Hi Steve,
Your ideas sound good to me. By all means, go ahead and implement them.
Splitting the "hopping" routine into two pieces is sensible, and if
you'd prefer to change it from .f90 to .cpp, do that as well. (It's
Fortran now only because I brought it over from older WSPR code, mostly
unchanged.)
-- Joe, K1JT
On 6/2/2015 10:05 AM, Steven Franke wrote:
> Joe -
>
> In thinking about how the tx scheduling should work, how about this:
>
> 1. if requested pctx<33, then the tx table is generated with ntxlimit=1
> (always “rest” after a tx)
> 2. if requested pctx is in the range [33,50], then ntxlimit is automatically
> set to 2
> 3. if requested pctx is greater than 50 then we set ntxlimit to 3 (which
> means that maximum pctx is 75%).
>
> I doubt that there will be much call for pctx’s greater than 50% (except,
> possibly, for 100% which is a trivial case).
>
> If we can agree on something along these lines, I’ll be happy to go ahead and
> implement it.
>
> I think that this behavior would be easy to explain to users, and it avoids
> the need to include separate pctx and ntxlimit entries which can easily be
> chosen to be incompatible at the higher percentages…
>
> Along these same lines - would it make sense to separate hopping.f90 into two
> pieces, one of which handles tx scheduling and the other which provides the
> coordinated band for a specified time? It would remove the confusing need to
> call bandHopping() when all we really want is to know whether or not to tx…
>
> Steve k9an
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
