Prior release candidates were able to decode both 75 AND 77-bit messages but since there are many more 75s than 77s floating about, users mostly send 75 bit responses … unless prompted … and even then it’s like pushing string uphill some days …
Those of us using RC5 can ONLY transmit and receive 77 bit messages. We can’t send 75 bit messages. We can’t decode 75 bit messages. We do not have the capability, in that release candidate, to encode or decode 75 bit messages. 75 bit messages are merely unsightly smears on our waterfalls. We are stuck with 77 bits, no more, no less. 76 bits won’t cut it, nor 78. 77½ bits would be OK but might break the laws of physics. It’s 77 bits or bust, basically - mostly bust at present until word gets out about the sexy new version of FT8. In other words, we’re using FT8+ not FT8, pushing back the front ears. 73 Gary ZL2iFB From: Chuck Furman <chuck.fur...@gmail.com> Sent: 29 November 2018 14:30 To: WSJT software development <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] 2 more bug reports on RC5 I’m confused. Why is CQ 77 helpful? Only people who are already on 77 bit mode will decode you. Am I missing something? I am just curious. It seem more useful to TX on 75 bits with something like “PSE USE 77BIT” On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:23 PM Al Pawlowski <k6...@almont.com <mailto:k6...@almont.com> > wrote: 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" < <mailto:g...@isect.com> g...@isect.com> To: "'WSJT software development'" < <mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> 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 <mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
_______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
