Steve - N5AC, VP Engineering
- 331 Posts
- 185 Likes
The roadmap shows major features we are working on that we believe are core functionality our customers are looking for. As we talked with customers about the scope feature, we found that even though it was a feature of PowerSDR, most customers did not use it and stated that it was not a feature they were interested in having quickly. For this reason alone, we dropped it from the roadmap. This is not to say that we will not do a scope function, just that it is no longer a key feature that we are promising in this time-frame.
The same thing can be said of predistortion -- we've been asked about it a lot, but when we ask which is more important to you as a customer: predistortion or remote capability, remote almost always get the nod. We asked the same question at the FlexRadio Banquet at the Dayton Hamvention and out of ~180 customers, only 2-3 raised their hands for predistortion over remote. For us the message is clear: focus on network and bring the other capabilities out after.
I hope that we've demonstrated that while we are working on the big-ticket items, we are also innovating and creating smaller features all along the way. Band edge markers is a personal favorite of mine that's I've been discussing with staff members at FlexRadio for over two years. I want to get to this and make it work well, but networking and the other items on the roadmap will be our focus. We'll fit in other items as we have time.
I like to suggest that in the future the poll questions should be place here rather than at the conventions.
I believe this menu has more active participants and a wider audience with diverse interest than any other place.
For example, pose the question and give the forum members a week or two to vote on the proposal.
Only one vote (remember we are not all in Chicago) per radio purchased.
On the ballot the purchaser name and call (if they have one) is verify by Flex records.
This would be the fairest way to get the members feeling on what want or like to see in their radios.
Let the majority rule!
Good idea -- Here is something that is different but related. I put in a suggestion on the "GetSatisfaction" page about the "like" button on ideas.
Since most of the communities like FRS use the number of likes to rank ideas, it is important that the method to support an idea is clear and easy to use. They used to label the button "ME TOO" but that was confusing so they changed it to "LIKE." However that can also also be confusing, especially since you can "like" a comment in the post but that doesn't add any support to the idea. And it is not clear by looking at the label whether you have added your support previously or not.
See the snapshot below that summarizes the proposed change. I suggested it about a month ago and the GetSatisfaction team agreed. Here is the status:
Stephanie, Community Support Manager said: We agree that this makes sense to change it to "Vote" for ideas. I'm going to mark this as planned so we can add it to our roadmap. Thanks for feedback! :)
Regards, Al / NN4ZZ
al (at) nn4zz (dot) com
********** CLICK to see FULL size ********
The Ideas section of the community is monitored to see the suggestions and ideas posted by individuals that are up-voted by others in the community. As of today, 9 of the top 20 ideas suggested have already been implemented and another 3 are planned. Some of the suggestions made simply are not practical or possible so not much we can do about that. My general recommendation is to post an idea and encourage others to me-too your idea. We look very seriously at these and implement the ones we can.
The roadmap came out of all of this information and there are smaller items we are doing that just didn't warrant a mention in the roadmap. The roadmap is a "big picture direction" about what we're doing, generally. The banquet was where we chose to announce the roadmap -- we did not use the banquet as a forum for soliciting ideas. One customer asked in the questions period about predistortion. I commented that it is something that we want to do, but that I didn't feel that it had the support over remote/networking and that we have to do things based on priority. To prove the point I asked for a show of hands. But we already know, based on daily interactions with customers, that remote is the killer app and predistortion is a nice-to-have for most (but not all).
I have long felt that a grass-roots user group would be welcomed -- one that existed to carefully organize and poll for the important features and then organize and present findings. The user community (here) is a big step in this direction and it really helps us do what you want most. But an organized group would be neat. We had these when I worked for Digital Equipment (the group was called DECUS) and it was run by customers. Of course all the customers worked for companies that could send them to an annual users' convention. As a DEC employee, we went to hear what customers wanted, to announce what we were doing and to help our customers be successful.
Our customers are awesome and I love talking to them and hearing about how they use our products and what we can do to make them better. Designing, administering, running, presenting the results of and acting on a poll is a LOT of work. I ran a poll a few years back about VHF contesting because the state of affairs so bothered me. The poll results and the paper I wrote in the wake of that are posted on my website (it's 67 pages long). It was a lot of work and after it was published many of the VHF contesting rules were changed. I do not know to what extent my poll and results helped, but I like to think that it was part of the equation. It was hours and hours of work to collate, consider and explain the results.
