I have used “CQ 77 …..” a few times for the same thing and it is not very sticky also. In fact, even saved free text messages revert to the standard after any attempt to answer a call.
In addition, it appears double-clicking a received message with <CQ_XXX>, which is what other non-standard CQ messages I’ve seen decode as (probably my 77 also, will not initiate a return/answer sequence on double click - you have to start one manually (type callsign, generate messages, select TX1, enable tx). So, I only send a couple of the CQ 77 messages and followed by a standard CQ, or CQ DX. Al Pawlowski, K6AVP Los Osos, CA USA > Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 12:36:29 +1300 > From: "Gary Hinson" <g...@isect.com <mailto:g...@isect.com>> > To: "'WSJT software development'" <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > <mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>> > Subject: [wsjt-devel] 2 more bug reports on RC5 > > ………. I've tried sending "CQ PLUS ZL2IFB RF80" and > little free text messages to give more of a clue that I'm using the new 77 > bit version . but I've noticed that the "PLUS" in my CQ message is not very > sticky………….
_______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
