On 26/09/2019 11:59, John Zantek wrote:
ØThe bottom line is that there are still a handful of selectors
available in the FT4/FT8/MSK144 message payload bits that could be
used for new message schemes but nowhere near the number that would be
needed to support a series of county based QSO parties or similar.
But Bill, isn’t the FD message structure just that, with a lookup
table that doesn’t exceed the payload ceiling?
What’s the difference between the existing QRegularExpression
field_day_exchange_re with a table of ARRL/RAC Sections and a proposed
QRegularExpression WA_QSO_party_exchange_re of WA counties as I had
suggested at the start of this thread?
73 John W7CD
John,
the source code you are referring to is the validation for GUI input
when entering one's state or province, it has no bearing on what is
packed into transmitted messages other than the selected value is used.
If you were to have a different set of information to pack into messages
then you must also pack into the message the selector to tell the
receiving decoder to interpret the message bits in the way that you
require. Even if your proposed table of counties only take the same
number of bits to store as the RTTY Roundup values do; you still need
another bit somewhere else in the payload to select that table. Extend
that to each and every QSO Party set of counties and you will need many
more bits to select the right table. That many bits are not available in
the FT4/FT8/MSK144 payload, it might be possible for one or maybe two
QSO Party formats but who decides which QSO Parties get support and
which ones are excluded?
73
Bill
G4WJS.
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