The community gives us a very good look at what customers are thinking. Would more be better? Sure, but I think we're doing better in this regard than many companies. Speaking for the engineering team at FlexRadio, we have lots of work to do just to get the things done that we've already committed to you. Today, we're focusing on that work. As we move forward, we'll always be looking at the next great ideas -- I think we've shown that we're not at all averse to doing and trying new things. So a poll is something we might do in the future (but when we have a bit more time on our hands) or it might be something that you guys do. If it is executed by the community and everyone gets a shot at expressing their opinions (it is perceived as fair), we'll definitely use it to plan what we're going to do and provide feedback on the things that don't make sense/we can't do, etc.
I didn't realize you worked for DEC. I used to belong the user group here in Atlanta. The company I worked for is still using some VAXes today. (hard to believe we developed the software to run on 11-750s initially in the 1980s and migrated it to a number of the later VAXes). We developed a lot of software in Macro32 and DEC C to run our manufacturing floor. I had a full book shelf full of orange VMS manuals and microfiche. Digital built great hardware and software, it was sad to see them go.
I've done customer surveys before and agree they are a tremendous amount of work and only good for a point in time. I think voting for the ideas on the community could be a good tool with much less effort. But in my opinion there are a few drawbacks in the way the GetSatisfaction handles ideas:
- The voting process can be confusing (as I noted in the post above). I think if everyone realized how it works and is used the numbers might be higher. Ideas with over 20 votes are rare. This seems low given the number community members.
- There is not a good reporting tool. Instead of paging through all of the ideas, it would be nice to have a simple spreadsheet type report with 1 line for each idea, the status, and a link to the idea for the details.
Devoting time to an independent surveying process would be close to a full time job so using the tools you have makes sense. Maybe developing some reports from the community data would be a compromise to consider. It might encourage a higher level of user participation in the voting process.
Regards, Al / NN4ZZ
al (at) nn4zz (dot) com
> "I'll bet a lot of the people at the banquet didn't respond positively to predistortion because they really didn't understand what it was or does."
That was certainly the case at my table. At the present time, I don't believe one article on predistortion (PD) has appeared in QST. It's time. Although I subscribe to QEX, I just don't recall if the topic has seen any print in that publication. The subject badly needs broader exposure that QEX does not provide.
PD is not a marketing gimmick. It has a 20+ year proven track record in land-mobile communications. I have used it when owning an ADAT ADT-200A transceiver. Many of us have seen real world experiments where 3rd-order IMD is brought down from -30 dBc to -60 dBc on +12V transceivers -- and actively kept low through continuous adaptation. Witnessing PD on a Flex panadapter is a jaw-dropping experience. Where PD really shines is when trying to listen to weak SSB stations next to very large signals. The difference is truly night-and-day.
Flex has managed to attain excellent stand-alone transmit IMD performance without PD. But we would be better served if the Flex 6500/6700 could accept an RF tap from an external power amplifier. Frankly, it would be a major disappointment (and waste of company resources) to put work into PD and not include an external tap - even if that tap required end-user or factory retrofitting .
that the feedback should be taken from the amplifier output. It may also be true that many
may have made their Flex purchase with remote capability in mind. So since this was
an advertised feature, perhaps it should come first. Yet, we now know that Flex has PD
as something in the works, and want to provide this feature soon. It's good to know that
eventually we will have both.
I seem to recall that DEC went out of business. Perhaps they listened too much to their user groups giving them more of the same rather than groundbreaking innovation.
We rarely get revolutionary ideas from the users or the other non-IT contributors. But sometimes it happens. As others have noted, they tended to be evolutionary (tweak this, add that). So I also understand the potential pitfalls and why it's important to have a leader that can pull it all together and innovate.
Some companies do better than others and smart ones improve over time. I think FRS is on the right track.
Regards, Al / NN4ZZ
al (at) nn4zz (dot) com
N8LP uses a rf bridge in his powder meter as opposed to a voltage bridge. This I think could be adapted to pre distorting the radio/amp as a unit. You would simply put the coupler as the last thing in the line prior to the antenna and feed DAC data into the program. It would work the same with or without the amp being turned on. If you developed a Ethernet connection to this DAC to get data into the radio it should be fast enough and you would not need to retrofit anything. http://www.telepostinc.com/lp100.html
When not predistorting you could use the coupler as a VNA for antenna analysis.