Re: [digitalradio] QRV ALE-400 ARQ chat mode -- 14074.0
It seems that there are only a handful of hams who have any interest in ARQ modes for chatting. There don't even seem to be many interested in even using this for public service communications either and quite frankly I am very concerned by this. There is nothing wrong with using older techniques and technologies, but when breakthroughs occur that move us much farther along the path to having the ability to both keyboard and send files error free for the first time with a sound card mode, it tells you that hams really are not interested in this after all. I have brought this up on a number of other groups with nearly no response. FAE400 is not that new since it has been around for several years. Maybe part of the problem is that it is only available on one program that is less popular, but I have not been able to get much interest from other multimode digital mode developers. 73, Rick, KV9U Tony wrote: You should have called Rick! That was the first RV ALE-400 QSO for me. John tells me he's touring the country working digi-mode from his motorhome. Tony -K2MO Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Recommended digital mode software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk Logging Software: DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe. Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.2/2215 - Release Date: 07/02/09 18:06:00
Re: [digitalradio] QRV ALE-400 ARQ chat mode -- 14074.0
Rick, ARQ is perfect for being sure emcomm and other messages are delivered error-free, but for chatting, most people will not want to slow things down waiting for an acknowledgment. Rather, they just ask for a repeat when it is needed. In addition, we can correct errors (a single apparently misspelled word, for example) with what we think is the right word, or fill in a missing word with our brains (since we can visualize things in context). Overall, this is usually faster than using ARQ and good enough for casual conversation. However, for sending pictures, ARQ is sometimes absolutely necessary, especially with a compression technique in which a single byte ruins the whole picture. The Western Pennsylvania emcomm group has fully implemented NBEMS over both repeaters and simplex, but mostly over VHF, and, because VHF tends to be more constant and tends to be much more error-free than HF, did not want to spend the extra time (on any mode or speed) to slow down for ARQ, so we developed the Wrap program, which sends a checksum at the end of the message, and error-free reception can be verified that way. On our MARS emcomm net, MT63 on HF usually produces error-free copy on the statewide net, and Wrap is useful with MT63 also just for verifying that there were no errors, or indicating that a resend is necessary. However, far enough away, there may always be some stations, under poor conditions, that either need a repeat of the whole message, or need to have ARQ used to repeat bad blocks if there are many. The advantage of Wrap is that a one-on-one ARQ link is not needed except when that is the only way to get the message through. Bulletins can be transmitted in MT63 and received error-free by most stations, with others needing a resend, or perhaps a relay. On VHF SSB weak signal phone, it is common practice to use vocal FEC (to coin a term!) and just repeat callsigns twice or over twice to accomplish the contact during poor conditions. The standard call on CW is a 3x3 call, which is a type of manual FEC to try to get at least one of each callsign through. Most files these days are very large, compared to those in DOS days, and with the bandwidth limitations on HF, it just takes too long to send a very large file, even using a fast mode and ARQ, so I think there is little interest in file transfer on the bands either. Still, I have always though it would be very convenient to be able to send a schematic to explain something, but these days, that can be done with most stations by using the Internet. FAE400 is a great development, but the learning curve is too steep for emcomm operators thrust into a position without much training. That is why we elected to use commonly used digital modes and provide ARQ with flarq when necessary, and the learning curve is not as steep that way. ARQ definitely has its place, but is usually needed for messaging or when poor conditions require it (for example, if QSB is strong). I think that is why only a handful of hams have any interest in ARQ modes for chatting. That is how I see it. Other's opinions may vary, of course. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team Rick W wrote: It seems that there are only a handful of hams who have any interest in ARQ modes for chatting. There don't even seem to be many interested in even using this for public service communications either and quite frankly I am very concerned by this. There is nothing wrong with using older techniques and technologies, but when breakthroughs occur that move us much farther along the path to having the ability to both keyboard and send files error free for the first time with a sound card mode, it tells you that hams really are not interested in this after all. I have brought this up on a number of other groups with nearly no response. FAE400 is not that new since it has been around for several years. Maybe part of the problem is that it is only available on one program that is less popular, but I have not been able to get much interest from other multimode digital mode developers. 73, Rick, KV9U . -- *Skip KH6TY* http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net
Re: [digitalradio] QRV ALE-400 ARQ chat mode -- 14074.0
