Re: [wsjt-devel] Widegraph cursor frequency box

[Reino Talarmo]

>After installing WSJT-X ver 2.3.0 I have a cursor frequency readout box
displayed every time my mouse cursor is over the Widegraph window even when
no WSJT-X window has focus.   How can I disable this?

Andy,

 

I have found it to be a useful feature, when I have multiple windows
partially over each other and I want to check the frequency of some signal
without focusing to the waterfall window! It saves multiple clicks and
waterfall will not cover other windows in a small display.

 

73, Reino OH3mA

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

Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-x2.3.0 Anwser problem

[Gary McDuffie]

> On Feb 16, 2021, at 12:00, Adrian  wrote:
> 
> The problem I am having with v2.3.0 is the auto log popup sometimes not 
> working on the RR73 or 73, and a need to rework the station to get the 
> logging popup. The effect is random and not often.

I started to notice mine doing the same, three times today.  You don’t need to 
rework the guy, just click the log qso button and it will be done. 

I AM curious why I just started noticing it today, and hope it hasn’t happened 
before with completed QSOs not actually going to the logger.

Gary - - AG0N

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

Re: [wsjt-devel] Winter Field Day Revisited

[Larry B. via wsjt-devel]

Hi Reino,

I completely understand – which is why I wonder why people expect WSJT-X to 
work for WFD, when it obviously cannot unless the protocol is, in fact, changed.

Larry / W1DYJ


From: Reino Talarmo 
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 15:56
To: 'WSJT software development' 
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Winter Field Day Revisited

Hi Larry,

It is really a question of principle. Protocol must be capable of sending long 
free text that is not allowed to be source coded. Perhaps Q-codes are still 
allowed, hi! FT8 13 character free text is about ok for sending the required 
exchange, but…

 

Extract of reasoning:

Also, its ability to carry any emergency message is near nil... try sending 
"SOS - HMS TITANIC - HIT ICE - SINKING - 82.566N 34.713W".

 

73, Reino OH3mA

 

I could be wrong, but I thought Joe’s analysis showed that the Winter FD 
exchange would not fit into the 77 bit package that FT8/4 used.  Perhaps if WFD 
changed its exchange to fit the already available rules, it would work well. 


73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ








___
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] wsjt-devel Digest, Vol 84, Issue 158

[Neil Zampella]

I don't believe a  'macro' is used for this.

Neil, KN3ILZ

On 2/19/2021 2:39 PM, Jim Record wrote:

Have you considered adding a downloadable macro capability to let a
user program the capability for other contests. Maybe in Python?

Jim
AD0YO
--
Jim Record
/Firgenholt Joyner/
(Old English (sort of) for Mountain Wood Joiner)
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Widegraph cursor frequency box

[Neil Zampella]

You can't ...

Neil, KN3ILZ



On 2/19/2021 4:30 PM, Andy Durbin wrote:

After installing WSJT-X ver 2.3.0 I have a cursor frequency readout
box displayed every time my mouse cursor is over the Widegraph window
even when no WSJT-X window has focus.   How can I disable this?

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

Re: [wsjt-devel] Winter Field Day Revisited

[Bill Frantz]

On 2/19/21 at 3:14 PM, wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net (Larry 
B. via wsjt-devel) wrote:


I could be wrong, but I thought Joe’s analysis showed that 
the Winter FD exchange would not fit into the 77 bit package 
that FT8/4 used.  Perhaps if WFD changed its exchange to fit 
the already available rules, it would work well.


Both Winter and Summer Field Days come from a tradition of 
wanting to demonstrate the ability to perform emergency 
communications. FT8 and FT4 can send an arbitrary 13 character 
messages, so they are marginally useful for emergency 
communications, but I would sure hate to have to send a hospital 
bed report, or a list of needed supplies.


While I would like to see both field days treated equally, we 
currently support Summer Field Day and don't support Winter 
Field Day. Perhaps status quo is the best place to be.


73 Bill AE6JV

-
Bill Frantz| The first thing you need when  | Periwinkle
(408)348-7900  | using a perimeter defense is a | 150 
Rivermead Rd #235
www.pwpconsult.com | perimeter. | 
Peterborough, NH 03458




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

[wsjt-devel] Multi-instance audio device problems

[John Brooks]

Hello WSJTX devs,

First, thanks for all the wonderful work you do on WSJT-X.

I run 3 instances of WSJT-X v2.4.0-rc1 on a dedicated Linux Mint 20.1
computer using an IC-7600 (HF), IC-7300 (6M) and IC-9700 (VHF through
microwave) all connected via USB.

For the serial CAT control, I use the /dev/serial/by-id devices which
are robust and reliable since they don't change discovery order like USB
/dev/tty devices do. They have names like
"/dev/serial/by-id/usb-Silicon_Labs_CP2102_USB_to_UART_Bridge_Controller_IC-7600_0202940-if00-port0"
so I know which rig it goes to.  These work great.

But I have lots of problems with the audio config. The audio names (all
similar to
alsa_input.usb-Burr-Brown_from_TI__USB_Audio_CODEC-00.iec958-stereo.3)
seem to change randomly, sometimes come up as (Not found), and seem to
disappear and move unexpectedly. For example, sometimes the 2m WSJT-X on
the IC-9700 will just suddenly and all by itself change and start
displaying the same 40m audio that is on the IC-7600 instance. 

When things get messed up, I reboot and everything usually comes back ok
and in the right places, but sometimes the audio devices that used to
work just say (Not found).  In this situation they can still be seen
just fine in device lists in other applications such as arecord and
alsa-info, so I'm not sure why WSJT-X can't see them. 

It would be helpful if the names of the devices somehow contained the
USB paths like the output in alsa-info shows.  For example: "Burr-Brown
from TI USB Audio CODEC at usb-:00:1d.0-1.6.5.1" where the .5. near
the end tells me that is the device plugged into port 5 of the USB hub. 
That name never changes which device it is associated with.

