Re: [wsjt-devel] Debian 10 Linux WSJT-X Compile + CMake Policy Warning

[Bill Somerville]

On 17/08/2019 23:34, Paul Bramscher wrote:

I noticed this warning message regarding policy settings for CMake.
Debian 10 is using cmake version 3.13.4.

Ultimately I ignored the message and it seems to have compiled perfectly
fine, but possibly the WSJT-X developers may keep an eye out on the
add_custom_target commands -- since future cmake versions might not
merely throw a warning


Hi Paul,

you can safely ignore that warning. The way CMake handles policies 
ensures that policy warnings will never become errors unless the policy 
in question is set to the value NEW. At some point the combined Hamlib 
and WSJT-X CMake superbuild script will become obsolete and WSJT-X will 
rely on the system Hamlib libraries and development packages, at which 
time this issue will go away.


73
Bill
G4WJS.



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

[wsjt-devel] Debian 10 Linux WSJT-X Compile + CMake Policy Warning

[Paul Bramscher]

I've finally upgraded my last Linux PC to Debian 10, the most complex in
my shack (compiled executables for fldigi, flrig, TQSL, and of course
WSJT-X among several other apps and stacks).

Overall the process went smoothly, since I've heavily documented what
I've done previously.

Apologies if this has been mentioned in a thread already -- I did a
cursory search and found only a passing reference to it on the list.
But I noticed this warning message regarding policy settings for CMake.
Debian 10 is using cmake version 3.13.4.

Ultimately I ignored the message and it seems to have compiled perfectly
fine, but possibly the WSJT-X developers may keep an eye out on the
add_custom_target commands -- since future cmake versions might not
merely throw a warning:

cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=../../install/ -DWSJT_SKIP_MANPAGES=ON
-DWSJT_GENERATE_DOCS=OFF ../wsjtx-2.1.0

-- The C compiler identification is GNU 8.3.0
-- The CXX compiler identification is GNU 8.3.0
-- Check for working C compiler: /usr/bin/cc
-- Check for working C compiler: /usr/bin/cc -- works
-- Detecting C compiler ABI info
-- Detecting C compiler ABI info - done
-- Detecting C compile features
-- Detecting C compile features - done
-- Check for working CXX compiler: /usr/bin/c++
-- Check for working CXX compiler: /usr/bin/c++ -- works
-- Detecting CXX compiler ABI info
-- Detecting CXX compiler ABI info - done
-- Detecting CXX compile features
-- Detecting CXX compile features - done
-- Found Git: /usr/bin/git (found version "2.20.1")
CMake Warning (dev) at CMakeLists.txt:165 (add_custom_target):
  Policy CMP0037 is not set: Target names should not be reserved and should
  match a validity pattern.  Run "cmake --help-policy CMP0037" for policy
  details.  Use the cmake_policy command to set the policy and suppress this
  warning.

  The target name "install" is reserved or not valid for certain CMake
  features, such as generator expressions, and may result in undefined
  behavior.
This warning is for project developers.  Use -Wno-dev to suppress it.



73, KD0KZE / Paul



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Illegal auto mode?

[Andras Bato]

Hi Andy,
Plese try to make QSOs using MSHV! (I am just using the latest version
V2.25)
You will learn a lesson about how easy to make "automatic" QSOs -say in FT4!
Just try it and do not follow April fools!
gl de ha6nn
Andy

On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 5:27 PM Andy Durbin  wrote:

> "This is illegal software in the US and probably elsewhere, and should
> not be used, even with the added line "always attend to your transceive
> when using" this does not make it legal."
>
> What specific FCC regulations permit a single QSO to be auto sequenced but
> prohibit auto sequencing of 2 or more QSO?
>
> I had been under the impression that disallowing auto QSO sequencing was a
> preference of the developers so, if it is illegal, I'd appreciate a
> reference.   I can legally allow an unlicensed operator to make my QSO but
> I can't allow a supervised computer to do it?
>
> Before you all jump on me - I have no interest in running an automatic QSO
> machine.  I'm only interested in the regulatory aspect of this.
>
> 73,
> Andy, k3wyc
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Illegal auto mode?