While I somewhat agree that there is a perception of ARQ modes being slower, this has not been based upon my actual testing of FAE400. The ability of FAE400 to work at least as deep into the noise as PSK31, and probably a bit deeper with its memory ARQ capabilities, not available in any other sound card mode at this time, and its much greater throughput, often makes it difficult to keep up with the flow if your keyboarding speed is much below 40 wpm. If you want to send a file or an image, you need to have ARQ, but it really does appear that most hams just want relatively quick boiler plate contacts. On VHF, you have more tolerance, but I have found PSK31 to be less than desirable since any multipath (aircraft, hills, etc.) can make it scramble data. The WRAP program makes a lot of sense when you do not want a connected mode, such as a one to many bulletin. Using MT-63 on phone circuits will work because you typically have very good signals. If you did not have this, you could not use phone as well as MT-63. But for weaker signal applications, MT-63 can not compete well with other modes. I do not agree that the learning curve is too great for FAE400 compared with NBEMS or any other system. If you are a user of Multipsk, then only a few things need to be learned. The clutter of the program does mean that very few hams are moving in that direction anymore. Even myself, who at once time mostly used Multipsk, have moved to fldigi and for almost total rig control as well as non-ARQ digital modes find Ham Radio Deluxe to be the best for a completely integrated program. Nothing else can come even slightly close for now. But if you want to run packet radio at 300 or 1200 baud, or FAE400 and the faster FAE (2000) and similar modes that have a basis from the old ALE protocols, the only freely available program is Multipsk. One the other hand fldigi has the unique capability of non only being the only cross platform multimode digital program, but acts as the core program for NBEMS and PSKmail. What is complicated that to get basic rig control and centralized logging, quite a few programs need to be running and that is quite complicated. Bottom line: If you don't use a given program and mode on a regular basis (daily or at least weekly) you are not going to be using it for public service either. And if we are to ever develop ARQ BBS systems that can work with sound card modes and provide a superior solution to 300 baud packet on HF, we have to have these technologies. 73, Rick, KV9U wrote: Rick, ARQ is perfect for being sure emcomm and other messages are delivered error-free, but for chatting, most people will not want to slow things down waiting for an acknowledgment. Rather, they just ask for a repeat when it is needed. In addition, we can correct errors (a single apparently misspelled word, for example) with what we think is the right word, or fill in a missing word with our brains (since we can visualize things in context). Overall, this is usually faster than using ARQ and good enough for casual conversation. However, for sending pictures, ARQ is sometimes absolutely necessary, especially with a compression technique in which a single byte ruins the whole picture. The Western Pennsylvania emcomm group has fully implemented NBEMS over both repeaters and simplex, but mostly over VHF, and, because VHF tends to be more constant and tends to be much more error-free than HF, did not want to spend the extra time (on any mode or speed) to slow down for ARQ, so we developed the Wrap program, which sends a checksum at the end of the message, and error-free reception can be verified that way. On our MARS emcomm net, MT63 on HF usually produces error-free copy on the statewide net, and Wrap is useful with MT63 also just for verifying that there were no errors, or indicating that a resend is necessary. However, far enough away, there may always be some stations, under poor conditions, that either need a repeat of the whole message, or need to have ARQ used to repeat bad blocks if there are many. The advantage of Wrap is that a one-on-one ARQ link is not needed except when that is the only way to get the message through. Bulletins can be transmitted in MT63 and received error-free by most stations, with others needing a resend, or perhaps a relay. On VHF SSB weak signal phone, it is common practice to use vocal FEC (to coin a term!) and just repeat callsigns twice or over twice to accomplish the contact during poor conditions. The standard call on CW is a 3x3 call, which is a type of manual FEC to try to get at least one of each callsign through. Most files these days are very large, compared to those in DOS days, and with the bandwidth limitations on HF, it just takes too long to send a very large file, even using a fast mode and ARQ, so I think there is little interest in file transfer on the bands either.
Re: [digitalradio] QRV ALE-400 ARQ chat mode -- 14074.0
Good copy on both Tony and John, W2KI from here in the north central U.S. Rick, KV9U Tony wrote: All, I'll be QRV ALE-400 ARQ chat mode this evening starting 2230z -- 14074.0 USB +/- QRM. Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] QRV ALE-400 ARQ chat mode -- 14074.0
Good copy on both Tony and John, W2KI from here in the north central U.S. Rick, KV9U You should have called Rick! That was the first RV ALE-400 QSO for me. John tells me he's touring the country working digi-mode from his motorhome. Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] QRV ALE-400 ARQ chat mode -- 14074.0
Anyone available for an ALE-400 contact? 14074.0 USB +/- QRM Tony -K2MO - Original Message - From: Tony d...@optonline.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 9:21 PM Subject: [digitalradio] QRV ALE-400 ARQ chat mode -- 14074.0 All, QRV ALE-400 ARQ chat mode -- 14074.0 USB +/- QRM Tony -K2MO
