Hi Leif, You are asking for more feedback to improve the user interface. So here is one, granted it might be more difficult to do than I understand at this moment:
The frequency scaling of the upper window ( the waterfall ) Less true for the second display but it would be nice for that display as well. I suppose once you select the certain sampling frequency, one has selected the range of the available frequency spectrum ( bandwidth ) bin seize of FFT, for waterfall calculations. I have always found it very difficult to select a part of that spectrum and never really be able to use the arrows as you are using them. and never asked you or anybody else how they are handling this. Reason is that I think why am I so stupid that I can not do that? OK an example Soind card sampling selected 96 kHz -> 96 kHz not processed band cover. Suppose one wants to select lets say 16 or 8 or 4 kHz spread out over the full screen ( as in the 96 kHz width ) in real numbers from 32 kHz to 40 kHz. I dont now how one would do that in the present version without lots of clicking and quite frankly I have never been able to do that. . But one solution could be to select some pop up window asking the user about zooming in/zooming out Pop up widow: Note: Allowed zoom ranges only in multiples of whatever ( 4 - 8 - 16- 32 Khz ) ( To put a limit on the calculations involved ) Low freq limit? Answer 32 High freq limit? Answer 48 Ask confirmation You want to zoom 32 to 48 ( Yes/No ) Enter ......... You now know how to start the display, where to stop the display and that the freq scale need to be multiplied by 6 ( 96/16 ) and everything in the waterfall needs to be scales along x-axis by this factor ) And frequency selections in the waterfall need to be scaled back to the original display or this might perhaps not even be needed. By now you know certainly where I am going. It looks from here not such a difficult thing to do and I think it would make the user interface so much more friendly. Then of course it could well be that I do not know what i am talking about in terms of porgramming effort 73 Rein W6SZ -----Original Message----- >From: Leif Asbrink <[email protected]> >Sent: Sep 26, 2009 12:13 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: [soft_radio] Re: Wish List for SDR software > >Hello Chuck, > >> I think the simple answer to why few people are using >> Linrad with Perseus, SDR-IQ, Softrock, etc. is because the >> operation of the program is so difficult. >That is an interesting statement, but it does not convey any >information at all to me. Surely it is difficult to get the >optimum performance for specialized tasks, but operating as a >normal receiver should not be difficult at all. The new option >"newcomer mode" will disable a lot of things and make setup >trivial (I believe.) > >> Of the people I know who have tried Linrad (including myself), >> everyone has given up. >Hmmm, and none of you have put forward a signle question >as far as I know. > >> Why? Mostly because there is not a single piece of text >> anywhere on the screen that explains a function. >Well, there is a lot of text that describes every function. >There is not room for all of it simultaneously on screen so >you have to put the mouse on the function and press F1. >(F1 on black screen will show where all the functions are.) > >> The lack of any sort of manual is a hindrance. >Hmmm, I am afraid I have written far too much about various aspects >of operating Linrad. The "manual" is here: >http://www.sm5bsz.com/linuxdsp/usage/newco/newcomer.htm >By following the links you would find pages that treat general >aspects and on them links pages with more specialized information. > >To use Linrad to do everything you can do with a normal SDR, >the information on the newcomer page should be sufficient >(In combination with the F1 help) > >It is most likely that there are still trivial obstacles that >I could change if someone made me aware of it. > >> The words used in the setup function often do not help >> people understand what entries are needed. >You would make me happy by giving me an example. If a couple >of people told me what the first confusing wording is in the setup >function(s) I would try to rephrase it or perhaps write a new >section in the "manual". > >> I appreciate the technical knowledge that lies behind Linrad. >> What Linrad needs is a greatly improved operator interface. >And that needs some kind of feedback. I honestly do not understand >where the problem is. Surely Linrad is mure user-friendly today >than it was a couple of years ago, and that is because of the >feedbak I have received. It happens once or twice a year only and >that is the explanation why improvement is so slow. > >73 > >Leif / SM5BSZ >
