"Today, with DEMs available to generate the "tiles" for a full 3d model
would be straightforward. That was one of the challenges when Breakall
did his work."
Jim, the data I would need are measured 3D patterns to validate a 3D
modeling program. I thought a drone might generate them, now I don't
think so. There are many sources of error with a drone, some rather
subtle. It might work in certain limited terrain, but not in general.
There's no way one would work at my QTH.
"I'm not sure an ever increasing model fidelity is useful."
The issue with a radial-only model is that it can be entirely wrong, not
just off a bit. Worse, it gives no indication that the result is
unreliable. I think it's possible to use a radial-only model under
certain circumstances, but you need to carefully vet the terrain. It
definitely wouldn't work in most directions at my QTH. And while some
directions look benign, I'm not sure they really are. It's tricky!
"My understanding is that HFTA is horizontal pol only (the reflection
model is simpler)."
I don't know what HFTA does, but TA used specified ground constants with
Fresnel reflection coefficients for both horizontal and vertical
polarization at all reflection points. Vertical is no more difficult
than horizontal. The equations are just a little different.
Incidentally, after months of making innumerable errors of all kinds, I
think I finally have an accurate stratified ground model. Its
application is rather limited, as is the available stratified ground
data. But it provides some insight into the accuracy of surface ground
probes:
http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/sg.htm
My writeup on the Hagn generic curves, which yield ground constants much
more appropriate at HF than the figures antenna analysis programs
suggest, is here:
http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/hfgc.htm
Brian
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|