I also notice the audio input device list in WSJT-X also lists
alsa_output* devices.  I don't know if this is intentional or not, but
doesn't seem right.  The output device list only shows output devices as
expected.

Any suggestions for a more stable and repeatable audio setup?

Thanks and 73,

John N9ZL



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

[wsjt-devel] Widegraph cursor frequency box

[Andy Durbin]

After installing WSJT-X ver 2.3.0 I have a cursor frequency readout box 
displayed every time my mouse cursor is over the Widegraph window even when no 
WSJT-X window has focus.   How can I disable this?

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

Re: [wsjt-devel] wsjt-devel Digest, Vol 84, Issue 158

[Sam W2JDB via wsjt-devel]

Hi Jim,
I don't know if this exactly what you are looking for, by I wrote a program 
(Windows Only) for theblind hams that uses a working default configuration as a 
basis for all the other contest modes. It allows them to select which contents 
they wish to participates in and what are the exchanges.That also includes the 
Hound mode in fox and hounds. In addition, it also sets the correct waterfall 
width so they decode the full bandpass width.  For the blind hams, the UI also 
has all the neededaudio ques so the do not need a sighted ham to help them 
without the need for their screen reader. 
The program is called ChgWSet.exe is free and can be found in 
https://groups.io/g/ProgramsByW2JDBThe documentation for its use was written by 
Rich K1HTV and is geared to the blind hams but can be used by sighted hams as 
well. 
73,

Sam W2JDB


-Original Message-
From: Jim Record 
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Fri, Feb 19, 2021 3:39 pm
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] wsjt-devel Digest, Vol 84, Issue 158

Have you considered adding a downloadable macro capability to let a user 
program the capability for other contests. Maybe in Python?
JimAD0YO-- 
Jim RecordFirgenholt Joyner(Old English (sort of) for Mountain Wood 
Joiner)___
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] Winter Field Day Revisited

[Reino Talarmo]

Hi Larry,

It is really a question of principle. Protocol must be capable of sending long 
free text that is not allowed to be source coded. Perhaps Q-codes are still 
allowed, hi! FT8 13 character free text is about ok for sending the required 
exchange, but…

 

Extract of reasoning:

Also, its ability to carry any emergency message is near nil... try sending 
"SOS - HMS TITANIC - HIT ICE - SINKING - 82.566N 34.713W".

 

73, Reino OH3mA

 

I could be wrong, but I thought Joe’s analysis showed that the Winter FD 
exchange would not fit into the 77 bit package that FT8/4 used.  Perhaps if WFD 
changed its exchange to fit the already available rules, it would work well. 


73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ

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

Re: [wsjt-devel] wsjt-devel Digest, Vol 84, Issue 158

[Jim Record]

Have you considered adding a downloadable macro capability to let a user
program the capability for other contests. Maybe in Python?

Jim
AD0YO
-- 
Jim Record
*Firgenholt Joyner*
(Old English (sort of) for Mountain Wood Joiner)
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Winter Field Day Revisited

[Larry B. via wsjt-devel]

I could be wrong, but I thought Joe’s analysis showed that the Winter FD 
exchange would not fit into the 77 bit package that FT8/4 used.  Perhaps if WFD 
changed its exchange to fit the already available rules, it would work well. 

73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ



From: Dave Slotter, W3DJS 
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 12:21
To: WSJT software development 
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Winter Field Day Revisited

Joe:

I took your message as a challenge to look up where the activity is 
definitively. From the notes below which I just compiled, it seems that there 
is a "low" of 151 logs received by the 2020 FT8 VHF-UHF EU contest up to a high 
of 2,349 logs received by the ARRL 2021 RTTY Roundup. By comparison, the Winter 
Field Day falls in the middle with 1,562 participant logs received. Next, 
WW-Digi, which you said, "The WW-Digi contest is an even bigger event", was 
only marginally larger with 1,690 logs received. And ARRL 2020 Field Day is in 
a class by itself with an order of magnitude more entries -- and which messes 
up the curve...




  ARRL 2021 January VHF Contest: 1,196 logs received (source: 
https://contests.arrl.org/logsreceived.php and selected "2021 ARRL January VHF 
Contest in menu")
  ARRL 2020 June VHF Contest: Indeterminate -- no menu item is available to 
select
  ARRL 2021 RTTY Roundup: 2,349 logs received (source 
https://contests.arrl.org/logsreceived.php?cn=rttyru)
  2020 FT8 VHF-UHF EU Contest:  151 logs received (source: 
https://ft8activity.eu/index.php/en/received-log-s/144-mhz-rcvd-logs) If this 
is the wrong source, then my apologies. Please direct me to the correct source.
  Winter Field Day: 1,562 logs received (source 
https://winterfieldday.com/wfd-2020 -- select Home, Outdoors and Indoors to 
tally the contents of Column "Category" )
  2020 WW-Digi: 1,690 logs received (source: 
https://ww-digi.com/results/2020-ww-digi_results-article.pdf)
  ARRL 2020 Field Day: almost 19,000 participants reported (source QST Dec. 
2020)

Winter Field Day is all-inclusive of every state, so it is not comparable to 
the argument you made about it would not be manageable to support 50 state QSO 
parties. WFD and QSO parties are apples and oranges and are not easily 
comparable.

Now that I have demonstrated through research that the level of involvement of 
Winter Field Day is comparable to the other contests that WSJT-X already 
supports, would you please reconsider supporting WFD with a future release of 
WSJT-X?

Thank you for your consideration.

-- 
Dave Slotter, W3DJS


On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 11:17 AM Joe Taylor  wrote:

  Hi Dave,

  The simple answer is that when designing our 77-bit message payload we 
  chose to implement support for a few contests particularly relevant to 
  the WSJT-X modes.

  WSJT and its sister programs were motivated for VHF/UHF weak-signal work 
  and have had a strong VHF+ influence from the beginning.  Hence the 
  support for NA and EU VHF contests.

