pfclient 3.7.40 mlat

#1
Hello,

I have an inquiry regarding the pfclient 3.7.40 armhf, will this version of pfclient supports mlat if there are 4-5 ground stations in nearer locations? Or it still needs official GPS Enabled PlaneFinder or Radarscape only that support mlat?

Regards,
Fung Sai Hou
 

Lee Armstrong

Administrator
Staff member
#2
Hello,

Yes we still require 3 or more Plane Finder Radar or Radarcape receivers.

We have tested non GPS MLAT and the results are shocking. Looking at existing systems that use it and comparing to our GPS based MLAT shows they are quite some distance off!
 
#3
Hello,

Yes we still require 3 or more Plane Finder Radar or Radarcape receivers.

We have tested non GPS MLAT and the results are shocking. Looking at existing systems that use it and comparing to our GPS based MLAT shows they are quite some distance off!
Hi Lee,

Noted with thanks that MLAT is required 3 or more ground stations in certain distance.
So now its confirmed that the Non GPS based pfclient is supports MLAT but the accuracy is quite big difference with the GPS based MLAT like official Plane Finer or Radarscape receiver.
Thanks again. Hope to get MLAT works in the near future.
 
#4
Hello,

Yes we still require 3 or more Plane Finder Radar or Radarcape receivers.

We have tested non GPS MLAT and the results are shocking. Looking at existing systems that use it and comparing to our GPS based MLAT shows they are quite some distance off!
Presumably this is erroneous station positions people have entered, rather than any other issue?
 

Lee Armstrong

Administrator
Staff member
#5
Presumably this is erroneous station positions people have entered, rather than any other issue?
No, even when we had some great test setups in the south of the UK here with exact locations the accuracy was way off. Especially when coming in to land.

To some extent you can filter/smooth an overflight but tights turns coming in to land were off by a lot.

We'd rather have accurate data than bad data so decided not to roll it out.
 
#6
No, even when we had some great test setups in the south of the UK here with exact locations the accuracy was way off. Especially when coming in to land.

To some extent you can filter/smooth an overflight but tights turns coming in to land were off by a lot.

We'd rather have accurate data than bad data so decided not to roll it out.
Probably the best choice, as I've seen some odd projections from MLAT where coarse manouvering is involved.
 
Top