AirNav Systems Forum
AirNav RadarBox and RadarBox24.com => AirNav RadarBox and RadarBox24.com Discussion => Topic started by: jdo on March 02, 2009, 07:21:42 AM
-
hallo to all the users.can anyone tell me which receiver has the best sencitivity,rb or sbs1e;i,m very comfused to decide which i must take. thank to the forum..jdo.
-
I've used both systems and there isn't a great deal between them for sensitivity, the difference is in the software and the user interface.
Have a look at this section and it will compare both systems.
http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=606.0
Stuart
-
I've used both systems and there isn't a great deal between them for sensitivity, Have a look at this section and it will compare both systems.
http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=606.0
I'm sure AirNav won't mind me saying, in fairness, that the comparison document has yet to be updated to reflect the changes from SBS-1 to SBS-1e - principally the increase in sensitivity (one of the points you mentioned) and reduction in physical size.
-
Taking in account our own tests and dozens of reports done by users all over the world the sensitivity of RadarBox is similar compared with its competition (or even better as reported in some cases).
SBS-1 and SBS1e sensitivity is, in practical terms, exactly the same (as reported by several users on this and on their forum).
Taking in account this you should base your decision on the quality of the software provided with both products: RadarBox 2009 software has been developed over the years and contains hundreds of innovative feature like the Network where you can see traffic received by other users all over the world.
It is being used by several airlines and airports (adding to the thousands of enthusiast users). It contains Alerts, ACARS Interface and a sophisticated MyLog feature where you can log all the flights received in real-time, search the logs, generate reports, etc.
Check all the details at:
http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=606.0
Adding to this we have online video support and other relevant documentation available at:
http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=607.0
-
AirNav,
You really don't do yourselves any favours knocking the competition. Don't forget that your potential customers can look back through the forum and see all the gripes that users have. I have been directly alongside users of the SBS-1, original version, in the field (latest last Thursday) and their boxes picked up the same number of aircraft as mine.
Your software is a superior, all-in-one package but in fact MyLog, due to bugs, falls far short of some of the free software available on the opposition's site. That's why many of us very keen users rely on other software to produce useful reports. As regards the network, I am frequently able to track aircraft on another network (free) when it does not appear at all or is soon lost on the AirNav network. The same network allows me to record the data I download and frequently picks up callsigns which never seem to be picked up by ANRB. I'm very much looking forward to the next version of the software as I'm a little fed up with the slowness and freezing I experience on my well specified desktop.
When I was selling systems for the largest computer manufacturer in the world many years ago we were told never to slag off the opposition, rather we were told to say to any customer who asked, "I'm sorry I don't know about XYZ product but I can tell you that our product is consistently rated No.1 in independent tests."
-
Viking9,
As you mentioned, we don't know about the other product but dealers report that RadarBox has now more than 75% of the ADS-B market share.
The only statement on our post mentioning our competition was "Our competition provides an old/outdated software that did not have a major version for the last few years and where the network feature does not exist."
It is a fact and totally true.
Regarding your opinions, we don't agree with them but you are free to post them here as, again, this is a free forum.
Our network is, as with many other features and as you said included in the software and does not depend on external software to work. It is by far the biggest ADS-B network available in the world.
-
No one has spent the time to come up with a test setup. Minimum Discernable Signal, Saturation Signal, Garble Sensitivity, and DME suppression bandwidth.
I suspect they both use the same Analog Devices receiver chip, the same filter width, so the test would have to determine which one handles garble better, or is more resistant to interferrence.
Barring that test, the customer would probably choose which device they wanted, by looking at the software package that displays the result.
Some people need a lot of eye candy, others like to see a lot less. Myself, if I like a black screen, green tracks, and a couple VOR's to orient myself :-)
-
No one has spent the time to come up with a test setup. Minimum Discernable Signal, Saturation Signal, Garble Sensitivity, and DME suppression bandwidth.
I suspect they both use the same Analog Devices receiver chip, the same filter width, so the test would have to determine which one handles garble better, or is more resistant to interferrence.
Barring that test, the customer would probably choose which device they wanted, by looking at the software package that displays the result.
Some people need a lot of eye candy, others like to see a lot less. Myself, if I like a black screen, green tracks, and a couple VOR's to orient myself :-)
Right on Steve! All about truly making it the best it can be.
I do think if neither company is really serious about listening to
their customers it’s just a matter of time. And that’s no fun.
-
Having fired up my SBS-1 for the first time in 6 months, I must say that it just didn't hold my attention for long. I got bored long before I figured out how to install all the add-ons needed to get even half the functionality of the RadarBox interface.
Just my opinion, but the SBS-1 goes back in the cupboard.
-
Right on Steve! All about truly making it the best it can be.
I do think if neither company is really serious about listening to
their customers it’s just a matter of time. And that’s no fun.
I don't think "the most sensitive" is really what people want. Why would you want the most sensitive? These things have an Omni antenna, so you really need to reduce sensitivity. You want the range small, so they don't overload and saturate.
If you have fantastic sensitivity, and an Omni antenna, then you have fantastic garbled replies. The only way to match fantastic sensitivity, is to reduce the antenna beamwidth, and go to a narrow beam (say 3 degrees).
Ah! But then you have to rotate the antenna. I don't think girls will date men who have rotating antennas on their car... :-)
-
Steve,
You don't think that "Come and see my rotating antenna" will do the trick then - lol
-
Having fired up my SBS-1 for the first time in 6 months, I must say that it just didn't hold my attention for long. I got bored long before I figured out how to install all the add-ons needed to get even half the functionality of the RadarBox interface.
Just my opinion, but the SBS-1 goes back in the cupboard.
I was hoping Piotr would finish his Linux interface to the SBS raw USB. Alas, looks like he's burried in school work.
I've been using the Boris SBS raw interface, but it is Windows only, and you need to have Basestation running. Piotr's didn't need that, but then it only runs for an hour or so before it crashes.
I don't have any of the fancy add-ons. I'm not really interested in the registration number, the flight-plan, or having a picture of the airplane pop-up, or have an icon of the airline banner or what the profile of the plane looks like.
I'm happy just to see the Mode-S hex code!
The real thing I like about the SBS is you can saw it in two, and put the receiver remotely from the digital side. But then I've been sawing-up PC boards ever since my Heathkit H-89 never had any add-ons, but I could saw a hole in a prototype card, and glue-in an Apple card to interface with :-)
-
Steve,
You don't think that "Come and see my rotating antenna" will do the trick then - lol
Well, maybe a woman with 4-kids living in a van down by the river...
-
Well, maybe a woman with 4-kids living in a van down by the river...
[/quote]
AH Mr. Farley....
-
Hi jdo, my main reason for selecting the RB rather than the SBS box, is very simple, I'm not into computer programming - I wanted something I could plug together and see what I now do, without having to download other software and play around. My choice was largely influenced by a number of Forum users (from both sides) who in my circumstances advised me to go for the RB, I've had no cause to regret that choice, yesterday in just over 2 hours "playing" I'd hit the 200 A/C mark, and that's on the bog standard antenna shoved out of a window on the flat roof above, with no reception through the north east to south east, due to a roof ridge behind.
If you're into tinkering with computer programs and machine code, the SBS may be better for you, if you want plug and play go, for the RB, currently available with an improved antenna for a fair bit less than the SBS.
http://www.moonrakerukltd.com/Scanning-and-Receiving/Radio-Scanners/Aircraft-Receivers/AIRNAV-RADAR-BOX this bargain courtesy of Hamish who posted it
-
I made some tests in this weekend with the SBS-1 and perceived that I obtained to catch some aircraft that were in the SBGR ground. Also I obtained to follow the landings and takes-off and the taxi in the ground. However, when I placed the RB alone I obtain to catch the aircraft settling and soon later it disappears of the radar.
What it can be happening so that the RB does not obtain to catch these aircraft?
Obs.: I did not make no change in the external antenna.
-
The only way to test this properly is to have both boxes running at the same time, side by side. You seem to be using an external antenna, so did you have to use an adapter to connect the antenna to the RadarBox, but not to the SBS-1?
Have you got the airfield QNH set in RadarBox? There is no option to do this with the SBS-1, so the altitude displayed on RB will be correct, but the SBS-1 will always show the altitude relative to 1013.2 millibars - this can appear to make a difference.
In my tests, the SBS-1 and RadarBox produce broadly similar results - sometimes one box is better than the other at one height or distance, then the other is better in a different direction.
-
You seem to be using an external antenna, so did you have to use an adapter to connect the antenna to the RadarBox, but not to the SBS-1?
Yes, I´m used adapter in RB.
Have you got the airfield QNH set in RadarBox?
Yes. I marked "Auto set QNH" in SmartView.
Thanks for your information!
-
We believe this was already explained in a previous post. ADS-B signals are transmitted in a frequency that is very sensitive to small changes/interferences. If you move your antenna a few centimeters you could receive more or less 50% of the traffic. Also you have to use an antenna that exactly matches the receiver you are using.
DaveReid: it is very strange that you constantly point out that we shouldn't make direct statements against our competition and then send such a post.
Anyway the answer is simple: have a look at the post below on the Kinetic Avionics forum:
http://www.kinetic-avionics.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9219&highlight=
Copied from that post:
"3 units into one antenna through an RF Systems RF Splitter to present equal match to all boxes showed that the SBS-1e consistently over a 24 hour period gave 2 or 3 aircraft more than the other 2 units. Due to the way ADSP is handled it is meaningless to publish figures about db etc. "
On this post they mention that they didn't do any lab tests to compare the units. They were simply put side by side with the "same" conditions (with an antenna that matches SBS and not RadarBox). This is, as you may understand, a non professional way to compare the units and to promote a product using something that it does not have (increased sensitivity).
This is, of course and illegal and invalid claim that is, unfortunately, typical from our competition, a company that claimed it had, for example a network feature (mapmode-s) for 3 years without having it and sold units based on false advertisements.
-
DaveReid: it is very strange that you constantly point out that we shouldn't make direct statements against our competition and then send such a post. Are you hiding something?
On the contrary, I have absolutely no problem with either AirNav or Kinetic claiming to be better then the competition in specific areas provided that they are each able to back up their statements.
I was simply pointing out that I would like to see AirNav's comparison document updated to show RadarBox vs SBS-1e. I would be equally critical of Kinetic if they published a comparison based on an older version of RadarBox.
I think that's fair. Don't you ?
-
It is fair and we will update that document within the next days.
Anyway what is your opinion regarding ML&S false advertisement on more sensitivity? I would like to know your opinion on this one.
Do you believe it is fair to state that assuming that no lab tests were made?
-
You seem to be using an external antenna, so did you have to use an adapter to connect the antenna to the RadarBox, but not to the SBS-1?
Yes, I´m used adapter in RB.
Have you got the airfield QNH set in RadarBox?
Yes. I marked "Auto set QNH" in SmartView.
Thanks for your information!
The adapter will reduce the signal strength a little.
-
If w're talking about claims in advertising, then just take a look at Transair's spring catalog (copy attached). They claim that with the SBS-1 you can "Globally Monitor The Skies", and "share your information with other users via a broadband data stream network for global tracking of aircraft traffic". Features that I associate with the Radarbox rather than the SBS-1.
Confusing isn't it?
-
Gentlemen please,
You both have very valid points which are duly noted and read Not only by RB and SBS users,but by many prospective customers for both systems who MAY think that looking at the little sniping remarks that they may not bother with ANY of the systems until a level of order has been reached on this matter,i mean NO offence to any of you,but surely an e-mail or phone call to each other would be better,then you could reach some amicable arrangement and not publicly digress into bickering,i`m sure this would be better for us all and the "HOBBY".just my view at this time reading the RB and Kinetic forums.
Regards Terry.
