Hello I was wondering if anyone has tried these products in the past and if you have any feedback at all? Link to product not able to be posted due to spam filter, but your fave search engine should do you right.
Edit: After looking at a comparison of the device i'd like to edit this post. Sadly I have no direct comparison to an rtl-sdr based system. This is the comparison i looked at: https://mictronics.de/posts/adsb-antenna-comparison/ Looks to me like the system does an ok job. Not sure about software support, you'll probably have to use readsb-protobuf which you need to compile yourself. (i'll look into adding support for my readsb fork which ships with the adsbx image) In contrast to my original post... looking at the comparison i'd guess the range and message rate is probably comparable to a system with an FA antenna / FA filter / FA prostick plus. From what i've seen, the system is not far superior as claimed by the manufacturer. (Original Post was only this line: Seriously overprized, SDRs are equally good if not better.)
So the use-case I have in mind is to build a 'to-go' re-locatable all-in-one feeder. The fewer boxes/cables etc the better. If at present I duplicated my at-home feeder I'd need antennae, cables, PI, SDR, router, power supplies and a box. This in itself is probably worthy of a new discussion topic when It's clearer in my mind as to how to go about it
Well get a small suit case and strap it all down optimally including a LiIon power pack with a converter to 5 V.
@wiedehopf sorry to say you are wrong... The HULC is outperforming every SDR on the market. I will invite you to visit us and we can test it in a real scenario or in our labatory. Also the information overprized is wrong.... You do not need an Raspi or additional addons like cable , antenna , filters If you calculate all this stuff together you have an prize. And you know that normal SDR´s are not able to generate such framerates. Also you know that an Raspi is not able to handle such framerates. ....
The performance i've seen from users using that kit wasn't great. Can only report on what i've seen. ADS-B HULC-M 349,00 € That's what i see as a price. pi kit 100 euros (expensive) FA blue: 40 euros FA filter: 20 euros antenna: 40 euros coax: 40 euros So that's 110 euros less. And you have a pi4 you can do other stuff on as well. Set up 2 beast or AVR TCP streams and message me the IP / ports via a private message, no need to incur travel or shipping costs. I'm sure you have a setup comparable to what i listed above that can serve as comparison? Happy to be proven wrong.
So..... it appears this hardware has a USB interface? So a PC or Pi is also required to forward the traffic over the network? How does that work?
Wiedehopf... where is your problem ...? You know exactly that you can not decode all possible frames with a SDR-Raspi combo. This is fact because of the Raspi performance. Especially in regions with high traffic this is an issue. It´s easy take your ADS-B generator and transmit long ADS-B frames to an SDR with an Raspi and count the frames you are receiving. HULC-M is an ADS-B receiver with integrated GPS for MLAT because of pricing you forgot to add the GPS with precise time pulse (low jitter) and the SD memory card @Dan ...the HULC concept is an smart antenna concept. It is based on a small band dual fork sometimes also named diapason antenna. so this concept integrates an antenna and receiver together. The decoded data are provided via USB cable in AVR or HULC-/ Beast dataformat. regards
No issues at all i'm just giving my honest opinion on the matter. The only HULC i saw data for was a test device of yours in Italy. That user also had an rtl-sdr based setup, performance of the HULC was about the same. Anyhow ... that's a low sample size and that's why i'm saying: proof me wrong, setup the comparison and send me the live data via TCP. So this is the adsbexchange forum. There is no additional (or very marginal maybe) value in GPS timestamps for people who want to feed adsbexchange. That wasn't what i was proposing. I know the code of dump1090-fa/readsb and the demodulation / decoding process pretty well and of course that takes more CPU than reading a beast / AVR stream. This doesn't necessarily mean your device is any better does it? Again, with your offer of seeing the device in person, a request for two TCP streams to compare doesn't seem outlandish if you're so keen to prove your point?
@wiedehopf, did you saw how the receiver was installed in Italy ? I have seen this and I will not gave any comment to this installation which was in a garden on the ground between high houses and the SDR was placed on a roof from my knowledge. The only valid test for frames is to generate frames sending them with a transmitter ....receiving in maybe 3m distance with an SDR checking how many frames are lost. I will make a video and will show it to you ....than you can explain to me why so many frames are lost with an SDR + Raspi combo this is an fair test cheers
That's not a real world test. I'd much prefer two systems being set up side by side on your roof. (or at any other location without very close by obstructions ... so the difference in antenna position isn't relevant) Synthetic tests ... not so interesting to me.
....how you are testing for a valid test you need one fix data stream with a fix datarate and then you need to measure. What do you mean is not testing it is something of comparison between two systems and it is your opinion to say this system is better or not. But I think I stop here ...because you are expert and you know the problems with the AGC and decoding of overlapping frames.... I do not want ride this dead horse again
Certainly in regards to RF you are the expert and i'm someone who barely gets by. Most of the enthusiasts here who would buy your system want to see a real world test. The synthetic test you're proposing will show the ability to decode overlapping messages, but will it also test how well low strength signal are decoded, show the range of the device? There is a good reason Radarcape has a demo setup reachable via the internet: https://radarcape-demo.jetvision.de/map.html I'm not saying your synthetic test is irrelevant, i'm sure it's relevant for a certain aspect of the device. It's consumer level comparison, a comparison a consumer can understand and could likely even reproduce. Exactly what you need to convince people this is worth buying. I'm not sure why you're attacking me instead of just complying with the very reasonable request to compare the two systems in the way i'm proposing. I'm not asking you to buy super expensive testing equipment, just see actual live data from the HULC and a reference system. We've already discussed what such a reference system would cost above. Just in case someone else is reading who is interested in this antenna, i'll link this comparison: https://mictronics.de/posts/adsb-antenna-comparison/ It's not really what i'd like to see because the systems weren't running at the same time and there is not rtl-sdr based system in the mix. Anyhow the range is pretty clearly less compared to the beast with the good antenna, the other parameters can change too much with time so that's hard to say. Exactly why a comparsion like i'm describing would help. Also you're saying a pi isn't needed, yet what do you connect the USB to? Some other PC? Because you can connect the rtl-sdr to some other PC just as well. I'll edit my first reply in this thread and link the comparsion by mictronics. I'd be happy to replace that first reply even with a real world comparison similar to what mictronics did prepared by you. Not out to get you and the first reply is probably a bit harsh in retrospect, it was colored with my own experiences with a preproduction GNS device.
