On Sun, 3/29/15, Bill Somerville wrote:
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X: Default waterfall bandwidth.
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Sunday, March 29, 2015, 12:09 PM
On 29/03/2015 19:10, Jim
Pennino wrote:
> Hi Bill,
Hi
I believe this involves some waterfall
changes so now is not the best time to start making changes in that area
because it will complicate any future merges of this enhancements.
73
Bill
G4WJS.
>
> --------------------
> On Sat, 3/28/15, Bill Somerv
few Hertz,
which is basically irrelevant as a signal can be off for tens of Hertz and still
decode in the receive pane and any error will be corrected when the responding
call is clicked.
On Sat, 3/28/15, Bill Somerville wrote:
Subject: Re: [wsjt-dev
On 28/03/2015 22:48, Jim Pennino wrote:
Hi Jim,
> I too think the waterfall in it's current configuration is confusing and a
> bit unwieldly.
>
> What I would like to see is the bins/pixel control go away and be replaced by
> a Stop control.
>
> The frequency spread would then be controlled by th
I too think the waterfall in it's current configuration is confusing and a bit
unwieldly.
What I would like to see is the bins/pixel control go away and be replaced by a
Stop control.
The frequency spread would then be controlled by the Start and Stop controls.
Resizing the window should do th
Bill Somerville writes:
> I propose to change the initial defaults for the waterfall to be a 4 kHz
> bandwidth (0 - 4000 Hz) with a suitable bins/pixel setting to fit on the
> smallest likely monitor. Along with this the default mode could be set
> to JT65+JT9.
Bill, this is where some of the
I assume your unlikely JT9 success is related to the limited bandwidth on
many rigs? Split mode gets around the transmit limit but not the receive
limit.
I know the first time I ran JT9 signals that were > 3000 offset or so I ran
into bandwidth limits that I had to adjust so I run in 5kHz width no
