[Dx4win] disconnect fix
Mark K6FG,=20 Dx4win has not provisions to stay alive or ping the cluster. What has = worked very well is to download VE7CC's program AR users (http://www.ve7cc.net )and run this in the background. It will connect = you to your telnet or packet cluster and will track the disconnects, = user sets the value for stay alive , Rx inactivity, etc.. You also = have complete control over you spots as to what bands, modes, plus what = countries you what your spots to come from ( K, XE,VE) or all. The connection is easy and explained on his site. Dx4Win connects to = port 127.0.0.1:7300 (internal loop in windows PC) instead of your = cluster provider. and this program feeds your DX4win. Have went from many disconnects to connected for days, try it you will = like it. Don K7OSE From: Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Dx4win] Telnet Disconnect I connect to the Cluster on broadband cable through Telnet within DX4WIN = 6. I find that I get disconnected after only a modest time of being=20 connected. This happens regardless of the Telnet site I use. I am able to reconnect easily and I believe that my cable connection and = signal level remain at adequate levels. Does anyone have any suggestions? Tnx 73, Mark, K6FG --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML or had an attachment. Attachments are not allowed. To learn how to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html ---
[Dx4win] disconnect fix
Ok Don, that is the downside of the VE7CC packet cluster program. It will not go into your dx4win logbook and highlight in the 9 or so colors to make you aware it is a new country you need to work, or a new band, or a new mode. I am going to stick with the present DX4WIN packet cluster even though it may disconnect. At least it will go into my logbook and scout for the ones I need for 5BDXCC and DXCC Honor Roll. I emailed Paul Vander about this problem and have not heard a thing. Guess he just doesnt want to spend the time and resources to find a solution. Someone told me Paul emailed him and said it was not the problem of the logging program but one of ISP. Dont know if that is true or not but other packet cluster programs have an automatic reconnect and the ones I am referring to are mIRC and DXTELNET. 73,s johon - Original Message - From: Don Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: n3drk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 10:37 AM Subject: Re: [Dx4win] disconnect fix John, No it tells Dx4win the spots and dx4win sorts them out It's reason for being is to supply the spots to your logging program without losing your connection. but you can say which bands , and from which country you want the spots.. If you what only from K or where ever. I want them all, but not the 6M , 2M , 160M etc. don - Original Message - From: n3drk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Don Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 4:36 AM Subject: Re: [Dx4win] disconnect fix Does this program go into your logbook and look for the ones you worked, need etc? john - Original Message - From: Don Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: DX4win_Post dx4win@mailman.qth.net Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 6:50 AM Subject: [Dx4win] disconnect fix Mark K6FG, Dx4win has not provisions to stay alive or ping the cluster. What has worked very well is to download VE7CC's program AR users (http://www.ve7cc.net )and run this in the background. It will connect you to your telnet or packet cluster and will track the disconnects, user sets the value for stay alive , Rx inactivity, etc.. You also have complete control over you spots as to what bands, modes, plus what countries you what your spots to come from ( K, XE,VE) or all. The connection is easy and explained on his site. Dx4Win connects to port 127.0.0.1:7300 (internal loop in windows PC) instead of your cluster provider. and this program feeds your DX4win. Have went from many disconnects to connected for days, try it you will like it. Don K7OSE From: Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Dx4win] Telnet Disconnect I connect to the Cluster on broadband cable through Telnet within DX4WIN 6. I find that I get disconnected after only a modest time of being connected. This happens regardless of the Telnet site I use. I am able to reconnect easily and I believe that my cable connection and signal level remain at adequate levels. Does anyone have any suggestions? Tnx 73, Mark, K6FG --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML or had an attachment. Attachments are not allowed. To learn how to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html --- ___ Dx4win mailing list Dx4win@mailman.qth.net http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx4win
[Dx4win] Disconnects
Well, I might as well have a go at this. I now connect to clusters via broadband wireless and do have an excellent connection as I am very near the signal source. Previously, I used a dial up connection, a little less reliable. Before that, two meter packet, even less reliable. Now, I can ping the server and I never have found that was loosing any packets. Even now, I will occasionally be disconnected, but not often. I believe that about all disconnects are a result of web congestion, not from any fault in DX4win. When web traffic is heavy, there will be an occasional disconnect, but not enoiugh to be a big problem. I think that if Paul put an automatic ping into Dx4win that the only result would be more traffic on the web. Most of the clusters have an automatic transmission every nine minutes anyway and if there is no web congestion, you will not be disconnected. I'm just thankful that the reliability is so much better than the packet days anyway. 73 BILL-W5VW - Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML or had an attachment. Attachments are not allowed. To learn how to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html ---
[Dx4win] Telnet connections
To All, I am running an Ar-Cluster and have been for the last 4 years. Telnet address is dxc-ka5eyh.drhnet.com. I also use DX4WIN, it stays connected for weeks on end. Some ISP will not alow a full time connect. If you need to test this, try useing my node by telnet useing DX4Win, if you get drouped than it is your system ie: (windows setup or your ISP). 73's and Good DX Don, KA5eyh E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Page http://ka5eyh.drhnet.com DXC Node dxc-ka5eyh.drhnet.com (filtered for NA) DXC Node dxc-ts-ka5eyh.drhnet.com (un-filtered)(down at this time) DXCC, DXCC-Phone, DXCC-10m,WAC,WPX, CQDX, eDX, W100N
[Dx4win] disconnect fix
Thanks for everyone who responded to my post. I was not aware of this feature and the reason I no longer use the program. I am going to VE7CC website and download the latest and work with it today. Thanks Guys and 73's john
[Dx4win] Dx4WIn with VE7CC
I just came across the VE7CC application, and it looks very cool. What I am wondering is if there is any intergration of this application with DX4WIN? In other words, if I am already using my rtty window to telnet to a internet DX cluster, what if any benefit will I get for running the VE7CC application as well? Hope this question isn't as lame as it sounds. Thanks. Herb - KG6OK
[Dx4win] Dx4WIn with VE7CC
By the way, I am also using DXTELNET with DX4WIN. Thanks. - Original Message - From: Herb Rosenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dx4win dx4win@mailman.qth.net Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 17:15 Subject: [Dx4win] Dx4WIn with VE7CC I just came across the VE7CC application, and it looks very cool. What I am wondering is if there is any intergration of this application with DX4WIN? In other words, if I am already using my rtty window to telnet to a internet DX cluster, what if any benefit will I get for running the VE7CC application as well? Hope this question isn't as lame as it sounds. Thanks. Herb - KG6OK ___ Dx4win mailing list Dx4win@mailman.qth.net http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx4win
[Dx4win] Support for LOTW
How about a separate reflector just for LOTW ? And when LOTW and ARRL move on from the beta and actually inform software developers of their strategic direction then modifications may be made rather than a change for change sake ! Sorry but LOTW is taking up a lot of bandwidth on here recently and I'm of the old school if it aint broke don't fix it !!. This aint a flame - just an observation ;-) Steve ZC4BS / G4KIV Homepage: http://www.stevebb.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Dx4win] Support for LOTW
LOTW is out of Beta for some time now. And the reason for the bandwidth is because there is a real issue tracking award status with the program as it stands, if you use LOTW, and there is a real possibility that DX operations may adopt LOTW as the primary way of providing credit for DXCC as it's cost free and fast... There is similar discussions on other logging software reflectors also. You just can't get away from it Steve ;-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Sent: October 25, 2003 14:17 To: dx4win@mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Dx4win] Support for LOTW How about a separate reflector just for LOTW ? And when LOTW and ARRL move on from the beta and actually inform software developers of their strategic direction then modifications may be made rather than a change for change sake ! Sorry but LOTW is taking up a lot of bandwidth on here recently and I'm of the old school if it aint broke don't fix it !!. This aint a flame - just an observation ;-) Steve ZC4BS / G4KIV Homepage: http://www.stevebb.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Dx4win mailing list Dx4win@mailman.qth.net http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx4win
[Dx4win] Support for LOTW
Steve, I agree to some degree; I would like the discussions about LOTW to be limited to the DX4WIN context. Paul At 07:16 PM 10/25/03 +0100, Steve wrote: How about a separate reflector just for LOTW ? And when LOTW and ARRL move on from the beta and actually inform software developers of their strategic direction then modifications may be made rather than a change for change sake ! Sorry but LOTW is taking up a lot of bandwidth on here recently and I'm of the old school if it aint broke don't fix it !!. This aint a flame - just an observation ;-) Steve ZC4BS / G4KIV
[Dx4win] LOtW
I am running a personal log-checker on the web (see www.dl5no.de), which is based on the records of the ADIF-export of DX4WIN and my QSL-records at the LOTW . Combination of both files is done on a linux-server with a Perl-routine, which compares several significant parts of the records (callsigns, date, ...). Authors of logging software would have to implement a similiar spproach, which is indeed not very sophisticated. But it works... (...and takes some time with large logs on a slow computer). One problem is, that the download from the LOTW is using the same QSL_RCVD-tag as DX4WIN and some other logbook programs. If you like to distinguish between paper-QSLs and LOTW-qsls (on the ADIF-level), a different tag has to be defined and implemented. It seems, that the ARRL has not thought about that... Most logging programs allow easy tracking of popular awards like DXCC, WAS The LOTW is also (or primarily ?) intended to manage credits for awards. How will an electronic award-application take place? Will there be an interface to synchronize the local logging software with the award credits listing? I think the LOTW will have success only, if the popular logging programs support such procedures in future - and therefore a cooperation between the ARRL and the developers of logging programs should be highly appreciated. 73, de Georg, DL5NO - Original Message - From: Alan Curson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'DX4WIN Group' dx4win@mailman.qth.net Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 12:03 AM Subject: RE: [Dx4win] LOtW From what I understand I believe I don't think Since we haven't heard from software writers, it is probably premature to assume that LoTW is not designed properly and that there are any on-going issues and problems. Writing software is not easy, but from my experience with LoTW so far it seems to have achieved its intended goal of providing an inexpensive way to confirm QSOs. The only thing missing is for people to upload their files. Whether or not that happens and LoTW is a success will not be the fault of those who have tried to provide the tool, but rather the lack of enough interest to get those files uploaded. And it isn't that difficult. So why don't we see W4JVN there yet? :-) 73, Alan, WD9GMK -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of DaveK Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 7:30 AM To: Mike Mellinger WA0SXV Cc: 'DX4WIN Group' Subject: Re: [Dx4win] LOtW From what I understand, the ARRL did not care to listen to software designers(such as Paul) or share much info on LOTW design. Therefore- any problems are rooted in the initial creation of the ARRL vehicle. The League went Lone Ranger on it and they got what they got. I believe that any on-going issues and problems could have been avoided if designed properly and they listened to the software guys. But I don't think they did that. Given the above- I am sure Paul will do the best he can with what there is to work with. Writing software is not easy. CQWW starts tomorrow, have fun filling up your logbook and good dx. 73 Dave W4JVN Mike Mellinger WA0SXV wrote: There's what we need. Another smart aleck. Like Steve and Paul could actually make a living on DX4WIN. I grant you they could at least tell us their plans but how about skipping the attitude? Mike
[Dx4win] Support for LOTW
OK As I see it... I don't think you need to do anything about eQsl... It isn't necessary... It stands on it's own and keeps track of it's own awards. I've been using eQsl for quite a long time... And all you need is an easy way to upload the QSOs. Batch mode ADIF is fine... In future a real-time upload could be considered, QSO by QSO... But let's see what LOtW does about this and you can kill 2 birds with 1 stone... Besides you have to save something for ver 7 ;-) I believe ADIF needs to be fixed up for satellite QSOs (I forwarded you some info on this), as well as perhaps standardizing the modes to make life easier all around. We need a flag to indicate uploaded to LOtW and then confirmed LOtW... Perhaps we should have a separate procedure to create an ADIF file that keeps track of dates submitted, and updates the LOtW uploaded flag. We need to be able to read the ADIF output from LOtW to update award status and the LOtW confirmed flag... This will hold us until a real-time interface is defined and debugged... Which may be a while yet. And of course, you should create fields for frequency, Operator's name and QTH in the database... ( and don't forget the PTT configuration issue for Roger and others...) None of this has absolutely nothing to do with LOtW, but I thought I would remind you ;-) And, since I've broached the subject or ver 7 (Dayton `04 would be a good target), it might be time to reconsider one of the cornerstones of DX4Win`s design... The `in memory` file was a terrific idea in the days of slow hardware... I'm sure it was part of the reason that DX4Win was considerably faster than competing logging programs. But I think, with much faster hardware the norm, that the need for speed has been superseded by security concerns... Perhaps it's time to adopt a more conventional approach and read/write directly to disk... OK, I'll shut up now... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul van der Eijk Sent: October 25, 2003 13:57 To: dx4win@mailman.qth.net Subject: [Dx4win] Support for LOTW Hi, I have been reading most of the exchanges about this topic, and came up the following ideas / questions. 1. Support for a few more 'confirm flags'; see below 2. Add a function to the logbook import mechanism to use the QSOs to set the confirm flag in the existing log. The imported QSOs will not be added to the existing log, they are only used to change the confirmation flag. 3. Some small changes are needed in the ADIF export (mode=PSK31 and one band needs a different format. (These changes have been made already) 4. I have no immediate plans to integrate LOTW functionality INSIDE DX4WIN (Key management, sending / receiving logs etc.) Many of you have already exported a log to ADIF and used that log to upload QSOs. The LOTW software makes the required steps simple. Confirmation flags: Currently, we only have Yes / No, and the Yes flag implies that you have the QSL card in your possession. With services like the LOTW, we will need an extra status to indicate an electronic confirmation. Some issues / questions: I assume 'Card in hand' and 'electronic confirmation' need to co-exist, ie all four combinations are possible. I'm not sure if we need more than one electronic confirmation flag (to distinguish between LOTW and eQSL for example) Does this really add value or does it add confusion? To distinguish between LOTW and eQSL for example leads to eight combinations. I can also see that other 'awards issuing organizations' may establish their own electronic logbook services. Do we need to distinguish what type of confirmation (card or electronic) can be used for an award? Interested in your ideas, Paul Paul van der Eijk (KK4HD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dx4win.com ___ Dx4win mailing list Dx4win@mailman.qth.net http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx4win
[Dx4win] telnet pro ll dx4win
i hope some one can help me out. i had a kenwood 570 and used a tnc with dx4win and it worked great, i just had to click on a spot and the rig went to that band and frec. i now have a icom pro ll and want to do the same thing but with telnet dxcluster.net.i i have ver. 5.03. thanks for any help that i can get from the one's that know, hi hi . phil w3gt
[Dx4win] Support for LOTW
Hi Steve. There is a LOtW reflector. What I believe you saw here is concerns that are limited to use with DX4WIN. Rod WC7N - Original Message - From: Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dx4win@mailman.qth.net Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 11:16 AM Subject: Re: [Dx4win] Support for LOTW How about a separate reflector just for LOTW ? And when LOTW and ARRL move on from the beta and actually inform software developers of their strategic direction then modifications may be made rather than a change for change sake ! Sorry but LOTW is taking up a lot of bandwidth on here recently and I'm of the old school if it aint broke don't fix it !!. This aint a flame - just an observation ;-) Steve ZC4BS / G4KIV Homepage: http://www.stevebb.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Dx4win mailing list Dx4win@mailman.qth.net http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx4win
[Dx4win] Support for LOTW
