft against the background, so it's difficult to spot the conflicting traffic visually. Since the relative bearing to the conflicting aircraft will be nearly constant in this scenario, even a narrow area of attenuation can be potentially significant if it happens to lie in the right (wrong?) direction.

I conclude the 'B' antenna is mostly for pilots who want the absolute maximum range limit for better tactical situational awareness in contests or buddy flying.

I don't see how the configuration suggested in the manual would provide extra range, and I haven't seen high-gain directional antennas being marketed by FLARM or its suppliers. I have to conclude the B antenna function is intended to cover blind spots, as the documentation suggests.

As to pricing models - it's a software world where much, most, or even all of the value of products is attributable to the intellectual property that goes into a product (embodied in software), rather than means of delivering that intellectual property - including the hardware. You should expect that pricing will increasingly be based on customer value, rather than COGS (Cost of Goods Sold). Deleting ADS-B, PCAS, the 'B' antenna and other features are what allowed Flarm to dramatically reduce the price to reach new customers who don't value the full-featured version to the tune of $1500. Price elasticity of demand and market segmentation, pure and simple.

I understand the rationale behind making various features on the Core Plus chargeable, and I have no objection to the other features which have only secondary relevance to electronic conspicuity. I still find it difficult to understand why the capability of increased antenna coverage has apparently been categorised as an additional, chargeable 'feature', discouraging users from fitting a second antenna.

On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 6:05:28 AM UTC-7, wrote:

I understand the rationale behind making various features on the Core Plus chargeable, and I have no objection to the other features which have only secondary relevance to electronic conspicuity. I still find it difficult to understand why the capability of increased antenna coverage has apparently been categorised as an additional, chargeable 'feature', discouraging users from fitting a second antenna.

I like your use of 'conspicuity'.

While it is theoretically possible to have really good coverage in one direction and basically none in another direction, my experience with a number of different gliders is once you get the 'A' antenna right with a good view out the front to cover converging traffic you generally have more than enough coverage out the back (or along the wings, or wherever the "dead spots" are). The speeds for overtaking traffic are such that you are more than fine if you can get half a mile to a mile. That's why I say that the "B" antenna seems most useful to extend the blind spot range from "fine for collision avoidance" to "good for full tactical coverage" (for cases like jfitch mentioned - the leeches were never collision threats, just competitive ones).. You just don't get situations where you have good coverage everywhere except a narrow corridor that is basically zero range and therefore a collision threat. The physics of radiated energy declining with R-squared just doesn't allow it and gliders are too thin and delicate to block a signal that completely.

At US$54, it is hardly a bank-breaker for anyone who owns a glider. I think forcing everyone to pay $54 extra for a feature that less than 10 percent might use seems like the wrong call.

9B