You’re welcome! I originally posted this as my discovery in the RB forums just a few days ago. 
on June 3rd.
1 Like
Yes @dynamicpbx, it was posted in Radarbox24 forums, but with a slightly different user name @dpbxcorp. I got it from there. Thanks for posting the method.
If you dont mind, I would like to know how or from where you discovered this undocumented config parameter.
Here is the link to “Wiki leaks 
” I mentioned in my post as my source:
When I started to research the UAT dilemma, what I found were several complex suggestions involving rewriting data to dump1090 and other complex methods of manipulating UAT data with unconvincing results. Other solutions included installing an additional dedicated SDR’s or running on a seperate pi. I was convinced their must be a much more direct approach.
With 40 years of programming experience, I noticed commonality and trends in RB’s variable naming convention and simply tried applying their existing syntax to parameters. RB’s parameters for several 1090 counterparts is “external_”. This logic and following the example demonstrated by the UAT dump978_enabled= command, I tried dump978_port and rbfeeder stopped complaining about port 28380 in error logs. Assigning other invalid ports created new errors and validated rbfeeder.ini’s use of this command to modify the port it was looking for.
Confirmation came within seconds of applying fa’s json port with RB displaying UAT traffic from my feeder and its identity promptly being added to RB’s list of online UAT 978 receivers within a few minutes.
As I can’t find any documentation to support this solution, despite current success, there is nothing to say future software changes won’t render it useless.
4 Likes
Very intelligent approach. 
Thanks for finding the config parameter dump978_port, and then publishing the method for benefit of all.
Thanks for finding and sharing this solution. If anything rb should give you an award.
2 Likes
Sure @dynamicpbx deserves appreciation for finding the undocumented parameter dump978_port. However RB never expresses their appreciation, or even acknowledge the contribution made by their members.
On the other hand, RB should be fined for keeping this important info undocumented.
1 Like
UAT traffic must have little value to RB
Waking this older thread and bringing it back to the original posted topic - doesn’t the key difference between dongles come down to the signal clipping level, the noise floor, the dynamic range, from the SMA connector? At 978 MHz of course, and at the same overall gain, whatever that means. So an rtl-sdr v3 at a gain setting in the 40’s vs. an orange FA with gain setting in the 20’s? Does the separate LNA in the orange improve any of those metrics, at the expense of others? Usually a LNA adds to the noise figure, right?
Any thoughts on the feasibility of scientifically comparing? Kind of wondering if my brand new just received NanoVNA V2 S-A-A-2 vector network analyser could help, even to provide a known constant 978 signal of some kind for testing. I know almost nothing about this device yet, just got it to play with.