[Jim Preston]

Jim,

Under FCC rules, automatic control means not having a control operator 
present at a control point. This applies to all of the sections you 
specified. If I want to sit in front of my computer (the control point) 
and read my e-mail, the newspaper or watch TV while my program is doing 
the actual work of making QSO's, that is legal under FCC rules. I won't 
do that, just making a point. I am not saying it is ethical, just legal.


WSJT-X, as it is programmed by the developers, cannot be used in fully 
automatic mode. There may well be other programs, however, that can do so.


OTOH, if I have a station making QSO's set up away from my home, and 
there is no one at a control point, that would not be legal.


Incidentally, this "automatic" operation is nothing new. Several decades 
ago, someone (I forget who) had his station setup using CW to make QSO's 
without any intervention. He used it in a contest, and actually made 
some QSO's.


73,

Jim N6VH

On 8/17/2019 11:04 AM, Jim Shorney wrote:


You might want to have a close look at 97.221(b) and (c).

73

-Jim
NU0C

On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 13:57:31 -0400
Ryan Tourge  wrote:


It’s short sighted attempts to blat. Packet, APRS, the Winlink modes, all
auto sequence after a connection is initiated. There really is no
difference.

On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 1:53 PM Jim Shorney  wrote:



Rules pertaining to Automatic Operation can be found in Part 97 sections:

97.3(6)
97.221

73

-Jim
NU0C



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Illegal auto mode?

[rjai...@gmail.com]

There is a difference. They don’t auto CQ and full auto are in restricted
sub-bands.

Ria
N2RJ

On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 2:02 PM Ryan Tourge  wrote:

> It’s short sighted attempts to blat. Packet, APRS, the Winlink modes, all
> auto sequence after a connection is initiated. There really is no
> difference.
>
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 1:53 PM Jim Shorney 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Rules pertaining to Automatic Operation can be found in Part 97 sections:
>>
>> 97.3(6)
>> 97.221
>>
>> 73
>>
>> -Jim
>> NU0C
>>
>> On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 17:07:20 +
>> Andy Durbin  wrote:
>>
>> > "This is illegal software in the US and probably elsewhere, and should
>> > not be used, even with the added line "always attend to your transceive
>> > when using" this does not make it legal."
>> >
>> > What specific FCC regulations permit a single QSO to be auto sequenced
>> but prohibit auto sequencing of 2 or more QSO?
>> >
>> > I had been under the impression that disallowing auto QSO sequencing
>> was a preference of the developers so, if it is illegal, I'd appreciate a
>> reference.   I can legally allow an unlicensed operator to make my QSO but
>> I can't allow a supervised computer to do it?
>> >
>> > Before you all jump on me - I have no interest in running an automatic
>> QSO machine.  I'm only interested in the regulatory aspect of this.
>> >
>> > 73,
>> > Andy, k3wyc
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> wsjt-devel mailing list
>> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>>
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Illegal auto mode?

[Jim Shorney]

You might want to have a close look at 97.221(b) and (c).

73

-Jim
NU0C

On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 13:57:31 -0400
Ryan Tourge  wrote:

> It’s short sighted attempts to blat. Packet, APRS, the Winlink modes, all
> auto sequence after a connection is initiated. There really is no
> difference.
> 
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 1:53 PM Jim Shorney  wrote:
> 
> >
> > Rules pertaining to Automatic Operation can be found in Part 97 sections:
> >
> > 97.3(6)
> > 97.221
> >
> > 73
> >
> > -Jim
> > NU0C
> >
> > On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 17:07:20 +
> > Andy Durbin  wrote:
> >  
> > > "This is illegal software in the US and probably elsewhere, and should
> > > not be used, even with the added line "always attend to your transceive
> > > when using" this does not make it legal."
> > >
> > > What specific FCC regulations permit a single QSO to be auto sequenced  
> > but prohibit auto sequencing of 2 or more QSO?  
> > >
> > > I had been under the impression that disallowing auto QSO sequencing was  
> > a preference of the developers so, if it is illegal, I'd appreciate a
> > reference.   I can legally allow an unlicensed operator to make my QSO but
> > I can't allow a supervised computer to do it?  
> > >
> > > Before you all jump on me - I have no interest in running an automatic  
> > QSO machine.  I'm only interested in the regulatory aspect of this.  
> > >
> > > 73,
> > > Andy, k3wyc  
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > wsjt-devel mailing list
> > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
> >  



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Illegal auto mode?

