On 20/02/2018 00:38, Laurie, VK3AMA wrote:
On 19/02/2018 8:35 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
I am confused about what he issue with the above Z6/S56A callsign is as that is a valid type 2 prefix compound callsign and should be handled reasonably well by the existing source encoding.


I wonder if the OP was referring JTDX rather than WSJT-X. There were recent reports of Z6 Calls being incorrectly logged as ZA coming from JTDX

From the latest JTDX release notes...
Discarded all changes done to Z6 prefix support: it has been supported in all versions 18.1 and new changes violated WSJT-X protocol.

de Laurie VK3AMA

Hi Laurie,

maybe. We are well aware of the JTDX issues with unwise changes adding new type 1 prefixes. After discussion with Igor he has reverted his changes so that JTDX's type 1 prefix and suffix list matches those of WSJT-X, WSJT, JT65-HF and MSHV again. Type 1 prefixes are fixed and only really present to maintain backwards compatibility with the original JT65 v1 protocol. Type 2 prefixes were introduced several years ago and use a more generic source encoding that caters for all prefixes so long as they fit a particular pattern, this includes ES, KC4 and Z6 which were unnecessarily added to the type 1 prefix lists in JTDX.


Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
wsjt-devel mailing list

Reply via email to