Woodrick, Ed wrote: > If your definition of control is "the software/protocol can assert PTT" > then all of the radios have remote control, because by sending data, > they can all assert PTT.
This is NOT the same thing as "rig control". There's a real PTT line on virtually every other Amateur rig out there, including the FT-847 and FT-857 I'm sitting here looking at, as well as the commercial HT's upstairs in the charger. It's also dependent on the frequency being clear, NOT the rig receiving a valid D-STAR signal... noise or another signal on frequency can stop it from transmitting. Thus, the many people who had to learn to use the Attenuator on rigs like the ID-800H before "Auto" PTT with data would work. And of course, the "transmit data AUTO" feature can be turned off in the rig, and remote software can't change that setting back. Dan's real engineering efforts to try to have better control over data transmissions have shown that when asking the rig for its status, the status updates obliterate the ability to receive data via DV low-speed data. It's one or the other, not both "control" and "data thru" at the same time... So, when I talk about "rig control", I'm talking about something like the behavior of say... and FT-847 talking to Ham Radio Deluxe. HRD has COMPLETE control over the rig, including knowing when it's transmitting, when it's receiving, and it has no affect on any other ports or features of the rig. It's a dedicated "rig control" serial interface. Because the serial interface on some of the rigs is shared with the serial data stream, and no buffering was implemented so a developer could do a "check status" and then resume receiving data, those rigs are somewhat crippled. The mobile rigs with separate programming through (of all strange things, the speaker port) which is more of a "cloning" feature than a "control" feature, are completely crippled as far as rig-control goes. At least until someone reverse engineers the control head data protocol, which seems unlikely. > The definition that I am going by is the ability to effectively operate > the functions of the radio, turn it on, turn it off, change the channel, > increase the volume, put it in scan mode, program the memories, switch > between VFO and memory operation, see the current display information, > you know, every feature of the radio except for the speaker, microphone, > and PTT. I'll grant you, they're close, but Icom missed the target by a small amount... especially when other rigs on the market do it so well, and are years older. Even their own HF rigs do a better job, as I witnessed in person at W1AW/0 at the recent Colorado HamCon. (The IC-7600 is a GORGEOUS rig, by the way...) > This level of control can be done with the ID-1 and the IC-91. It > doesn't exist for the other radios. You're right. A limited control capability *is* in the ID-1, the IC-91AD, and the IC-92AD, and presumably the 80? Don't know on that last one... But it's NOT full rig control. Full rig control would require a separate serial interface or a smarter protocol that could handle rig control and data streams simultaneously. Plus, in order for it REALLY to be a feature, this stuff needs to be documented... reverse engineering the CI-V protocol isn't exactly a feature, it's a liability in today's world... manufacturers who publish the control protocols get more brownie points with me... considering that it IS a hobby, and I don't REALLY care... but I do pay attention to where my "hobby money" goes down the rat-hole... than unpublished features. Fair 'nuff? The rigs are good, no doubt about it, but they're not at "parity" with other rig control functionality in other rigs. Close, but not quite there... Nate WY0X