[Jim Shorney]

97.3(6) Automatic control. The use of devices and procedures for control of a 
station when it is transmitting so that compliance with the FCC Rules is 
achieved without the control operator being present at a control point.

73

-Jim
NU0C

On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 10:54:19 -0700
David Gilbert  wrote:

> The guy who made that claim didn't know what he was talking about. 
> Automatic is not the same thing as unattended.
> 
> 73,
> Dave   AB7E
> 
> 
> On 8/17/2019 10:07 AM, Andy Durbin wrote:
> > "This is illegal software in the US and probably elsewhere, and should
> > not be used, even with the added line "always attend to your transceive
> > when using" this does not make it legal."
> >
> > What specific FCC regulations permit a single QSO to be auto sequenced 
> > but prohibit auto sequencing of 2 or more QSO?
> >
> > I had been under the impression that disallowing auto QSO sequencing 
> > was a preference of the developers so, if it is illegal, I'd 
> > appreciate a reference.  I can legally allow an unlicensed operator to 
> > make my QSO but I can't allow a supervised computer to do it?
> >
> > Before you all jump on me - I have no interest in running an automatic 
> > QSO machine.  I'm only interested in the regulatory aspect of this.
> >
> > 73,
> > Andy, k3wyc
> >
> >
> > ___
> > wsjt-devel mailing list
> > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel  
> 



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Illegal auto mode?

[Ryan Tourge]

It’s short sighted attempts to blat. Packet, APRS, the Winlink modes, all
auto sequence after a connection is initiated. There really is no
difference.

On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 1:53 PM Jim Shorney  wrote:

>
> Rules pertaining to Automatic Operation can be found in Part 97 sections:
>
> 97.3(6)
> 97.221
>
> 73
>
> -Jim
> NU0C
>
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 17:07:20 +
> Andy Durbin  wrote:
>
> > "This is illegal software in the US and probably elsewhere, and should
> > not be used, even with the added line "always attend to your transceive
> > when using" this does not make it legal."
> >
> > What specific FCC regulations permit a single QSO to be auto sequenced
> but prohibit auto sequencing of 2 or more QSO?
> >
> > I had been under the impression that disallowing auto QSO sequencing was
> a preference of the developers so, if it is illegal, I'd appreciate a
> reference.   I can legally allow an unlicensed operator to make my QSO but
> I can't allow a supervised computer to do it?
> >
> > Before you all jump on me - I have no interest in running an automatic
> QSO machine.  I'm only interested in the regulatory aspect of this.
> >
> > 73,
> > Andy, k3wyc
>
>
>
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Illegal auto mode?

[rjai...@gmail.com]

It’s not illegal to have fully automated stations but current fcc
regulations have stipulations which are detailed in 97.221.

Technically a ft8 auto responding station would be covered under 97.221(c)
- it is responding to interrogation under local or remote control, and less
than 500Hz.

However, fully automatic, unattended CQs may be illegal, except in the ACDS
bands under 97.221(b).

This is different from the recent resolution for ARRL awards and contests.
That specific resolution only pertains to ARRL contest and awards activity
and has no legal binding like FCC rules.

In my personal opinion, claiming full automatic unattended robot operation
for awards or contest credit is unethical and shouldn’t be done.  It also
adds fuel to the fire to those who want to see FT8 banned from the airwaves
or restricted out of “their” awards sandbox.

But for an experiment? Knock yourself out.

73
Ria, N2RJ

§ 97.221 Automatically controlled digital station.

(a) This rule section does not apply to an auxiliary station, a  beaconstation,
a  repeater station, an  earth station, a  space station, or a space
telecommand
station.

(b) A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTYor
data emission on the 6 m or shorter wavelength bands, and on the
28.120-28.189 MHz, 24.925-24.930 MHz, 21.090-21.100 MHz, 18.105-18.110 MHz,
14.0950-14.0995 MHz, 14.1005-14.112 MHz, 10.140-10.150 MHz, 7.100-7.105
MHz, or 3.585-3.600 MHz segments.