  We supported an exchange for the ARRL RTTY Roundup because it's a big 
  event and that has always encouraged QSOs using any digital mode.

  The WW-Digi contest is an even bigger event, and its rules were designed 
  to use the same exchange format as the NA VHF contest.

  ARRL Field Day is not a contest, but involves many thousands of NA hams 
  every year.  We were encouraged to include its straightforward exchange 
  as a possibility, and that has turned out to be a good idea.

  As it turns out, supporting EU VHF contests has not been very fruitful. 
I believe it's not much used.

  I've been a ham for 67 years.  To be honest, I had never heard of Winter 
  Field Day until a year or so ago.  As far as I am aware, it attracts no 
  more than a few hundred entrants.  (I could easily be wrong.)  Many 
  State QSO parties attract that many entries, or perhaps more.  The 
  tightly structured source encoding in the WSJT-X modes can't possibly 
  accommodate all of the special exchanges for such events.

  Finally, the WFD rules make it clear that the sponsors have little 
  interest in modes than can't be helpful for EmComm purposes.

  -- 73, Joe, K1JT

  On 2/19/2021 10:09 AM, Dave Slotter, W3DJS wrote:
  > Bill:
  > 
  > I decided to review the mailing list for prior discussions of Winter 
  > Field Day (WFD) before writing this message.
  > 
  > I was wondering why WFD was not supported by WSJT-X and it appears from 
  > a message you apparently wrote on November 20, 2018 that:
  > 
  > the field day class is packed into 3 bits so only eight different
  > classes are supported. We cannot support three new class letters on
  > top of the existing six. It could be possible by agreement to use,
  > say 'a', 'B', and 'C' to represent 'I', 'O', and 'H' since Winter FD
  > does not use any of the normal FD classes.
  > 
  > 
  > Going to the Winter Field Day Rules, page 7, it says:
  > 
  > FT8/FT4 Notes: WFD has always had an Ecomm emphasis, even back when
  > SPAR 

[wsjt-devel] Q65 crashes unexpectantly

[Gary Gearhart]

Program version: V2.4.0-rc1Operating System: Windows 10 PROProblem: popup error concerning “STACK ERROR” and “orphaned JT9 process” plus “fatal error”Sequence: this has occurred 3 times after the transmit cycle has completed and switching back to receive. The only fix is to reboot. It seems to run fine for a while afterwards. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 

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

Re: [wsjt-devel] Winter Field Day Revisited

[Neil Zampella]

Considering the 'sponsor' of "Winter" Field Day had this to say below,
I'm not sure its worth it to add this 'contest'.   Not to mention that
the sponsor doesn't use the same types of codes that the ARRL Field Day
uses.  The codes in WFD would not properly fit in a 77 bit package, so
its not an issue that they couldn't add it, just that they can't.

Neil, KN3ILZ

"FT8/FT4 Notes:WFD has always had an Ecomm emphasis, even back when SPAR
sponsored it.. We waited for FT8 2.0, and FT4 hoping they would be more
flexible, but were disappointed that the new release would NOT do the
WFD Exchange as it currently stands. That alone rules out using FT8/FT4
for WFD. Also, its ability to carry any emergency message is near nil...
try sending "SOS - HMS TITANIC - HIT ICE - SINKING - 82.566N 34.713W".
Almost any other mode cansend that (or the WFD Exchange). Getting a
message through bad conditions is great.. but getting only a grid square
and a signal report is hardly a message of value to Ecomms. *When **FT8
can do the WFD exchange verbatim,* it'll become part of WFD. That has
been the consensus of the WFDA board for some time... We are not
anti-FT8. The ARRL did not change any rules in its contests to allow
FT8... FT8 developers changed what it could send to fit a few ARRL
contest exchanges. PS... There are a few folks talking about using
JS8Call... you might want to try that. It works similarly to FT8, but is
far more robust in what it can send and receive."


On 2/19/2021 11:21 AM, Dave Slotter, W3DJS wrote:

Joe:

I took your message as a challenge to look up where the activity is
definitively. From the notes below which I just compiled, it seems
that there is a "low" of *151* logs received by the 2020 FT8 VHF-UHF
EU contest up to a high of *2,349* logs received by the ARRL 2021 RTTY
Roundup. By comparison, the Winter Field Day falls in the middle with
*1,562* participant logs received. Next, WW-Digi, which you said, "The
WW-Digi contest is an even bigger event", was only marginally larger
with 1,690 logs received. And ARRL 2020 Field Day is in a class by
itself with an order of magnitude more entries -- and which messes up
the curve...

image.png

ARRL 2021 January VHF Contest: *1,196* logs received (source:
https://contests.arrl.org/logsreceived.php
and selected "2021
ARRL January VHF Contest in menu")
ARRL 2020 June VHF Contest: *Indeterminate* -- no menu item is
available to select
ARRL 2021 RTTY Roundup: *2,349* logs received (source
https://contests.arrl.org/logsreceived.php?cn=rttyru
)
2020 FT8 VHF-UHF EU Contest: *151* logs received (source:
https://ft8activity.eu/index.php/en/received-log-s/144-mhz-rcvd-logs
)
If this is the wrong source, then my apologies. Please direct me
to the correct source.
Winter Field Day: *1,562* logs received (source
https://winterfieldday.com/wfd-2020
 -- select Home, Outdoors and
Indoors to tally the contents of Column "Category" )

2020 WW-Digi: *1,690* logs received (source:
https://ww-digi.com/results/2020-ww-digi_results-article.pdf
)

ARRL 2020 Field Day: almost *19,000* participants reported (source
/QST/ Dec. 2020)


Winter Field Day is all-inclusive of every state, so it is not
comparable to the argument you made about it would not be manageable
to support 50 state QSO parties. WFD and QSO parties are apples and
oranges and are not easily comparable.

Now that I have demonstrated through research that the level of
involvement of Winter Field Day is comparable to the other contests
that WSJT-X already supports, would you please reconsider supporting
WFD with a future release of WSJT-X?

Thank you for your consideration.

--
Dave Slotter, W3DJS 


On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 11:17 AM Joe Taylor mailto:j...@princeton.edu>> wrote:

Hi Dave,

The simple answer is that when designing our 77-bit message
payload we
chose to implement support for a few contests particularly
relevant to
the WSJT-X modes.

WSJT and its sister programs were motivated for VHF/UHF
weak-signal work
and have had a strong VHF+ influence from the beginning. Hence the
support for NA and EU VHF contests.

We supported an exchange for the ARRL RTTY Roundup because it's a big
event and that has always encouraged QSOs using any digital mode.

The WW-Digi contest is an even bigger event, and its rules were
designed
to use the same exchange format as the NA VHF contest.

ARRL Field Day is not a contest, but involves many thousands of NA
hams
every year.  We were encouraged to include its straightforward
exchange
as a possibility, and that has turned out 

Re: [wsjt-devel] Winter Field Day Revisited

[Joe Taylor]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your continued interest.

Yes, WFD has significant participation -- a bit less than 1/10 of that 
in the other non-contest that has a formatted exchange built into the 
WSJT-X 77-bit structured messages.


I'm sorry if I misled you into thinking this was simply a matter of some 
numbers that could be looked up.  Our "To Do" priorities currently lies 
elsewhere -- particularly with the new weak-signal modes introduced with 
WSJT-X 2.3.0 and WSJT-X 2.4.0-rc1.


-- 73, Joe, K1JT

On 2/19/2021 12:21 PM, Dave Slotter, W3DJS wrote:

Joe:

I took your message as a challenge to look up where the activity is 
definitively. From the notes below which I just compiled, it seems that 
there is a "low" of *151* logs received by the 2020 FT8 VHF-UHF EU 
contest up to a high of *2,349* logs received by the ARRL 2021 RTTY 
Roundup. By comparison, the Winter Field Day falls in the middle with 
*1,562* participant logs received. Next, WW-Digi, which you said, "The 
WW-Digi contest is an even bigger event", was only marginally larger 
with 1,690 logs received. And ARRL 2020 Field Day is in a class by 
itself with an order of magnitude more entries -- and which messes up 
the curve...


image.png

ARRL 2021 January VHF Contest: *1,196* logs received (source:
https://contests.arrl.org/logsreceived.php
and selected "2021 ARRL
January VHF Contest in menu")
ARRL 2020 June VHF Contest: *Indeterminate* -- no menu item is
available to select
ARRL 2021 RTTY Roundup: *2,349* logs received (source
https://contests.arrl.org/logsreceived.php?cn=rttyru
)
2020 FT8 VHF-UHF EU Contest: *151* logs received (source:
https://ft8activity.eu/index.php/en/received-log-s/144-mhz-rcvd-logs
)
If this is the wrong source, then my apologies. Please direct me to
the correct source.
Winter Field Day: *1,562* logs received (source
https://winterfieldday.com/wfd-2020
 -- select Home, Outdoors and
Indoors to tally the contents of Column "Category" )

2020 WW-Digi: *1,690* logs received (source:
https://ww-digi.com/results/2020-ww-digi_results-article.pdf
)

ARRL 2020 Field Day: almost *19,000* participants reported (source
/QST/ Dec. 2020)


Winter Field Day is all-inclusive of every state, so it is not 
comparable to the argument you made about it would not be manageable to 
support 50 state QSO parties. WFD and QSO parties are apples and oranges 
and are not easily comparable.


Now that I have demonstrated through research that the level of 
involvement of Winter Field Day is comparable to the other contests that 
WSJT-X already supports, would you please reconsider supporting WFD with 
a future release of WSJT-X?


Thank you for your consideration.

--
Dave Slotter, W3DJS 


On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 11:17 AM Joe Taylor > wrote:


Hi Dave,

The simple answer is that when designing our 77-bit message payload we
chose to implement support for a few contests particularly relevant to
the WSJT-X modes.

WSJT and its sister programs were motivated for VHF/UHF weak-signal
work
and have had a strong VHF+ influence from the beginning.  Hence the
support for NA and EU VHF contests.

We supported an exchange for the ARRL RTTY Roundup because it's a big
event and that has always encouraged QSOs using any digital mode.

The WW-Digi contest is an even bigger event, and its rules were
designed
to use the same exchange format as the NA VHF contest.

ARRL Field Day is not a contest, but involves many thousands of NA hams
every year.  We were encouraged to include its straightforward exchange
as a possibility, and that has turned out to be a good idea.

As it turns out, supporting EU VHF contests has not been very fruitful.
   I believe it's not much used.

I've been a ham for 67 years.  To be honest, I had never heard of
Winter
Field Day until a year or so ago.  As far as I am aware, it attracts no
more than a few hundred entrants.  (I could easily be wrong.)  Many
State QSO parties attract that many entries, or perhaps more.  The
tightly structured source encoding in the WSJT-X modes can't possibly
accommodate all of the special exchanges for such events.

Finally, the WFD rules make it clear that the sponsors have little
interest in modes than can't be helpful for EmComm purposes.

         -- 73, Joe, K1JT

On 2/19/2021 10:09 AM, Dave Slotter, W3DJS wrote:
 > Bill:
 >
 > I decided to review the mailing list for prior discussions of Winter
 > Field Day (WFD) before writing this message.
 >
 > I 

Re: [wsjt-devel] Winter Field Day Revisited

[Bill Somerville]

Hi Dave,

the EU VHF Contest Mode is already used in several contests, not 
specifically data mode ones. Several EU VHF contests are not mode 
specific and allow entrants to boost their scores in quiet periods using 
terrestrial digital modes over any path not assisted by third-party 
repesters or satellites. That contest mode is applicable to any contest 
that uses 6-character grid locators and serial numbers, in that respect 
it is far more flexible than the NA Field Day exchanges. EU VHF Contest 
Mode is also used on a frequent basis in activity contests (monthly), it 
is not a once a Year deal.


The RTTY RU format is also pretty generic, applicable to any contest 
using 4-character grid squares, and there is at least one other 
International contest using that format of exchanges, i.e. WW DIgi.


I suspect that over a whole Year the Winter FD participation is gong to 
look tiny compared with the supported contest modes.


73
Bill
G4WJS.

On 19/02/2021 17:21, Dave Slotter, W3DJS wrote:

Joe:

I took your message as a challenge to look up where the activity is 
definitively. From the notes below which I just compiled, it seems 
that there is a "low" of *151* logs received by the 2020 FT8 VHF-UHF 
EU contest up to a high of *2,349* logs received by the ARRL 2021 RTTY 
Roundup. By comparison, the Winter Field Day falls in the middle with 
*1,562* participant logs received. Next, WW-Digi, which you said, "The 
WW-Digi contest is an even bigger event", was only marginally larger 
with 1,690 logs received. And ARRL 2020 Field Day is in a class by 
itself with an order of magnitude more entries -- and which messes up 
the curve...


image.png

ARRL 2021 January VHF Contest: *1,196* logs received (source:
https://contests.arrl.org/logsreceived.php
and selected "2021
ARRL January VHF Contest in menu")
ARRL 2020 June VHF Contest: *Indeterminate* -- no menu item is
available to select
ARRL 2021 RTTY Roundup: *2,349* logs received (source
https://contests.arrl.org/logsreceived.php?cn=rttyru
)
2020 FT8 VHF-UHF EU Contest: *151* logs received (source:
https://ft8activity.eu/index.php/en/received-log-s/144-mhz-rcvd-logs
)
If this is the wrong source, then my apologies. Please direct me
to the correct source.
Winter Field Day: *1,562* logs received (source
https://winterfieldday.com/wfd-2020
 -- select Home, Outdoors and
Indoors to tally the contents of Column "Category" )

2020 WW-Digi: *1,690* logs received (source:
https://ww-digi.com/results/2020-ww-digi_results-article.pdf
)

ARRL 2020 Field Day: almost *19,000* participants reported (source
/QST/ Dec. 2020)


Winter Field Day is all-inclusive of every state, so it is not 
comparable to the argument you made about it would not be manageable 
to support 50 state QSO parties. WFD and QSO parties are apples and 
oranges and are not easily comparable.


Now that I have demonstrated through research that the level of 
involvement of Winter Field Day is comparable to the other contests 
that WSJT-X already supports, would you please reconsider supporting 
WFD with a future release of WSJT-X?


Thank you for your consideration.

--
Dave Slotter, W3DJS 


On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 11:17 AM Joe Taylor > wrote:


Hi Dave,

The simple answer is that when designing our 77-bit message
payload we
chose to implement support for a few contests particularly
relevant to
the WSJT-X modes.

WSJT and its sister programs were motivated for VHF/UHF
weak-signal work
and have had a strong VHF+ influence from the beginning. Hence the
support for NA and EU VHF contests.

We supported an exchange for the ARRL RTTY Roundup because it's a big
event and that has always encouraged QSOs using any digital mode.

The WW-Digi contest is an even bigger event, and its rules were
designed
to use the same exchange format as the NA VHF contest.

ARRL Field Day is not a contest, but involves many thousands of NA
hams
every year.  We were encouraged to include its straightforward
exchange
as a possibility, and that has turned out to be a good idea.

As it turns out, supporting EU VHF contests has not been very
fruitful.
  I believe it's not much used.

I've been a ham for 67 years.  To be honest, I had never heard of
Winter
Field Day until a year or so ago.  As far as I am aware, it
attracts no
more than a few hundred entrants.  (I could easily be wrong.) Many
State QSO parties attract that many entries, or perhaps more. The
tightly structured source encoding in the WSJT-X modes 

Re: [wsjt-devel] Winter Field Day Revisited

[Dave Slotter, W3DJS]

Joe:

I took your message as a challenge to look up where the activity is
definitively. From the notes below which I just compiled, it seems that
there is a "low" of *151* logs received by the 2020 FT8 VHF-UHF EU contest
up to a high of *2,349* logs received by the ARRL 2021 RTTY Roundup. By
comparison, the Winter Field Day falls in the middle with *1,562*
participant logs received. Next, WW-Digi, which you said, "The WW-Digi
contest is an even bigger event", was only marginally larger with 1,690
logs received. And ARRL 2020 Field Day is in a class by itself with an
order of magnitude more entries -- and which messes up the curve...

[image: image.png]

ARRL 2021 January VHF Contest: *1,196* logs received (source:
https://contests.arrl.org/logsreceived.php
and selected "2021 ARRL January VHF Contest in menu")
ARRL 2020 June VHF Contest: *Indeterminate* -- no menu item is available to
select
ARRL 2021 RTTY Roundup: *2,349* logs received (source
https://contests.arrl.org/logsreceived.php?cn=rttyru)
2020 FT8 VHF-UHF EU Contest:  *151* logs received (source:
https://ft8activity.eu/index.php/en/received-log-s/144-mhz-rcvd-logs) If
this is the wrong source, then my apologies. Please direct me to the
correct source.
Winter Field Day: *1,562* logs received (source
https://winterfieldday.com/wfd-2020 -- select Home, Outdoors and Indoors to
tally the contents of Column "Category" )

2020 WW-Digi: *1,690* logs received (source:
https://ww-digi.com/results/2020-ww-digi_results-article.pdf)

ARRL 2020 Field Day: almost *19,000* participants reported (source *QST*
Dec. 2020)


Winter Field Day is all-inclusive of every state, so it is not comparable
to the argument you made about it would not be manageable to support 50
state QSO parties. WFD and QSO parties are apples and oranges and are not
easily comparable.

Now that I have demonstrated through research that the level of involvement
of Winter Field Day is comparable to the other contests that WSJT-X already
supports, would you please reconsider supporting WFD with a future release
of WSJT-X?

Thank you for your consideration.

--
Dave Slotter, W3DJS 


On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 11:17 AM Joe Taylor  wrote:

> Hi Dave,
>
> The simple answer is that when designing our 77-bit message payload we
> chose to implement support for a few contests particularly relevant to
> the WSJT-X modes.
>
> WSJT and its sister programs were motivated for VHF/UHF weak-signal work
> and have had a strong VHF+ influence from the beginning.  Hence the
> support for NA and EU VHF contests.
>
> We supported an exchange for the ARRL RTTY Roundup because it's a big
> event and that has always encouraged QSOs using any digital mode.
>
> The WW-Digi contest is an even bigger event, and its rules were designed
> to use the same exchange format as the NA VHF contest.
>
> ARRL Field Day is not a contest, but involves many thousands of NA hams
> every year.  We were encouraged to include its straightforward exchange
> as a possibility, and that has turned out to be a good idea.
>
> As it turns out, supporting EU VHF contests has not been very fruitful.
>   I believe it's not much used.
>
> I've been a ham for 67 years.  To be honest, I had never heard of Winter
> Field Day until a year or so ago.  As far as I am aware, it attracts no
> more than a few hundred entrants.  (I could easily be wrong.)  Many
> State QSO parties attract that many entries, or perhaps more.  The
> tightly structured source encoding in the WSJT-X modes can't possibly
> accommodate all of the special exchanges for such events.
>
> Finally, the WFD rules make it clear that the sponsors have little
> interest in modes than can't be helpful for EmComm purposes.
>
> -- 73, Joe, K1JT
>
> On 2/19/2021 10:09 AM, Dave Slotter, W3DJS wrote:
> > Bill:
> >
> > I decided to review the mailing list for prior discussions of Winter
> > Field Day (WFD) before writing this message.
> >
> > I was wondering why WFD was not supported by WSJT-X and it appears from
> > a message you apparently wrote on November 20, 2018 that:
> >
> > the field day class is packed into 3 bits so only eight different
> > classes are supported. We cannot support three new class letters on
> > top of the existing six. It could be possible by agreement to use,
> > say 'a', 'B', and 'C' to represent 'I', 'O', and 'H' since Winter FD
> > does not use any of the normal FD classes.
> >
> >
> > Going to the Winter Field Day Rules, page 7, it says:
> >
> > FT8/FT4 Notes: WFD has always had an Ecomm emphasis, even back when
> > SPAR sponsored it.. We waited for FT8 2.0, and FT4 hoping they would
> > be more flexible, but were disappointed that the new release would
> > NOT do the WFD Exchange as it currently stands. That alone rules out
> > using FT8/FT4 for WFD. Also, its ability to carry any emergency
> > message is near nil... try sending "SOS - HMS TITANIC - HIT ICE -
> > SINKING - 82.566N 

Re: [wsjt-devel] Winter Field Day Revisited

[Joe Taylor]

Hi Reino,

Thanks for the information -- I'm delighted to hear it!

We have received very little feedback about use of EU VHF Contest mode, 
so we are somewhat in the dark.


-- Joe, k1JT

On 2/19/2021 11:24 AM, Reino Talarmo wrote:

As it turns out, supporting EU VHF contests has not been very fruitful.

   I believe it's not much used.

Hi Joe,

I am a happy EU VHF contest user at least once a month, but I am interested 
only 6m band contests and there are many more e.g. in the Nordic Activity 
Contest NAC. It is used in Europe, when a six character locator is a must.

The current version is much better than the original one, thanks for the 
improvement.

73, Reino OH3mA



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

Re: [wsjt-devel] Winter Field Day Revisited

[Reino Talarmo]

>As it turns out, supporting EU VHF contests has not been very fruitful. 
  I believe it's not much used.

Hi Joe,

I am a happy EU VHF contest user at least once a month, but I am interested 
only 6m band contests and there are many more e.g. in the Nordic Activity 
Contest NAC. It is used in Europe, when a six character locator is a must. 

The current version is much better than the original one, thanks for the 
improvement.

73, Reino OH3mA




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

Re: [wsjt-devel] Winter Field Day Revisited

[Joe Taylor]

Hi Dave,

The simple answer is that when designing our 77-bit message payload we 
chose to implement support for a few contests particularly relevant to 
the WSJT-X modes.


WSJT and its sister programs were motivated for VHF/UHF weak-signal work 
and have had a strong VHF+ influence from the beginning.  Hence the 
support for NA and EU VHF contests.


We supported an exchange for the ARRL RTTY Roundup because it's a big 
event and that has always encouraged QSOs using any digital mode.


The WW-Digi contest is an even bigger event, and its rules were designed 
to use the same exchange format as the NA VHF contest.


ARRL Field Day is not a contest, but involves many thousands of NA hams 
every year.  We were encouraged to include its straightforward exchange 
as a possibility, and that has turned out to be a good idea.


As it turns out, supporting EU VHF contests has not been very fruitful. 
 I believe it's not much used.


I've been a ham for 67 years.  To be honest, I had never heard of Winter 
Field Day until a year or so ago.  As far as I am aware, it attracts no 
more than a few hundred entrants.  (I could easily be wrong.)  Many 
State QSO parties attract that many entries, or perhaps more.  The 
tightly structured source encoding in the WSJT-X modes can't possibly 
accommodate all of the special exchanges for such events.


Finally, the WFD rules make it clear that the sponsors have little 
interest in modes than can't be helpful for EmComm purposes.


-- 73, Joe, K1JT

On 2/19/2021 10:09 AM, Dave Slotter, W3DJS wrote:

Bill:

I decided to review the mailing list for prior discussions of Winter 
Field Day (WFD) before writing this message.


I was wondering why WFD was not supported by WSJT-X and it appears from 
a message you apparently wrote on November 20, 2018 that:


the field day class is packed into 3 bits so only eight different
classes are supported. We cannot support three new class letters on
top of the existing six. It could be possible by agreement to use,
say 'a', 'B', and 'C' to represent 'I', 'O', and 'H' since Winter FD
does not use any of the normal FD classes.


Going to the Winter Field Day Rules, page 7, it says:

FT8/FT4 Notes: WFD has always had an Ecomm emphasis, even back when
SPAR sponsored it.. We waited for FT8 2.0, and FT4 hoping they would
be more flexible, but were disappointed that the new release would
NOT do the WFD Exchange as it currently stands. That alone rules out
using FT8/FT4 for WFD. Also, its ability to carry any emergency
message is near nil... try sending "SOS - HMS TITANIC - HIT ICE -
SINKING - 82.566N 34.713W". Almost any other mode can send that (or
the WFD Exchange). Getting a message through bad conditions is
great.. but getting only a grid square and a signal report is hardly
a message of value to Ecomms. /*When FT8 can do the WFD exchange
verbatim, it'll become part of WFD. That has been the consensus of
the WFDA board for some time... We are not anti-FT8. The ARRL did
not change any rules in its contests to allow FT8... FT8 developers
changed what it could send to fit a few ARRL contest exchanges. */


(my emphasis added)

So, have you and Joe given any further consideration to providing for 
Winter Field Day Exchanges in WSJT-X? It seems to me, that since WSJT-X 
already supports the following contests, then what is the harm / 
difficulty of adding one more?


  * ARRL Field Day
  * RTTY Roundup
  * NA VHF Contest
  * EU VHF Contest
  * WW Digi Contest

I mean, FT4 was added as a new mode specifically to support contesting. 
Winter Field Day is certainly treated as a contest by many hams.


Based upon your message from November, 2018, there are only three bits 
available. So is there any possibility of using a fourth bit, or are no 
more bits available? Based on what you said later in the same message 
thread, this doesn't seem like a possibility? Or as you mentioned 
before, is it possible to repurpose the existing bits for WFD? Michael 
Black, W9MDB, mentioned this very same solution on 11/20/2018


On the flip side, it seems to me that designing the 77? bit protocol 
with the above contests, but no WFD seems to me to be a failure of 
design (or a failure of imagination), rather than implementation. Or was 
it intentional to leave out WFD? I'm really not trying to "poke the 
bear" here, but at the very least, I'd like to urge support be added for 
WFD, whether it is repurposing the existing bits or (gasp), creating a 
78-bit message exchange which of course would not be backward-compatible.


Please advise and 73,

--
Dave Slotter, W3DJS 


___
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

[wsjt-devel] Winter Field Day Revisited

[Dave Slotter, W3DJS]

Bill:

I decided to review the mailing list for prior discussions of Winter Field
Day (WFD) before writing this message.

I was wondering why WFD was not supported by WSJT-X and it appears from a
message you apparently wrote on November 20, 2018 that:

the field day class is packed into 3 bits so only eight different classes
> are supported. We cannot support three new class letters on top of the
> existing six. It could be possible by agreement to use, say 'a', 'B', and
> 'C' to represent 'I', 'O', and 'H' since Winter FD does not use any of the
> normal FD classes.


Going to the Winter Field Day Rules, page 7, it says:

FT8/FT4 Notes: WFD has always had an Ecomm emphasis, even back when SPAR
> sponsored it.. We waited for FT8 2.0, and FT4 hoping they would be more
> flexible, but were disappointed that the new release would NOT do the WFD
> Exchange as it currently stands. That alone rules out using FT8/FT4 for
> WFD. Also, its ability to carry any emergency message is near nil... try
> sending "SOS - HMS TITANIC - HIT ICE - SINKING - 82.566N 34.713W". Almost
> any other mode can send that (or the WFD Exchange). Getting a message
> through bad conditions is great.. but getting only a grid square and a
> signal report is hardly a message of value to Ecomms. *When FT8 can do
> the WFD exchange verbatim, it'll become part of WFD. That has been the
> consensus of the WFDA board for some time... We are not anti-FT8. The ARRL
> did not change any rules in its contests to allow FT8... FT8 developers
> changed what it could send to fit a few ARRL contest exchanges. *
>

(my emphasis added)

So, have you and Joe given any further consideration to providing for
Winter Field Day Exchanges in WSJT-X? It seems to me, that since WSJT-X
already supports the following contests, then what is the harm / difficulty
of adding one more?

   - ARRL Field Day
   - RTTY Roundup
   - NA VHF Contest
   - EU VHF Contest
   - WW Digi Contest

I mean, FT4 was added as a new mode specifically to support contesting.
Winter Field Day is certainly treated as a contest by many hams.

Based upon your message from November, 2018, there are only three bits
available. So is there any possibility of using a fourth bit, or are no
more bits available? Based on what you said later in the same message
thread, this doesn't seem like a possibility? Or as you mentioned before,
is it possible to repurpose the existing bits for WFD? Michael Black,
W9MDB, mentioned this very same solution on 11/20/2018

On the flip side, it seems to me that designing the 77? bit protocol with
the above contests, but no WFD seems to me to be a failure of design (or a
failure of imagination), rather than implementation. Or was it intentional
to leave out WFD? I'm really not trying to "poke the bear" here, but at the
very least, I'd like to urge support be added for WFD, whether it is
repurposing the existing bits or (gasp), creating a 78-bit message exchange
which of course would not be backward-compatible.

Please advise and 73,

--
Dave Slotter, W3DJS 
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] unsubscribe

[Hasan N0AN]

It doesn't work that way, Follow the URL at the bottom of the message to
unsubscribe
Hasan


On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:39 PM Adam Gilmore  wrote:

>
>
>
> ___
> 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] FW: BUG in WSJT-X 2.3 and 2.4rc1 COM port

[Andrzej H]

I have the same issue with my TS-590SG driving my TRV... but I'm not a
MAP65 user.
Hamlib errors when using the virtual shared COM port.
In previous versions all was OK.  Other  HAM software workes flawless on
that setup.

best 73!
Andy SO3Z

pt., 19 lut 2021 o 04:27 Alex Artieda, HB9DRI 
napisał(a):

> Hello Bill
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for your effort trying to fix the problematic of
> hundreds of Adaptive Polarization users, unfortunate in the mind of Joe
> Taylor is just ME and my egoism who is motivating my request,
>
>
>
> I have enough!!
>
>
>
> Please forget everything  regarding the sharing port, we will find our way
> to do that, for the rest thank you for your professional support and if in
> any of my emails I disturb you or offend you sorry was not my intention.
>
>
>
> Wish you all the best
>
>
>
> Alex Artieda, HB9DRI
>
>
>
> *From:* Bill Somerville 
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 18, 2021 7:51 PM
> *To:* wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> *Subject:* Re: [wsjt-devel] FW: BUG in WSJT-X 2.3 and 2.4rc1 COM port
>
>
>
> Hi Alex,
>
>
>
> it seems we need some diagnostics from the Hamlib rig control server to
> see why it cannot access your rig's CAT port or you PTT serial port. Try
> this command to start the server:
>
> C:\WSJT\wsjtx\bin>rigctld-wsjtx -m 3081 -r COM4 -s 19200 -p COM2 -P RTS 
> -Cptt_share=1 -v
>
> This will provide a lot of diagnostic output, you can redirect the output
> to a file by modifying the command like this:
>
> C:\WSJT\wsjtx\bin>rigctld-wsjtx -m 3081 -r COM4 -s 19200 -p COM2 -P RTS 
> -Cptt_share=1 -v 1> rigctld.log 2>&1
>
> that will create a log file in your current working directory called
> rigctld.log, send that file for analysis please?
>
>
>
> 73
>
> Bill
> G4WJS.
>
>
>
> On 18/02/2021 06:16, Alex Artieda, HB9DRI wrote:
>
> Hello Bill
>
>
>
> I reboot the computer to avoid other application take control of any com
> port, same error.
>
>
>
> 73 de Alex, HB9DRI
>
>
>
> *From:* Bill Somerville  
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 18, 2021 12:43 AM
> *To:* wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> *Subject:* Re: [wsjt-devel] FW: BUG in WSJT-X 2.3 and 2.4rc1 COM port
>
>
>
> Hi Alex,
>
>
>
> one of the two serial ports is probably opened by another application.
>
>
>
> 73
> Bill
> G4WJS.
>
>
>
> On 17/02/2021 17:38, Alex Artieda, HB9DRI wrote:
>
> Hello Bill
>
>
>
> This is the answer after execute the command:
>
>
>
> C:\WSJT\wsjtx\bin>rigctld-wsjtx -m 3081 -r COM4 -s 19200 -p COM2 -P RTS
> -Cptt_share=1
>
> Recommend using --vfo switch for rigctld if client supports it
>
> rigctl and netrigctl will automatically detect vfo mode
>
> rig_open: error
> =
> IO error
>
>
>
> Alex, HB9DRI
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Bill Somerville  
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 18, 2021 12:16 AM
> *To:* wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> *Subject:* Re: [wsjt-devel] FW: BUG in WSJT-X 2.3 and 2.4rc1 COM port
>
>
>
> Hi Alex,
>
>
>
> yes it will work exactly as you require.
>
>
>
> 73
> Bill
> G4WJS.
>
>
>
> On 17/02/2021 16:29, Alex Artieda, HB9DRI wrote:
>
> Hello Bill
>
>
>
> I must PTT a external sequencer via a COM port, I cannot use PTT via CAT
> because that will trigger the Radio 1st, I must trigger the external
> sequencer via a COM port 1st, then the sequencer has 4 events to manage
> antenna relays, preamps, bias in the SSPA and for last PTT the radio, if I
> use PTT via CAT that will destroy my preamplifiers.
>
>
>
> Your proposal will works?
>
>
>
> Alex, HB9DRI
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Bill Somerville  
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 17, 2021 10:05 PM
> *To:* wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> *Subject:* Re: [wsjt-devel] FW: BUG in WSJT-X 2.3 and 2.4rc1 COM port
>
>
>
> Hi Alex,
>
>
>
> OK, try this. Change "Settings->Radio->Rig" to "Hamlib NET rigctl" and
> "Settings->Radio->PTT Method" to "CAT" for each WSJT-X instance you run.
>
>
>
> Open a CMD prompt window and type the following command:
>
> C:\WSJT\wsjtx\bin\rigctld-wsjtx -m 3081 -r COMx -s y -p COMz -P RTS 
> -Cptt_share=1
>
> where 'x' is the CAT serial port number of your IC-9700, 'y' is the CAT
> baud rate, and 'z' is the PTT serial port number.
>
>
>
> The above command starts a Hamlib rig control server to serve your IC-9700
> with Hamlib clients over a network connection. The adjustment to WSJT-X
> radio settings tells WSJT-X to communicate with the rig control server you
> have started, and also to do PTT via that server. You may get a message
> from your firewall application to asking to allow rigctld-wsjtx to accept
> network connections, which you should allow.
>
>
>
> Do not start Omni-Rig, you do not need it.
>
>
>
> This will do exactly what you need, you can make a short batch script
> containing the above command to start the Hamlib rig control server.
>
>
>
> If you are only using a single instance of WSJT-X the next release of
> WSJT-X will allow you to configure that instance to talk directly to your
> for CAT control while allowing other applications to access the PTT port
> when WSJT-X is not asserting PTT.