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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