(c) Except for channels specified in § 97.303(h)
, a station may be
automatically controlled while transmitting a  RTTY or  dataemission on any
other frequency authorized for such emission types provided that:

(1) The station is responding to interrogation by a station under
local or remote
control; and

(2) No transmission from the automatically controlled station occupies a
bandwidth of more than 500  Hz.

On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 1:27 PM Andy Durbin  wrote:

> "This is illegal software in the US and probably elsewhere, and should
> not be used, even with the added line "always attend to your transceive
> when using" this does not make it legal."
>
> What specific FCC regulations permit a single QSO to be auto sequenced but
> prohibit auto sequencing of 2 or more QSO?
>
> I had been under the impression that disallowing auto QSO sequencing was a
> preference of the developers so, if it is illegal, I'd appreciate a
> reference.   I can legally allow an unlicensed operator to make my QSO but
> I can't allow a supervised computer to do it?
>
> Before you all jump on me - I have no interest in running an automatic QSO
> machine.  I'm only interested in the regulatory aspect of this.
>
> 73,
> Andy, k3wyc
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Illegal auto mode?

[David Gilbert]

The guy who made that claim didn't know what he was talking about. 
Automatic is not the same thing as unattended.


73,
Dave   AB7E


On 8/17/2019 10:07 AM, Andy Durbin wrote:

"This is illegal software in the US and probably elsewhere, and should
not be used, even with the added line "always attend to your transceive
when using" this does not make it legal."

What specific FCC regulations permit a single QSO to be auto sequenced 
but prohibit auto sequencing of 2 or more QSO?


I had been under the impression that disallowing auto QSO sequencing 
was a preference of the developers so, if it is illegal, I'd 
appreciate a reference.  I can legally allow an unlicensed operator to 
make my QSO but I can't allow a supervised computer to do it?


Before you all jump on me - I have no interest in running an automatic 
QSO machine.  I'm only interested in the regulatory aspect of this.


73,
Andy, k3wyc


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Illegal auto mode?

[Jim Shorney]

Rules pertaining to Automatic Operation can be found in Part 97 sections:

97.3(6)
97.221

73

-Jim
NU0C

On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 17:07:20 +
Andy Durbin  wrote:

> "This is illegal software in the US and probably elsewhere, and should
> not be used, even with the added line "always attend to your transceive
> when using" this does not make it legal."
> 
> What specific FCC regulations permit a single QSO to be auto sequenced but 
> prohibit auto sequencing of 2 or more QSO?
> 
> I had been under the impression that disallowing auto QSO sequencing was a 
> preference of the developers so, if it is illegal, I'd appreciate a 
> reference.   I can legally allow an unlicensed operator to make my QSO but I 
> can't allow a supervised computer to do it?
> 
> Before you all jump on me - I have no interest in running an automatic QSO 
> machine.  I'm only interested in the regulatory aspect of this.
> 
> 73,
> Andy, k3wyc



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

[wsjt-devel] Illegal auto mode?

[Andy Durbin]

"This is illegal software in the US and probably elsewhere, and should
not be used, even with the added line "always attend to your transceive
when using" this does not make it legal."

What specific FCC regulations permit a single QSO to be auto sequenced but 
prohibit auto sequencing of 2 or more QSO?

I had been under the impression that disallowing auto QSO sequencing was a 
preference of the developers so, if it is illegal, I'd appreciate a reference.  
 I can legally allow an unlicensed operator to make my QSO but I can't allow a 
supervised computer to do it?

Before you all jump on me - I have no interest in running an automatic QSO 
machine.  I'm only interested in the regulatory aspect of this.

73,
Andy, k3wyc
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8 Screen Layout

[Wolfgang]

Hello Neil,

Saturday, August 17, 2019, 4:07:45 PM, you wrote:

> This is illegal software in the US and probably elsewhere

please stay cool and with the facts! No, the software is not 'illegal'!

Just using the unattended & automatic operation without presence of
an operator is (or maybe) not allowed in the US and is not valid for
any DXCC - according to the ARRL.

Sitting in front of the automatic setup and watching is definitely
not illegal or forbidden. How can you check, if someone clicks his
mouse or the software is doing that for the operator? Even FT4/FT8
is a semi-automatic mode since the very beginning! You could start
a QSO and run away, rest is done by software.

