If you insist with the script, follow @SoNic67 advice, not more than 20 seconds per setting. Same duration if doing the changes manually.
The longer the interval, the less accurate the results will be. If you do an hour per setting, the only equivalent comparison would be to the same hour, the same day, the following week, and even that provided it’s the same flying season. Same for a full 24 hour period. Ideally you would need to run the script for one week per setting.
I’m not a betting person, but I’ll bet the ideal setting is going to be between 29.7 and 49.6.
Finally, I see you are looking at the changes on RadarBox. During the tests, use SkyView, as the response is faster.
Typical! As with these things - copied from your TWeaks (#3), and works first time!
No idea what issue I had before…
So what I was originally trying to do was extend the range of Gain settings in that script to include all of them, from 0.0 all the way up. Reason being, I’m running a hab amp, and was thinking maybe it actually needs less gain than the 20.x that script starts with…
Simply replacing the gain range in that script shouldnt be an issue I dont think…
Just dumped all 29 gain settings into that one active line - certainly seems to be working, but I’m wondering if there’s any point, as the first sweep is suggesting what one would expect, best gains are the top 4 gains, with 48.0 having slightly more pos + planes than 49.6…
I understand those commented-out ranges now, allows you to “set” which level of scan you want…
Dissapointingly, I had hope that having the hab amp in place would show better results lower down the gain - i.e higher gains+amp were being swamped, lowerGains+amp offsets the extra power of the amp - not seeing that as yet, just the usual “higher is better” theme.
Would you expect that, or might it be an issue with the amp?
I guess that’s what you need for indoors antennas. For me, with the FA antenna on roof of the garage, and an filtering amp after that, I have to lower the gain to 13 on the FA Pro Plus stick. Well… considering that the stick has an integral amp too, might be about right.
that said, my coverage is pretty close to HeyWhatsThat expectations…
The outline in the second pic is the range expectations from HWT, compared to the other image, which is my actual coverage.