I have stripped away the following items, from your response, UnderTow
1) Self-congratulations
2) Personal Insults
3) Unsubstantied claims (you telling me I'm wrong without any justification)
I am left with the following cogent issues:
On the "About me" section...
Why bother putting this in here. Based on your other comments in this thread, the body of your text should stand on it's own. Perhaps to add weight and an air of authority? Since you don't actually reference any industry standards and prior work, this must be your personal opinion.
I find it somewhat strange that you had the most to say about the "About me" section. The reason I included it is because it's customary to accompany biographies with documents in scientific literature. I know that the traditions of scientific publication aren't highly held in the CT world, but it's a habit I've gotten into. Pick up any scientific journal, flip to the end of any article, and you'll see a short bio of the author.
he "problem" you attempt to create is something that these companies and people have been working with for several decades. No one "sees" a stream of bits and attempts to "make sense of it".
Yes, I am describing the motivation for the standards, and explaining how the standards solve the technical challenges. I'm using a simple narrative to describe the technical challenges of dealing with this type of data. If you honestly thought I meant an actual engineer sits down with 1s and 0s and starts from scratch every time, you've utterly and severely missed the point. The purpose of this was to EXPLAIN why the standards are the way they are, and what issues they solve.
You continue the mistake of earlier by linking a "word" which a value for Alititude and that you can add the Time Slot to the Time Stamp for the Real World Time of the Data Event as it happened.
The Time Stamp recorded in the Data Frame is exactly what it is. A Time Stamp for ALL records recorded in that Frame.
These statements are provably false. Even the footnote of the jpg's YOU posted prove that these statements are false. The implied time stamp (what you call the "time slot") does not equal the time it actually happened. That is the entire point of this document -- which you clearly are not understanding.
Here is the footnote of those jpgs: (bolding mine, as it DIRECTLY contradicts your previous statement)
The age of the NZ sample depends on how old it was when it arrived in the pool and how long it sat in the pool before time T-1. The source latency and transmit delay determine the age on arrival. The update rate determines the time spent in the pool before being used.
It appears that the Nz is 2/64 second older than Radalt because of its implied timetag, but it could actually be much newer.
Your own graphic has a footnote that literally proves that the nonsense you just tried to pass off is false. The implied time tags are NOT the measured time tags. End of story. The raw FDR data will include these measured time tags seperately if that level of precision is necessary. You do not have the raw FDR data, so you only know the implied time tags, not the measured ones. (and you don't even know the IMPLIED ones because you don't have the frame descriptor.. you know a RANGE of time that the implied time tag falls in)
That is nonsense and for the people that actually work on this for a living it's an offense to thier efforts and achievments.
You mean like me? I got paid for building these exact systems...