To actually answer this question: It's probably your attitude coming to forums making claims about your products without any data whatsoever to back them up. It's also the claim that the antenna you offer has 6 dBi (https://www.gns-electronics.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ProductSummary_GNS-TEN-90_271119.pdf) There is a reason the FA antenna / Jetvision A3 / DPD antenna are quite long. The FA antenna / Jetvision A3 are way longer and claim 5 dBi if i'm not mistaken. Your antenna seems to be similar to antennas like these: As a passive antenna without amplification they are comparable to quarter wave ground planes in gain if i'm not completely mistaken, around 2 dBi. Claiming 6 dBi with such a short antenna seems like a miracle and i just don't believe it as surely those other manufactures mentioned would have used the antenna design, it doesn't seem to be that complicated? I'm very willing to see past that and get some code from readsb-protobuf over to readsb so that the adsbexchange image has support for the HULC.
Wiedehopf.... thanks for sharing your comparison which is not done in parallel and you know that frame rates are changing fast. The other point is the hight of the antennas ...if you are using a 1.xx m rod antenna the highest point is the level and not the ground. So also HULC must be mounted at the same hight for comparison I am testing actual every day ADS-B antennas ...the only real world test you can do is using same hardware in parallel. Means same hight, same place same blabla bla....and changing everything between cable position receiver because of the radarcape demo...yes I know it and I have several Radarcapes in test because I like how Günther has devloped this nice piece of hardware. First point the Antenna is mounted on a mast Actual I do not know how high but really high or maybe Günther has changed to a windturbine doesn´t matter Range max is always >=500km and this is the maximum which is possible. The point is that max. Range means nothing ....it´s nothing because you will only get some few long frames....and then the software is keeping this position for maybe 60 seconds....it is not realworld it is fake ! It is 60 second fake ! But good to counting Airplanes because it generate larger numbers thats the real world. Because of antennas ..... long antennas are not better...FA antenna shows only a little bit tuning ...the reason for having such antenna is ...because the chinese companies only have this Actual I do not have any long rod antenna anymore on my roof because the look ugly, they are making trouble during storm and make fear because of lightings and they are not better than a TEN90 or a diapason antenna. Because of the antenne you show the original active antenna from jetvision and not a chinese fake thats good The best thing is to measure these antennas with a Vector Network Analyser the result of the chinese fake antennas is really bad...because there are indeed some miracles behind It is not done by making a copy....for the passiv ones.... At the end I will show you my newest antenne i have mounted on my roof horizontal ! and it works fine...long range very sensitive it is named TEN90-P ADS-B Antennas has to be narrow band ...thats the point ....rod doesn´t have this character cheers
I don't know which software you use with your HULC receiver but i've added the HULC support code developed by Mictronics to my readsb fork. If you want to test it, any linux box will do: https://github.com/wiedehopf/adsb-scripts/wiki/Automatic-installation-for-readsb You'll need to edit /etc/default/readsb: Code: RECEIVER_OPTIONS="--device-type=gnshulc --beast-serial=/dev/ttyUSB0" Then restart the systemd service (sudo systemctl restart readsb). That should in theory make it work. Feel free to also feed adsbexchange and name your station HULC (https://map.adsbexchange.com/mlat-map/) (feed client: https://github.com/adsbxchange/adsb-exchange#install-the-adsbexchange-feed-client) So where does the 6 dBi figure come from? I suppose you could mount two dipoles 5m or so apart, connect your network analyzer and get a baseline. Then replace one of the dipoles with the antenna under test and compare gain to the baseline. The question is if that can be done precisely at low power as you can't very well radiate much power at restricted frequencies. The original diapason has the big advantage of integrating a filtered LNA on the same PCB as the antenna (that's what the HULC also does right?). I don't doubt that such an antenna can work just fine, but the TEN90 doesn't have an LNA and thus a 10 m coax run will attenuate and you will run into limits faster than with a higher gain antenna.
Wiedehopf, I have integrated your code one year ago and stopped working with that because of decoding failures in the software. Especially positioning I believe one colleague of mine did inform you because of that. There where several ghost planes because of wrong geolocation (tile calculation) because of the diapason ...the big advantage is that it is an active antenna...and the cable losses are compensated, but if you are using low loss cable (max. 5m) it is also fine to use a passive one
I'm not aware of any ongoing issue of that sort (there was an issue that almost but not really fits the description and it's been fixed). Anyhow it's not about you using that software permanently. I don't have the hardware, i'm asking you to test if the HULC support works i adopted from Mictronics. Testing how it works with the adsbexchange MLAT system, which frequency is used for the timestamps is it 12 MHz or 1000 MHz clock for that (12 MHz is beast default, 1000 Mhz is used by radarcape i believe). People asking about the product in this thread, if you test the software and confirm it works that would be a plus wouldn't it? My fork is in use on the adsbexchange sd-card image which in turn then has tested support for the HULC which is relevant for people asking about HULC on this forum. With the script that comes with it, it's pretty easy to install on the most common linux systems as well. Anyhow if you don't feel that's worth your effort, not an issue.
