Version 3.1 will be released on Monday, August 2nd 2021. Then it's back to user requests.

Higher "Min elev" for satellite passes

🙋 If you want a new feature or a change to the software then add your request here.

If it's not here then it's not going to happen.
VE3HST
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:21 am

Re: Higher "Min elev" for satellite passes

#11

Unread post by VE3HST »

Since the Automatic Scheduler Minimum Elevation change to 80 degrees didn't happen in 3.0.27, I wonder if it is planned for the next release? The issue is described extensively in the preceding messages on this topic. To summarise, the Automatic Scheduler Minimum Elevation is the part that doesn't work. The Passes window (which is just what you see) seems to work but what is most important is the Automatic Scheduler itself which determines if a pass actually gets recorded or not. And now everything gets recorded regardless of the minimum elevation setting.

VE3HST
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:21 am

Re: Higher "Min elev" for satellite passes

#12

Unread post by VE3HST »

Here is an updated explanation of the request to make the "Min. elevation" function work correctly for satellite passes. The "Min. elevation" that can be set was recently increased to 80 degrees. That is good. However, that unfortunately only affected what is displayed in the two windows "Schedule" and "Automatic Schedule". In the example (below), even though the "Min. elevation" is set at 20 degrees, SDR Console records all passes. The lower elevation pass is being recorded in the screenshot even though it is not shown in the two schedule windows. So, the windows work and display correctly, but the recording function currently ignores the window settings, and records all elevations.
2021-06-06 Schedule.jpg

User avatar
Simon G4ELI
Posts: 1607
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:27 am
Location: Mawnan Smith
Contact:

Re: Higher "Min elev" for satellite passes

#13

Unread post by Simon G4ELI »

Finally - I'm looking at this now.

So, if the automatic schedule is on only recording when above the minimum elevation?
Simon Brown :shock:
www.sdr-radio.com

Do not send me direct e-mail, thank-you!

VE3HST
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:21 am

Re: Higher "Min elev" for satellite passes

#14

Unread post by VE3HST »

Not sure I understand the question.

Short summary.

The "Min elevation" should determine which passes get recorded.

However, all passes get recorded regardless of what is set (and shows) as "Min Elevation".

User avatar
Simon G4ELI
Posts: 1607
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:27 am
Location: Mawnan Smith
Contact:

Re: Higher "Min elev" for satellite passes

#15

Unread post by Simon G4ELI »

VE3HST wrote:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:20 am
Not sure I understand the question.

Short summary.

The "Min elevation" should determine which passes get recorded.

However, all passes get recorded regardless of what is set (and shows) as "Min Elevation".
OK,

Now if we have min elevation set to 30 degrees we record the whole of this pass? I'll check recording when there's an enabled schedule.
Simon Brown :shock:
www.sdr-radio.com

Do not send me direct e-mail, thank-you!

jdow
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:17 pm

Re: Higher "Min elev" for satellite passes

#16

Unread post by jdow »

From a position of relative ignorance for LEO satellite work, might it not be best to declare you want the satellite to reach at least X degrees above the horizon during its pass and you want the entire pass recorded?

{o.o} Me needs some education here.

User avatar
Simon G4ELI
Posts: 1607
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:27 am
Location: Mawnan Smith
Contact:

Re: Higher "Min elev" for satellite passes

#17

Unread post by Simon G4ELI »

jdow wrote:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:42 am
From a position of relative ignorance for LEO satellite work, might it not be best to declare you want the satellite to reach at least X degrees above the horizon during its pass and you want the entire pass recorded?

{o.o} Me needs some education here.
This is indeed another option.
Simon Brown :shock:
www.sdr-radio.com

Do not send me direct e-mail, thank-you!

VE3HST
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:21 am

Re: Higher "Min elev" for satellite passes

#18

Unread post by VE3HST »

Yes, it should record the whole pass for any pass that has a maximum elevation at or higher than the "Min elevation".

Any pass with a maximum elevation lower than the "Min elevation" should NOT be recorded.

In this way, you only record the passes that you assess as "good" and are of interest because they are higher than the "Min elevation" that you choose to set.

User avatar
Simon G4ELI
Posts: 1607
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:27 am
Location: Mawnan Smith
Contact:

Re: Higher "Min elev" for satellite passes

#19

Unread post by Simon G4ELI »

VE3HST wrote:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:20 pm
Yes, it should record the whole pass for any pass that has a maximum elevation at or higher than the "Min elevation".

Any pass with a maximum elevation lower than the "Min elevation" should NOT be recorded.

In this way, you only record the passes that you assess as "good" and are of interest because they are higher than the "Min elevation" that you choose to set.
Agreed.
Simon Brown :shock:
www.sdr-radio.com

Do not send me direct e-mail, thank-you!

jdow
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:17 pm

Re: Higher "Min elev" for satellite passes

#20

Unread post by jdow »

Now that I am awake, I do not see the difference. If its maximum is above a minimum it is at least above a minimum. I needed some wake up juice when I typed that message. And with disk space nearly free these days (compared to the $1k for 19 megabytes days or even the buck a gigabyte days) the whole pass should be recorded OR ELSE you need to provide a degree by degree shadow mask for obstructions and antenna pattern issues. That or else is a programming hum dinger and requires a lot of work on the part of the user to generate the shadow mask.

{o.o}

Post Reply