>>we will let the
smart people on this list decide just how much better/worse ptcII is.
If you can't do what you need to do, then stop telling us that
ptcII works better than pactor. I and many others do not believe you.
Karl F. Larsen, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (505) 524-3303
Cool it Karl: PTC2 is when u hear these long almost fec type slirrrrps
followed by a quick ack, ptc1 is more short datapackets with an ack and
amtor is very short ones.
So when u link me in ptc1 the scs recognizes u as ptc1 and talks back in
ptc1. Try me in amtor and you will see the same. the same maibox etc....in
amtor.
In ptc2 u can also do the durndest fancy things like finding out how off
your pardner is on freq, or tone down your pa according to the number of
err pkts. all very fancy and useful, all part of the firmware, u could do
the same with ptc1 or amtor, if u had the wherewithalls to write a pgm for
that purpose. !
The real winner in ptc2 is throughput, no protocol to compare, just try a
full size screen first in arq, then in ptc1 and then in ptc2 and ye shall
believe forever.
Karl: you should try to rewrite psk31 for 4800 or even 9600 baud and then
use it in arq mode similar to ptc2. that might contribute to throughput
another notch above ptc2. or try to mux the stuff on two or four
frequencies with a linuxmachine!! two times 70 hz is still only 140 hz
bandwidth....you wont have to go to fort leavenworth for that crime.
anybody wishing to experiment with that concept: I have a few cubix
muxboards with x2 486/16 mb ram and 4 comports to give away....let me
know! lookup cubix cx3002 on the web before you acquire a headache. I'll
add sum aspirin too.....
fred k1hb 14o85 qrr