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 13:56:38 -0400, Paul van der Eijk wrote: Hi, I have been reading most of the exchanges about this topic, and came up the following ideas / questions. 1. Support for a few more 'confirm flags'; see below Absolutely. Probably only LOTW to begin with since eQSL's are not accepted by ARRL. 2. Add a function to the logbook import mechanism to use the QSOs to set the confirm flag in the existing log. The imported QSOs will not be added to the existing log, they are only used to change the confirmation flag. Yes. 3. Some small changes are needed in the ADIF export (mode=PSK31 and one band needs a different format. (These changes have been made already) 4. I have no immediate plans to integrate LOTW functionality INSIDE DX4WIN (Key management, sending / receiving logs etc.) Many of you have already exported a log to ADIF and used that log to upload QSOs. The LOTW software makes the required steps simple. As long as we can export and import and set the LOTW confirm flag by hand where necessary I don't see any need for additional support. Confirmation flags: Currently, we only have Yes / No, and the Yes flag implies that you have the QSL card in your possession. With services like the LOTW, we will need an extra status to indicate an electronic confirmation. Some issues / questions: I assume 'Card in hand' and 'electronic confirmation' need to co-exist, ie all four combinations are possible. I'm not sure if we need more than one electronic confirmation flag (to distinguish between LOTW and eQSL for example) Does this really add value or does it add confusion? To distinguish between LOTW and eQSL for example leads to eight combinations. I can also see that other 'awards issuing organizations' may establish their own electronic logbook services. Do we need to distinguish what type of confirmation (card or electronic) can be used for an award? It's going to be a real can of worms. Interested in your ideas, Paul Paul van der Eijk (KK4HD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dx4win.com ___ Dx4win mailing list Dx4win@mailman.qth.net http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx4win Larry Alkoff N2LA - Austin TX
[Dx4win] RE:Support for LOTW
Paul, I like your suggestions. This will let us update our DXCC confirmations, which is the main thing needed, and in no way keeps you from further integration if you decide to. At least for now, the one electronic confirmation flag would be sufficient. A couple other things to ponder? 1) Differentiate card-in-hand from electronic confirmations in summaries and listings? 2) Optionally import other data (state and county) from the LOTW ADIF file? 73, Ron - N9QQK
[Dx4win] Support for LOTW
Paul keep it sweet and simple. If when I printed out the countries list it told me if it was electronic or card in hand I would be real happy. Rod WC7N - Original Message - From: Paul van der Eijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dx4win@mailman.qth.net Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 10:56 AM Subject: [Dx4win] Support for LOTW Hi, I have been reading most of the exchanges about this topic, and came up the following ideas / questions. 1. Support for a few more 'confirm flags'; see below 2. Add a function to the logbook import mechanism to use the QSOs to set the confirm flag in the existing log. The imported QSOs will not be added to the existing log, they are only used to change the confirmation flag. 3. Some small changes are needed in the ADIF export (mode=PSK31 and one band needs a different format. (These changes have been made already) 4. I have no immediate plans to integrate LOTW functionality INSIDE DX4WIN (Key management, sending / receiving logs etc.) Many of you have already exported a log to ADIF and used that log to upload QSOs. The LOTW software makes the required steps simple. Confirmation flags: Currently, we only have Yes / No, and the Yes flag implies that you have the QSL card in your possession. With services like the LOTW, we will need an extra status to indicate an electronic confirmation. Some issues / questions: I assume 'Card in hand' and 'electronic confirmation' need to co-exist, ie all four combinations are possible. I'm not sure if we need more than one electronic confirmation flag (to distinguish between LOTW and eQSL for example) Does this really add value or does it add confusion? To distinguish between LOTW and eQSL for example leads to eight combinations. I can also see that other 'awards issuing organizations' may establish their own electronic logbook services. Do we need to distinguish what type of confirmation (card or electronic) can be used for an award? Interested in your ideas, Paul Paul van der Eijk (KK4HD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dx4win.com ___ Dx4win mailing list Dx4win@mailman.qth.net http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx4win
