Bill, Touching base. I would like to implement at least the tx scheduling piece in cpp. I am a poor programmer, at best. Can you give me a framework which just needs to be filled in with the details? A large part of my motivation to work on this is a desire to become a little more comfortable with C++, so I need some handholding. Steve k9an > On Jun 2, 2015, at 9:34 AM, Bill Somerville <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 02/06/2015 15:22, Joe Taylor wrote: >> Hi Steve, > Hi Steve & Joe, >> >> 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.) > Steve, touch base with me if you consider switching the code to C++ > because I am in the middle of developing a class to do the stuff that is > currently on tab 4 as a pop up dialog, the class will also wrap the > bandHopping() functionality and provide that as a service to the main > window. > > The split in two helps me too as I want to provide a clean interface for > the new class and the current conflation of functions was causing me > issues there. >> >> -- Joe, K1JT > 73 > Bill > G4WJS. >> >> 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
