1. Messages
  2. MODE vs. SUBMODE for FT8 or FT4

Locked Re: MODE vs. SUBMODE for FT8 or FT4 #adiFiles #logging #FT4 #FT8

Philip Rose
 

LotW accepts the ADIF as specified. LotW were part of the discussion as were most of the log developers.

 

LotW are only interested in the fact that it was a DATA mode as that’s the category in DXCC awards.

 

Phil GM3ZZA

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

 

From: Rick Tavan
Sent: 30 August 2021 18:31
To: main@wsjtx.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] MODE vs. SUBMODE for FT8 or FT4 #adiFiles #logging #FT4 #FT8

 

Thanks, Phil. Far be it from me to question the work of The Committee, regardless of inconsistencies and consequent obligations upon downstream developers. My loggers (N1MM, RUMlog, WSJT-X Windows, and WSJT-X MacOS) all display actual mode, translating correctly from the spec. But my all-QSOs database (DX4WIN) does not. It displays my digi QSOs as either FT8 or MFSK (with no sub-mode reported). I may have to edit all inbound logs manually before importing to DX4WIN but I'm trying to get more recent info on possible updates to that program - what I've found so far is discussion from 2019 showing that the problem was understood but nothing about any fix. And I wonder what will happen if I submit these Qs to LoTW. Any idea?

 

73,

 

/Rick N6XI

 

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 7:02 AM Philip Rose via groups.io <gm3zza=btinternet.com@groups.io> wrote:

Rick,

 

When the ADIF committee were asked to add FT8 as a mode – it was rushed through and the MODE FT8 was added. When asked to add FT4, there was more notice and in line with ADIF 3 policy was added as MODE=MFSK and SUBMODE=FT4.

 

It’s up to your logger how it chooses to display the resultant MODE/SUBMODE to the user. ADIF is ONLY a data interchange format – unfortunately it is also human-readable.

 

73 Phil GM3ZZA

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

 

From: Rick Tavan
Sent: 29 August 2021 21:22
To: main@wsjtx.groups.io
Subject: [WSJTX] MODE vs. SUBMODE for FT8 or FT4 #adiFiles #logging #FT4 #FT8

 

It appears that ADIF files produced by WSJT-X say FT8 for FT8 and MFSK FT4 for FT4. Why the difference? I'm seeing this in ADIF files produced directly by WSJT-X and also ADIF files exported by N1MM Logger when interfaced to WSJT-X. 

 

I'm running experimental V2.5.0 with some K4 fixes. Is this a bug related to the experimental version? I'd prefer not to regress to 2.4 because 2.5.0 expires 8/31 and by then should have been replaced with a non-experimental version.

 

Thanks,

 

/Rick N6XI

 

--

--


Rick Tavan
Truckee and Saratoga, CA

 


--
73 Phil GM3ZZA



--

--


Rick Tavan
Truckee and Saratoga, CA

 


--
73 Phil GM3ZZA
Join {main@WSJTX.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.