Hi Rich,
On 5/30/2019 19:49, Rich Zwirko - K1HTV wrote:
If stations with non-standard non-compound calls are presently
allowed to skip the TX1 message and start with TX2, will a future
release of WSJT-X inhibit users with such calls from doing the TX1 to
TX2 skip?
Perhaps. But think abou
On 31/05/2019 00:49, Rich Zwirko - K1HTV wrote:
Bill et al,
If stations with non-standard non-compound calls are presently
allowed to skip the TX1 message and start with TX2, will a future
release of WSJT-X inhibit users with such calls from doing the TX1 to
TX2 skip?
73,
Rich - K1HTV
Hi
Bill et al,
If stations with non-standard non-compound calls are presently allowed to
skip the TX1 message and start with TX2, will a future release of WSJT-X
inhibit users with such calls from doing the TX1 to TX2 skip?
73,
Rich - K1HTV
= = =
Hi Mike and Jari,
I will qualify that. For compou
On 30/05/2019 15:25, Bill Somerville wrote:
On 30/05/2019 15:15, Bill Somerville wrote:
double-clicking a CQ decode will do the right thing. The DX in this
case must have taken deliberate action to send Tx2, that is their
mistake, not our problem to fix.
Hi Mike and Jari,
I will qualify tha
On 5/30/2019 10:24 AM, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote:
Is there any reason TX2 can't default to be " ME -01" instead of
"THEM -01" ?
YES.
You're assuming ME is a nonstandard call, which needs 58 bits to be sent
in full. In your example the hashed call uses 12 bits. That
does not leav
On 30/05/2019 15:24, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote:
Is there any reason TX2 can't default to be " ME -01" instead of
"THEM -01" ?
You may never see a CQ.
Mike,
you should either try such messages with the ft8code application or
review the message packing code before making such suggest
On 30/05/2019 15:15, Bill Somerville wrote:
double-clicking a CQ decode will do the right thing. The DX in this
case must have taken deliberate action to send Tx2, that is their
mistake, not our problem to fix.
Hi Mike and Jari,
I will qualify that. For compound calls the above is true but f
Is there any reason TX2 can't default to be " ME -01" instead of "THEM
-01" ?You may never see a CQ.
Mike
On Thursday, May 30, 2019, 9:20:28 AM CDT, Bill Somerville
wrote:
Mike,
double-clicking a CQ decode will do the right thing. The DX in this case must
have taken deliberate
On 5/30/2019 10:09 AM, Black Michael W9MDB via wsjt-devel wrote:
So do you consider that a bug? Should TX2 always be sent in that format?
NO.
It is an operator error for a station using a nonstandard callsign, say
PJ4/K1ABC, to try to initiate a QSO by sending Tx2 rather than Tx1.
This (T
Mike,
double-clicking a CQ decode will do the right thing. The DX in this case
must have taken deliberate action to send Tx2, that is their mistake,
not our problem to fix.
73
Bill
G4WJS.
On 30/05/2019 14:27, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote:
How about for hashable calls we do a a last-tim
So do you consider that a bug? Should TX2 always be sent in that format?
Mike
On Thursday, May 30, 2019, 8:28:05 AM CDT, Joe Taylor
wrote:
Someone has called you using a message like this:
OH2FQV
To initiate contact by replying to your CQ, they should have sent the
message thi
How about for hashable calls we do a a last-time-TX1-transmitted. And if TX2
is started without ever transmitting TX1 then a warning dialog pops up to
'splain things.
Mike
On Thursday, May 30, 2019, 8:23:21 AM CDT, Bill Somerville
wrote:
On 30/05/2019 14:13, Black Michael via wsjt-
Someone has called you using a message like this:
OH2FQV
To initiate contact by replying to your CQ, they should have sent the
message this way:
PJ4/K1ABC
In other words, the NONSTANDARD callsign must be sent in the clear (not
enclosed in <> brackets) in the first message.
-- 73,
On 30/05/2019 14:13, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote:
Maybe WSJT-X should ensure such users send CQ once in a while...that
would be non-intuitive. A simple message in the decode window or such
that said "CQ needed, non std call" with a help file reference to
'splain things.
Hi Mike and J
Whoever is calling you is a non-standard callsign that you have not seen
before.So the hash code that is being sent is not in your lookup table.If
nobody ever sends their callsign without hashing it the only time you'll see it
is when they call CQ...then it would be in your lookup table.
Maybe W
15 matches
Mail list logo
