Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8/FT4 frequency change bug?

Do a frequency reset File/Settings/Frequencies -- right-click in Working Frequencies and "Reset". de Mike W9MDB On Wednesday, July 31, 2019, 08:27:00 PM CDT, John Zantek wrote: Ø  I noticed that while using the FT8 mode on a standard FT8 frequency, when when the FT4 mode is selecte

Re: [wsjt-devel] Moving WSJT-X from Debian 9 to 10

Hi Bill, I save everything, and will restore probably 99%. One area where I give a little more scrutiny is for apps that I've compiled (against older libraries). I'm happy to let the newly-compiled application repopulate as much as possible -- so long as I can avoid re-tweaking my settings.

[wsjt-devel] FT8 decodes only on alternate 15-second cycles

Windows 10 v1903 on i7 CPU, WXJT-X v2.1.0 24fcd1 I run 8 instances of WSJT-X, 7 fed from QS1R and CWSL Tee, 1 from a separate SDR. Not common, but CPU load is only 30% or so, and there's plenty of free RAM. After an hour or so in FT8 mode, most of the WSJT-X instances only show the blue d

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT8/FT4 frequency change bug?

* I noticed that while using the FT8 mode on a standard FT8 frequency, when when the FT4 mode is selected from the "Mode" pull down list, the frequency is changed to the correct FT4 frequency for that band. * However, after using FT4, when the user selects the FT8 mode from the "Mode" pu

[wsjt-devel] FT8/FT4 frequency change bug?

I noticed that while using the FT8 mode on a standard FT8 frequency, when when the FT4 mode is selected from the "Mode" pull down list, the frequency is changed to the correct FT4 frequency for that band. However, after using FT4, when the user selects the FT8 mode from the "Mode" pull down menu,

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 bug/oddity.

On 31/07/2019 21:10, Topher Petty wrote: A false decode... which resulted in a log entry? With signal reports that bear no resemblance to the previous completed QSO? Something's off, here... de Ai8W Hi Tropher, it is expected behaviour, although I can see it might be considered as unwelcom

Re: [wsjt-devel] UDP message type 4 on RR73 message

Thanks Bill for your answer GN 73 Serge On 31/07/2019 22:10, Bill Somerville wrote: On 31/07/2019 20:56, F6BHK wrote: Can someone confirm it's part of the dev team fight against automated robot or a misunderstanding from my own? Hi Serge, your assumption is correct. 73 Bill G4WJS. _

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 bug/oddity.

ed up... > > I went ahead and logged it, "just in case", but.. it's still odd... > > Attached is the screenshot and a copypasta of the logged contact. > > Not really sure what happened here, where the signal reports came from, or > any of that... Unfortuate

Re: [wsjt-devel] UDP message type 4 on RR73 message

On 31/07/2019 20:56, F6BHK wrote: Can someone confirm it's part of the dev team fight against automated robot or a misunderstanding from my own? Hi Serge, your assumption is correct. 73 Bill G4WJS. ___ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.so

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 bug/oddity.

ortuately, I wasn't saving .wav files at the time. 2W2UHM/P RA74 MFSK FT4 -13 -04 20190731 174731 20190731 174745 20m 14.081654 AI8W EN82JG FT4 50W Sent: -13 Rcvd: -04 image.png ___ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.source

[wsjt-devel] UDP message type 4 on RR73 message

Howdy ? Long time no email ;-) The doc says UDP type 4 is as if I double clicked into the Band Activity window. It is correct when the message is a CQ or a QRZ as highlighted into NetworkMessage.hpp file. When I double click on a message "foo fuu RR73" in the Band Activity window, WSJT-X

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

And for completeness, not all participants to this list are Gentlemen. The majority of us, hopefully, would qualify as Gentlefolk, though. 73, Robin, G8DQX On 31/07/2019 14:37, Serge Smirnoff R6YY via wsjt-devel wrote: Gentlemen, hello! ___ wsjt

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

+ AA6YQ comments below I'm almost certain that LOTW, eQSL, etc store all those logs in a relational database of some sort, so, yes, at some point, all those contacts are stored in a datastructure... + Correct, but the representation of modes in those data structures is entirely independent of

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 bug/oddity.

The decode at 174737 is a false decode. This occasionally happens. 73, Jim K9YC On 7/31/2019 12:11 PM, Topher Petty wrote: I had an interesting one today... Got a call from 2W2UHM/P grid square RA74 (I know, unlikely), which terminated oddly...

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

Dave, AA6YQ: I'm almost certain that LOTW, eQSL, etc store all those logs in a relational database of some sort, so, yes, at some point, all those contacts are stored in a datastructure... Unless you're inferring that the ARRL has a single monolithic .adif *file* somewhere that's got EVERYBODY's

[wsjt-devel] FT4 bug/oddity.

just in case", but.. it's still odd... Attached is the screenshot and a copypasta of the logged contact. Not really sure what happened here, where the signal reports came from, or any of that... Unfortuately, I wasn't saving .wav files at the time. 2W2UHM/P RA74 MFSK FT4 -13

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

I don’t mind it being a submode. What is puzzling is why FT4 is a submode and FT8 is not. Seems rather odd since both of them are MFSK. 73 Ria, N2RJ On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:51 PM Dave AA6YQ wrote: > Thanks for the comment. Now I will try to guess who is the author of this > brilliant idea. >

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

Thanks for the comment. Now I will try to guess who is the author of this brilliant idea. + The names of the 14 representatives who approved ADIF 3.1.0 are listed below. Most ideas in ADIF evolve as they are batted around for awhile. No one keeps track of who first proposed a particular concept

[wsjt-devel] https://gracedb.ligo.org/superevents/S190728q/view/

https://gracedb.ligo.org/superevents/S190728q/view/ Tri-messenger?___ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

That would require the re-working of every database and logging system that's out there, now... and, in the case of LOTW, that could bring the main database down for DAYS, as anyone who's ever had to migrate/modify datastructures in SQL can tell you... the amount of data that would have to be conve

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

+ AA6YQ comments below I think Serge's question might be why is FT4 MODE/SUBMODE and FT8 is just MODE ? And I think the answer is 'evolution of the committees thought process'. If the committee had know what new things where coming, then both FT8 and FT4 ( and jt65/jt9 ) would be MODE=MSK an

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

Dear Dave, thanks for the comment. Now I will try to guess who is the author of this brilliant idea. Essentially, this is probably good for the many experimental modulation types that periodically appear and immediately die as unclaimed. But for the type of FT4, which is preparing to become a m

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

I think Serge's question might be why is FT4 MODE/SUBMODE and FT8 is just MODE ?   And I think the answer is 'evolution of the committees thought process'.  If the committee had know what new things where coming, then both FT8 and FT4 ( and jt65/jt9 ) would be MODE=MSK and SUBMODE= just a

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

creating a new thread..): 2W2UHM/P RA74 MFSK FT4 -13 -04 20190731 174731 20190731 174745 20m 14.081654 AI8W EN82JG FT4 50W Sent: -13 Rcvd: -04 The auto-created ADIF log from WSJT-X correctly logs the correct mode and submode for FT4. de AI8W, Chris On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 1:50 PM Dave Slotte

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

+ AA6YQ comments below But the original intent as was discussed on the ADIF list was that the SUBMODE field was to allow new modes to be added there before the committee needed to approve them. + The original intent was to enable the Secretary of ADIF to add support for a new mode to ADIF wi

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

Topher, What about when someone uses TQSL to map FT4 to DATA, and the other person on a QSO does not, and they both upload their logs (with different mappings)? If you don't know what I'm referring to, here's a screen capture: [image: image.png] -- Dave Slotter, W3DJS

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

I believe Serge is concerned that his FT4 contacts won't get matched to other FT4 contacts in LOTW... though, LOTW directly accepts .adif files generated by WSJT-X, there should be no issue with contacts matching, since everyone's using the same software, all of which follows the ADIF standards set

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

31.07.2019 19:46, Bill Somerville пишет: Your complaints seem biased, unreasonably, against the LoTW service. Dear Bill, I am not complaining to you or to anyone here. It seems to me that you misinterpret parts of my letters and make far-reaching conclusions. I am writing here because here

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

+ AA6YQ comments below The ADIF committee apparently thinks all software is easy to change and should do so to match their intentions. + An interchange specification is by definition dynamic. New digital modes are a common occurrence - a trend we should welcome and encourage. SUBMODE was added

