The only reason you'd add RTTY to WSJT-X is if there were some way to improve it for weak signal work, the program and its protocols were not designed for any other reason. The other reason is one you overlooked in Dave's post:
Quote: 3. Each candidate development task has an "opportunity cost". The time spent extending WSJT-X to support RTTY is time that can't be spent improving WSJT-X in other dimensions. The WSJT-X developers are in a unique position to improve their product; there are many other developers who can further improve RTTY applications. David and Alex continue to improved their applications, and MMTTY is open source. Thus I strongly recommend that the WSJT-X team continue to apply that all-too-rare skill among software developers: focus. Unquote. Neil, KN3ILZ On 1/14/2020 11:18 PM, Frank Kirschner wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 8:23 PM Dave AA6YQ <aa...@ambersoft.com <mailto:aa...@ambersoft.com>> wrote: 1. RTTY is a well-defined protocol; the result of any modifications to this protocol would not be RTTY. I don't understand. No one suggested modifying RTTY, just using a better discrimination technique on the receive end. 73, Frank KF6E
_______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