And for all the suggesters and sometimes complainers: Simon Brown,
G4ELI, the designer of the 'HamRadioDeluxe' and now the 'SDR-Radio
3.0' said once: 'my software, my rules!' and the same is true for
WSJT-X by Joe Taylor, K1JT and his team.

If someone likes the software of SQ9FVE, the nice layout, plus the
options of it  - why not using it!

73 de Wolfgang
OE1MWW

--
Amateur radio is the most expensive type of free-of-charge communication!
Amateurfunk ist die teuerste Art der kostenlosen Kommunikation!



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8 Screen Layout

[Neil Zampella]

UM ... what's that 'Auto CQ' checkbox there ??    Looks like its setup
for an automatic QSO machine?  Looking at the intro on Sourceforge ..

"Tool was previously known as WSJT-X SQ9FVE Full-Auto Mod"

This is illegal software in the US and probably elsewhere, and should
not be used, even with the added line "always attend to your transceive
when using" this does not make it legal.


Neil, KN3ILZ




On 8/16/2019 2:21 AM, DG2YCB, Uwe wrote:


Dave,

Maybe the following could solve your troubles on your wide screen
laptop: There is a derivative work of wsjt-x where most of that what
you are mentioning is already implemented. It’s called “wsjt-z” or
“wsjt-x SQ9FVE Mod”. That project started with some doubtful
additional functions, but has now become more a project on some UI
mods useful to small screens. Perhaps it’s worth to give it a try.
You can download it here:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/wsjt-z/files/.

See the following screenshot for direct comparison with the original
wsjt-x:

73 de Uwe, DG2YCB



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel





---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8 Screen Layout

[Neil Zampella]

FWIW  if you're using JT-Alert, it has a decodes history window that
gives you everything you're looking for, and more.

I'd want to see what the layout looks on other modes before I would use
this.    As someone who used to design screen layouts, this is somewhat
busy, how does it work when you switch to contest modes, or your the
Fox, etc, etc.

Neil, KN3ILZ

On 8/17/2019 8:51 AM, Bill Mullin wrote:

I have a 27" monitor and am using a 9 pt font.  When the band is busy
I still spend a lot of time manually scrolling up on the left window. 
I've tried an 8 pt font but my eyes aren't good enough to read this
small text. I'd love to see the SQ5FVE layout becoming the normal
layout for WSJT-X, or at least an option on the F2 menu to change layouts.

73, Bill  AA4M


On 08/17/2019 01:12:59, dgb wrote:


Thank for that reference Uwe - it's nice!

73 Dwight NS9I

On 8/16/2019 2:21 AM, DG2YCB, Uwe wrote:


Dave,

Maybe the following could solve your troubles on your wide screen
laptop: There is a derivative work of wsjt-x where most of that what
you are mentioning is already implemented. It’s called “wsjt-z” or
“wsjt-x SQ9FVE Mod”. That project started with some doubtful
additional functions, but has now become more a project on some UI
mods useful to small screens. Perhaps it’s worth to give it a try.
You can download it here:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/wsjt-z/files/.

See the following screenshot for direct comparison with the original
wsjt-x:

73 de Uwe, DG2YCB



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel





---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

[wsjt-devel] WSJTx jumping to EU mode and others - Suggestion

[WB5JJJ]

 I have seen the top screen with everything turned on, and there is so
little space to ADD anything else to it.  Each spot is used by one mode or
another, but of course, not all at the same time, so it looks like wasted
space.  Agreed, the time box and others could be reduced somewhat to give a
few extra pixels to work with.  But overall, its a city block full of urban
development, either in use or future planning.

So here's a shot in the dark to consider.

For instance, if you are in HOUND mode and the red box is at the bottom
center of the screen, maybe you could just click this box and the HOUND
mode would be immediately turned off.  Similar on the EU mode and others
that might pop up or you forget to disable them in your haste to work the
rare DX on normal mode.  Of course, you would have to drill down in the
menus to reactivate them, but it would not take any more screen real estate
to enable the box to be clicked to quickly return to normal operation for
the mode you are using.

Just a thought.  I'm sure there is probably a "no way" reason for this not
to be considered with the underlying code, but still asking (for a friend -
hihi).

George - WB5JJJ
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel