[wsjt-devel] WSJT-X 2.2.0-rc1 - WSPRnet manual upload issue

[JH3XCU]

I am using wsjtx-2.2.0-rc1-win64.exe, WINDOW 10

WSPRnet is accept manualy upload of ALL_WSPR.TXT here.
http://wsprnet.org/olddb

But, 2.2.0-rc1's ALL_WSPR.TXT is not allow.
The reason is probably deleted the S level from ALL_WSPR.TXT.
When I added S level and tried uploading, it worked well.
Please add S level to ALL_WSPR.TXT

wsjtx-2.2.0-rc1 ALL_WSPR.TXT.   upload fail
200520 1046 -12  0.02   0.4756492  JA0HXV PM85 60  0  0.71  1  10  
0   4 1   512
200520 1052 -13  0.11   0.4756492  JA0HXV PM85 60  0  0.63  1  10  
0  10 1   311
200520 1114 -15  0.11   0.4756492  JA0HXV PM85 30  0  0.63  1  10  
0   3 1   520

MODIFIED wsjtx-2.2.0-rc1 ALL_WSPR.TXT Upload successful
200520 1046   3 -12  0.02   0.4756492  JA0HXV PM85 60  0  0.71  1  1
0  0   4 1   512
200520 1052   3 -13  0.11   0.4756492  JA0HXV PM85 60  0  0.63  1  1
0  0  10 1   311
200520 1114   2 -15  0.11   0.4756492  JA0HXV PM85 30  0  0.63  1  1
0  0   3 1   520

73, Hideo - JH3XCU

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

Re: [wsjt-devel] Clicking on RR73 produced wrong TX response msg

[Reino Talarmo]

>> On May 20, 2020, at 10:28, Neil Zampella  wrote:
>> 
>> The 73 from you is a courtesy ... the RR73 is saying  "Roger Roger -
>> BYE'"basically ... we're good.This is why the program then
>> switches to the Tx6 to send the next CQ call.

>If you call letting him know that you got his acknowledgement of your report a 
>courtesy, I guess so.  I call it a necessity in order to allow him to move on. 
> If I don’t send the 73, it means I didn’t get his RR73.  If he doesn’t 
>finish, he isn’t in the log.

>Gary - AG0N

Gary,
You may have misunderstood the protocol and when QSO is confirmed. Let's assume 
that he is still hearing you, then in the case you did not received his RR73 
you should resend your R-xx and that will tell him the situation and he should 
resend his RR73. If he in addition wants to know that you really got his 
confirmation and you should send 73, then he should send RRR not RR73. 
Each sending 73, either RR73 or 73, means I am going to log this contact unless 
you indicate that you have not received my confirmation RR73.
73, Reino OH3mA

___
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] Fwd: Clicking on RR73 produced wrong TX response msg

[Al Pawlowski]

Actually, just discovered that WSKJTx already almost does this. Putting a blank 
line in the tx5/custom message window during a QSO will cause a tx disable 
after tx4 - whether you sent the first CQ or not. However, the auto-log window 
popup does not work unless a tx5/custom non-blank message is sent.

BTW, in testing this on 4 QSO’s, all 4 of my QSO partners sent multiple 
RRR/RR73’s (after not getting a 73 from me).

Al Pawlowski, K6AVP
Los Osos, CA USA



> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Al Pawlowski 
> Subject: Re: Clicking on RR73 produced wrong TX response msg
> Date: May 21, 2020 at 09:37:11 PDT
> To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> 
> A nice new feature for WSJTx might be to not reset the custom (tx5) message 
> (to CS 73) for a QSO and instead skip, or end with,  tx5 depending on the 
> message content, i.e. a blank (or *** say) in the window would mean skip - it 
> might even make sense to make the skip message the default.
> 
> 
> Al Pawlowski, K6AVP
> Los Osos, CA USA
> 
> 
> 
>> On May 20, 2020, at 16:52, wsjt-devel-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 16:51:57 -0700
>> From: Paul Kube mailto:paul.k...@gmail.com>>
>> To: WSJT software development > >
>> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Clicking on RR73 produced wrong TX response
>>  msg
>> 
>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 2:05 PM Gary McDuffie > > wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> If you call letting him know that you got his acknowledgement of your
>>> report a courtesy, I guess so.  I call it a necessity in order to allow him
>>> to move on.  If I don?t send the 73, it means I didn?t get his RR73.  If he
>>> doesn?t finish, he isn?t in the log.
>>> 
>> 
>> If you didn't get his RR73 (Tx4), certainly the thing to do is to resend
>> your report (Tx3), no?
>> 
>> On the other hand, if you did get his RR73, you can consider the QSO
>> completed, and respond in whatever way you want. At least, that's the view
>> I've come to after using the FT* modes since they were invented. Was it
>> "really" a QSO? I'll let LoTW or the contest logcheck software sort it out.
>> 
>> A special case is when I see a station I've worked sending RR73 again. That
>> shows they're probably expecting a 73 from me and didn't get it. So in that
>> case I'll send 73 (Tx5, which is totally customizable, there's even a TX
>> Macros page in Settings that lets you create a whole library of them). But
>> that almost never happens anymore.
> 

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

[wsjt-devel] Notification to use source code of wsjtx

[Yukio JG1APX]

Hello Development team

Thanks for disclosing the source code of WSJT-X.
I have a notification to you using the code.
I have retouched it for my use by the reason below for a couple of years. 

I don't know if you know that we have been prohibited to communicate
between JAs at some frequencies according to Radio Act in Japan.  Maybe,
an issue will be caused by new comer and/or JA user who does not
understand our band plan.  For instace, they call CQ station of JA at
that frequency and then, JA opposite station responds automaticlly if
autoseq and call 1st are enabled.  There are not many happens but they
are really annoying and disturbing to other JA station's Dxing. 

Patched source code ignores the messages from JA including "own callsign"
at the specific frequencies.   To avoid the communication between JAs.
If there is the user who requests to use my version, I will share the
build one and the source code based on the terms of the GNU General
Public License.  I will also pay attention to the manual if necessary. 

Thank you.

73,
Yukio JG1APX


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

Re: [wsjt-devel] Clicking on RR73 produced wrong TX response msg

[Al Pawlowski]

A nice new feature for WSJTx might be to not reset the custom (tx5) message (to 
CS 73) for a QSO and instead skip, or end with,  tx5 depending on the message 
content, i.e. a blank (or *** say) in the window would mean skip - it might 
even make sense to make the skip message the default.


Al Pawlowski, K6AVP
Los Osos, CA USA



> On May 20, 2020, at 16:52, wsjt-devel-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net wrote:
> 
> Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 16:51:57 -0700
> From: Paul Kube mailto:paul.k...@gmail.com>>
> To: WSJT software development  >
> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Clicking on RR73 produced wrong TX response
>   msg
> 
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 2:05 PM Gary McDuffie  > wrote:
> 
>> 
>> If you call letting him know that you got his acknowledgement of your
>> report a courtesy, I guess so.  I call it a necessity in order to allow him
>> to move on.  If I don?t send the 73, it means I didn?t get his RR73.  If he
>> doesn?t finish, he isn?t in the log.
>> 
> 
> If you didn't get his RR73 (Tx4), certainly the thing to do is to resend
> your report (Tx3), no?
> 
> On the other hand, if you did get his RR73, you can consider the QSO
> completed, and respond in whatever way you want. At least, that's the view
> I've come to after using the FT* modes since they were invented. Was it
> "really" a QSO? I'll let LoTW or the contest logcheck software sort it out.
> 
> A special case is when I see a station I've worked sending RR73 again. That
> shows they're probably expecting a 73 from me and didn't get it. So in that
> case I'll send 73 (Tx5, which is totally customizable, there's even a TX
> Macros page in Settings that lets you create a whole library of them). But
> that almost never happens anymore.

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

Re: [wsjt-devel] Clicking on RR73 produced wrong TX response msg

[Bill Somerville]

On 21/05/2020 14:20, Andy Durbin wrote:
"Both stations should log the QSO when RR73 is sent.  At that point in 
the message sequence both QSO partners have exchanged call signs, 
reports and acknowledgements (R -04 and RR73).  No further messages 
need to be exchanged."


The flaw in this argument is that transmission of RR73 does not ensure 
reception of RR73. "Exchanged" requires both transmission and reception,


73,
Andy, k3wyc


Hi Andy,

the requirement usually is that both operators are assured that they 
have completed the QSO. A rapid QSO followed by the other station 
calling CQ or calling another station straight away is often all that is 
needed to be sure that an RR73 message has been successfully decoded and 
the QSO logged at the other end.


73
Bill
G4WJS.

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

Re: [wsjt-devel] Clicking on RR73 produced wrong TX response msg

[Black Michael via wsjt-devel]

RR73 requires no response...if the receiving party doesn't get the RR73 they 
automatically retransmit TX3...
The RR73 is stating "I expect no further replies from you".  There is no 73 
required at allit is a courtesy done on HF bands.
The whole intent of RR73 was for meteor scatter QSOs which can take a really 
long time.  So RR73 eliminates one exchange that can take minutes.

Mike W9MDB


 

On Thursday, May 21, 2020, 08:25:17 AM CDT, Andy Durbin  
wrote:  
 
  "Both stations should log the QSO when RR73 is sent.  At that point in the 
message sequence both QSO partners have exchanged call signs, reports and 
acknowledgements (R -04 and RR73).  No further messages need to be exchanged."
The flaw in this argument is that transmission of RR73 does not ensure 
reception of RR73.  "Exchanged" requires both transmission and reception,
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] Clicking on RR73 produced wrong TX response msg

[Andy Durbin]

"Both stations should log the QSO when RR73 is sent.  At that point in the 
message sequence both QSO partners have exchanged call signs, reports and 
acknowledgements (R -04 and RR73).  No further messages need to be exchanged."

The flaw in this argument is that transmission of RR73 does not ensure 
reception of RR73.  "Exchanged" requires both transmission and reception,

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

Re: [wsjt-devel] Clicking on RR73 produced wrong TX response msg

[Bill Somerville]

Hi Mike,

the history is that a bunch of HF operators thought that they could be 
clever by using an extremely rare grid (RR73) as a short-form RRR+73 so 
they could get on with the next QSO. Then I believe JTDX added support 
for unilaterally it despite the obvious problems. Eventually Joe gave in 
and we added support in WSJT-X. The rational has always been a way of 
shortening QSOs, akthough in many cases that is not achieved.


73
Bill
G4WJS.

On 21/05/2020 14:58, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote:

Guess I was recalling the wrong reason for the RR73 then

What is the history?



On Thursday, May 21, 2020, 08:55:50 AM CDT, Bill Somerville 
 wrote:



On 21/05/2020 14:33, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote:
> The whole intent of RR73 was for meteor scatter QSOs which can take a
> really long time.  So RR73 eliminates one exchange that can take 
minutes.

>
>
> Mike W9MDB

Mike,

that's not correct. With MS the RRR then 73 is necessary so both
stations know when to stop transmitting. There may be many periods in an
MS QSO when nothing is copied. These days it is common to inform your
QSO partner via a back channel, Ping Jockey or ON4KST IRC for example,
so that everyone can stop. Once an RRR message has been received the QSO
is complete and it is allowed to confirm that by some other means than a
73 message on air. This breaks the potential loop of not knowing that a
73 message has been received, and so on ad infinitum.

73
Bill
G4WJS.




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

Re: [wsjt-devel] Clicking on RR73 produced wrong TX response msg

[Bill Somerville]

On 21/05/2020 14:33, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote:
The whole intent of RR73 was for meteor scatter QSOs which can take a 
really long time.  So RR73 eliminates one exchange that can take minutes.



Mike W9MDB


Mike,

that's not correct. With MS the RRR then 73 is necessary so both 
stations know when to stop transmitting. There may be many periods in an 
MS QSO when nothing is copied. These days it is common to inform your 
QSO partner via a back channel, Ping Jockey or ON4KST IRC for example, 
so that everyone can stop. Once an RRR message has been received the QSO 
is complete and it is allowed to confirm that by some other means than a 
73 message on air. This breaks the potential loop of not knowing that a 
73 message has been received, and so on ad infinitum.


73
Bill
G4WJS.



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

Re: [wsjt-devel] Clicking on RR73 produced wrong TX response msg

[Black Michael via wsjt-devel]

Guess I was recalling the wrong reason for the RR73 then
What is the history?
 

On Thursday, May 21, 2020, 08:55:50 AM CDT, Bill Somerville 
 wrote:  
 
 On 21/05/2020 14:33, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote:
> The whole intent of RR73 was for meteor scatter QSOs which can take a 
> really long time.  So RR73 eliminates one exchange that can take minutes.
>
>
> Mike W9MDB

Mike,

that's not correct. With MS the RRR then 73 is necessary so both 
stations know when to stop transmitting. There may be many periods in an 
MS QSO when nothing is copied. These days it is common to inform your 
QSO partner via a back channel, Ping Jockey or ON4KST IRC for example, 
so that everyone can stop. Once an RRR message has been received the QSO 
is complete and it is allowed to confirm that by some other means than a 
73 message on air. This breaks the potential loop of not knowing that a 
73 message has been received, and so on ad infinitum.

73
Bill
G4WJS.



___
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