-
Anyway what is your opinion regarding ML&S false advertisement on more sensitivity? I would like to know your opinion on this one.
The current ML&S ad comparing SBS-1e to SBS-1 includes the two statements "Better than 3db increase in sensitivity than original SBS-1" and "Up to 20% more aircraft viewable on screen (under multiple test conditions)".
I have no idea what the first statement means; the second seems pretty straightforward and should be easy enough to prove or disprove. Not having an SBS-1e, I can't really comment from personal experience.
Do you believe it is fair to state that assuming that no lab tests were made?
Well I don't know enough about the radio side of Mode S receivers to be able to judge what does or doesn't constitute a valid lab test. Speaking as a user, what would convince me would be a side-by-side, simultaneous demo where one could readily see whether or not Box A was pulling in more aircraft than Box B.
-
Dave.
I would be glad to do a test between the SBS1 and the RB if you want.I can use the same antenna which is on the side of the house so no movement there,just plug in each box and see what the difference is,if this will suffice.
Regards Terry.
-
I would be glad to do a test between the SBS1 and the RB if you want.I can use the same antenna which is on the side of the house so no movement there,just plug in each box and see what the difference is,if this will suffice.
Thanks for the offer, Terry. The problem with that approach is that you're not looking at the same aircraft in the same locations with each box. If you unplug Box A and plug in Box B, and aircraft X is no longer visible, is it because Box B is less sensitive or because the aircraft is now further away from you? (or possibly just further from the Mode S interrogator?)
Better would be two boxes running side-by-side, fed by two separate antennae, with the aerials swapped over halfway through the test session to eliminate differences resulting from them.
-
DaveReid: ok on your messages but do you think it is valid to make those statements without a valid scientific/lab test?
-
I quite understand your point Dave and see where your coming from.
Regards Terry.
-
DaveReid: ok on your messages but do you think it is valid to make those statements without a valid scientific/lab test?
Hang on chaps. Of course Dave's test is valid. What is the purpose of the RB? It's to detect aircraft. The only valid test is a side by side test at the same location. I've done it a few times, (latest was last Thursday at RAF Mildenhall) and found absolutely no difference in numbers of ac between my RB and two SBS-1s.
-
Copied from that post:
"3 units into one antenna through an RF Systems RF Splitter to present equal match to all boxes showed that the SBS-1e consistently over a 24 hour period gave 2 or 3 aircraft more than the other 2 units. Due to the way ADSP is handled it is meaningless to publish figures about db etc. "
On this post they mention that they didn't do any lab tests to compare the units. They were simply put side by side with the "same" conditions (with an antenna that matches SBS and not RadarBox). This is, as you may understand, a non professional way to compare the units and to promote a product using something that it does not have (increased sensitivity).
If you take a single antenna, then split the output via a 50 ohm splitter that provides the correct impedance for each receiver and gives isolation between each pair of receive ports then there is simply no better way of comparing several receivers as each will be provided with exactly the same signal to demodulate. The loss of range due to the splitter will be the same in each path, so it is an entirely fair comparison.
The results may be different in different locations however, the received signal levels and number and relative position of aircraft may well cause the different receivers to behave differently.
Nothing in this world can be distilled down to "A is always better than B", there are always caveats. But a large number of comparisons at different locations should enable a "most of the time" comparison to be drawn up. It would be possible to do this for a number of different antennas too, to establish whether any particular one benefited a particular receiver.
-
DaveReid: ok on your messages but do you think it is valid to make those statements without a valid scientific/lab test?
Making such a test would require access to not only the appropriate avionics signal generators (able to provide the correct modulation and data packets) but also a propagation simulator able to create various different fading environments and simulate the presence of multi-path and indeed multiple signals at various different relative timings and signal levels.
It's not easy, and not many people have such kit and can spend the time on setting it up and proving the test equipment before beginning the tests. I looked at the RF kit I have access to at work, and since we don't work in the avionics area we don't have the needed equipment options to produce the Mode-S signal formats and modulation, let alone a fading simulator.