It certainly is frustrating. I'm calling CQ and getting responses that are very strong, but will not decode. I assume they are using 75 bit to respond to me. I just sent a free text message "USE 77BIT" to one person and suddenly his signal magically started decoding :). Oh well, in spite of all the stubborn ops who won't upgrade, I'm making plenty of contacts anyway.
Chuck KG6PH On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 20:43, Gary Hinson <g...@isect.com> wrote: > 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> 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" <g...@isect.com> > To: "'WSJT software development'" <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 > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > 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