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

But the original intent as was discussed on the ADIF list was that the SUBMODE field was to allow new modes to be added there before the committee needed to approve them.  SUBMODE was to have a "suggested" enumeration.They changed the meaning of it...because they named it incorrectly and somebod

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

Serge, On 31/07/2019 17:32, Serge Smirnoff R6YY via wsjt-devel wrote: Colleagues propose to fix Loggers software? But gentlemen, is it easy to announce here? Two of the respondents were responsible for making the required changes in WSJT-X and the DX Lab Suite logging software, we are not just

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

Hi all, On 7/31/2019 12:32, Serge Smirnoff R6YY via wsjt-devel wrote: Six years ago there was neither FT8 nor FT4. And today - they are the main types of communication. Let's not get carried away with hyperbole. FT8 and FT4 address only one type of Amateur Radio communication: the minimal

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

On 31/07/2019 17:32, Serge Smirnoff R6YY via wsjt-devel wrote: 31.07.2019 19:07, Bill Somerville пишет: the ADIF committee introduced the Submode enumeration back in ADIF v3.0.4 released on 2013-08-04, Six years ago there was neither FT8 nor FT4. And today - they are the main types of commun

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

31.07.2019 19:07, Bill Somerville пишет: the ADIF committee introduced the Submode enumeration back in ADIF v3.0.4 released on 2013-08-04, Six years ago there was neither FT8 nor FT4. And today - they are the main types of communication. Neither the telegraph, nor the telephone, nor the tele

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

On 31/07/2019 16:58, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote: The ADIF committee apparently thinks all software is easy to change and should do so to match their intentions. We unsuccessfully fought this idea so you'll just have to live with what they've done. de Mike W9MDB Mike, the ADIF comm

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

It should also be pointed out that 1. SUBMODE was added to version 3.0.4 of the ADIF specification, which was approved and released 6 years ago (2013-08-04). 2. It takes less than an hour to add SUBMODE import/export to an application that already supports MODE import/export. 73,

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

The ADIF committee apparently thinks all software is easy to change and should do so to match their intentions. We unsuccessfully fought this idea so you'll just have to live with what they've done. de Mike W9MDB On Wednesday, July 31, 2019, 10:54:00 AM CDT, Serge Smirnoff R6YY via wsjt-

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

Hi Dave, please explain to me what didn’t like my tone? What's wrong? How have I offended you or someone else? I would appreciate an explanation of why I speak poorly in a foreign language. My language is Russian, and I translate letters for you with a dictionary. But in general, did you under

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

On 31/07/2019 16:33, Serge Smirnoff R6YY via wsjt-devel wrote: but I did not receive an answer to my question. Serge, the only question I saw in your OP was: "What do you say, colleagues?" Perhaps you want to ask a more specific question? 73 Bill G4WJS. __

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

31.07.2019 18:04, Bill Somerville пишет: please write a new post when starting a new topic, replying to an existing thread and changing the subject is confusing for those of us that use threaded email clients to manage posts on many lists. Sorry, this is my omission. I suggest that you cont

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

On 7/31/19 3:37 PM, Serge Smirnoff R6YY via wsjt-devel wrote: Hi Serge & all, Not all Loggers soft understand the concept of submod. The MODE and SUBMODE, we are talking about here, are a concept from the ADIF specification. Any logger can handle interiorly the data in the manner which it p

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

Bill is spot-on. The ADIF Committee is the guardian of the ADIF specification, so if you have concerns w.r.t. how QSO's should be logged, you should direct them there, not to one of many different applications which rely on the ADIF specification. (Although based on the tone of your message, I'm n

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

On 31/07/2019 14:37, Serge Smirnoff R6YY via wsjt-devel wrote: Gentlemen, hello! The decision of the admin LOTW to give the FT4 mode the status of the MFSK mode / FT4 sub-mode is absurd. Not all Loggers soft understand the concept of submod. Different loggers differently perceive the informa

[wsjt-devel] FT4 and LOTW

Gentlemen, hello! The decision of the admin LOTW to give the FT4 mode the status of the MFSK mode / FT4 sub-mode is absurd. Not all Loggers soft understand the concept of submod. Different loggers differently perceive the information coming from the WSJTX and each in its own way translates i