|
Locked
rc5
Bob
Initial observations show that QSOs are now logged by UDP message and written to the wsjtx_log.adi using the same TIME_ON value. Thanks. SeventyThree(s). |
|
|
|
Running: C:\WSJT\wsjtx\bin\jt9 -s WSJT-X -w 1 -m 3 -e C:\WSJT\wsjtx\bin -a C:\Users\janko\AppData\Local\WSJT-X -t C:\Users\janko\AppData\Local\Temp\WSJT-X At line 41 of file C:\Users\bill\src\k1jt\wsjtx\lib\ft4\ft4_downsample.f90 Fortran runtime error: Index '-2147483648' of dimension 1 of array 'cx' below lower bound of 0
Error termination. Backtrace:
Could not print backtrace: libbacktrace could not find executable to open #0 0xffffffff #1 0xffffffff #2 0xffffffff #3 0xffffffff #4 0xffffffff #5 0xffffffff #6 0xffffffff #7 0xffffffff #8 0xffffffff #9 0xffffffff #10 0xffffffff #11 0xffffffff #12 0xffffffff #13 0xffffffff |
|
|
|
Locked
Re: Icom ic9100 six meter rig control
Hi Bill
Thanks for the reply, that’s exactly what’s happening WSJT works fine on any other available band except Six meters I tried to include screen shots showing a move from 40 meters to six meters the radio doesn’t change frequency and I get the red bar as shown . if I reselect another band then it returned to normal. any ideas Mike G4VSS |
|
|
|
Locked
Re: FT4 Problem with a CALL/P
jean-michel chapron
If you read carefully my mail, you shall see yhat the question is about WSJT FT4 mode ! JTalert is just to tell Bill how I choose the CQ to answer. Thanks
Le samedi 4 mai 2019 à 20:40:21 UTC+2, Mike Ruttenberg G7TWC <mjruttenberg@...> a écrit :
Why are you asking a JTAlert question on a WSJTX forum? Mike G7TWC
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3128): https://groups.io/g/WSJTX/message/3128 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/31495030/239315 -=-=- Moderated by Andy K3UK and Roger G4HZA -=-=- Group Owner: WSJTX+owner@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/WSJTX/leave/484559/820538601/xyzzy [chapronfr@...] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- |
|
|
|
Locked
Re: FT4 Problem with a CALL/P
Why are you asking a JTAlert question on a WSJTX forum? Mike G7TWC On 4 May 2019, at 17:24, jean-michel chapron via Groups.Io <chapronfr@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Locked
Re: FT4 Problem with a CALL/P
jean-michel chapron
Hello Bill I click on call in JTalert 2.13.4 and get that :  The message in tab 2 was ok but the TX message is strange !  Jean-Michel F6EAO/P
Le samedi 4 mai 2019 à 17:33:22 UTC+2, Bill Somerville <g4wjs@...> a écrit :
On 04/05/2019 16:27, jean-michel
chapron via Groups.Io wrote:
Hi Jean-Michel, in MSK144, FT8, and now FT4 /P and /R call signs where the base call is an acceptable WSJT-X standard call is not a "special call", they are treated as standard calls. There are a couple of defects related to this new treatment that are not yet resolved. Can you give precise details of how you are answering CQ calls, e.g. are you using tab one or tab two messages, are you double-clicking a decoded CQ message? 73 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3125): https://groups.io/g/WSJTX/message/3125 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/31495030/239315 -=-=- Moderated by Andy K3UK and Roger G4HZA -=-=- Group Owner: WSJTX+owner@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/WSJTX/leave/484559/820538601/xyzzy [chapronfr@...] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- |
|
|
|
Locked
PCR1000
leslie norton
I use WSJT-X with my FT991 and have no issues, dug out an old Icom PCR1000 and i see its listed in the drop down box but can't for the life of me get it to work with WSJT-X has anyone got one of these, if so can you let me know the set up - thanks
|
|
|
|
Locked
Re: FT4 Problem with a CALL/P
On 04/05/2019 16:27, jean-michel
chapron via Groups.Io wrote:
Hi Jean-Michel, in MSK144, FT8, and now FT4 /P and /R call signs where the base call is an acceptable WSJT-X standard call is not a "special call", they are treated as standard calls. There are a couple of defects related to this new treatment that are not yet resolved. Can you give precise details of how you are answering CQ calls, e.g. are you using tab one or tab two messages, are you double-clicking a decoded CQ message? 73 |
|
|
|
Locked
FT4 Problem with a CALL/P
jean-michel chapron
Hello I try to use FT4 in /P . As this is a "special call" I understand that it is not usual process. When I try to unswer a CQ call my message is only "<...> ! That mean that /P is a forbiden use for FT4 not nice! F6EAO/P Jean-Michel
 |
|
|
|
Locked
Re: Icom ic9100 six meter rig control
On 04/05/2019 14:00, g4vss.com wrote:
Hi allHi Mike, are you saying that selecting a frequency from the WSJT-X band/frequency drop down list changes the rig except for 6m frequencies where is does nothing at all? If you put the rig on 6m, does WSJT-X show the same frequency as the rig? 73 Bill G4WJS. |
|
|
|
Locked
Re: where are all the FT4 experimenters?
hbugvi
GA , Yesterday 3rd May, I have worked FT4 first time. On 14.080 MHz at 16:12 UTC , In one hour , worked about 12 stations from Europe. it is very fast & interesting mode . 73 AP2HA Hasnat
|
|
|
|
Locked
Icom ic9100 six meter rig control
g4vss.com
Hi all
I have done a search through the group and I don’t seem to find anyone else that’s come across this problem. selecting any mode FT8 or otherwise and the six meter band I get the selection of possible frequencies but the rig stays on whatever band it was used last on, moving the rig manually to correct frequency it’s doable but aut rig control won’t work. ive yet to find a satisfactory work around, anybody else found this / overcome this ? Thanks in anticipation Mike |
|
|
|
Locked
Re: where are all the FT4 experimenters?
Lee
Ken, I have made a ton of FT4 contacts but the suggested frequencies in the PDF are not correct.
Try 14.080, 7.047 or 3.575. It is necessary to go to File/Settings/Frequencies and put your mouse over the list of Frequencies and right mouse click to RESET the list to populate the FT4 test frequencies. |
|
|
|
Locked
Re: where are all the FT4 experimenters?
Lee
Kenneth, like any mode it does not require it be used only for contesting. BUT, having said that if you listen to Joe Taylor, K1JT the concepts behind FT4 is to improve on the limitations of RTTY and especially for contesting.
RTTY contesting generally requires a lot of power and consist of a signal report and an exchange of a sequence number and/or State or Province. Obviously FT4 does not require legal limit but does has added the exchange feature fo contesting, it is just not implemented in this version of the beta. RTTY is also generally a quick exchange and on to the next contact, as with most contest. This is the reason why FT4 uses slightly more bandwidth in order to exchange all of the info in a six second sequence. If you click on File/Settings/Advance you will notice a number of Contest features that are not yet implemented. So regardless if you are into contesting or not, it appears to what Joe and the team are trying to do is provide a contesting tool that takes up less bandwidth, provides error correction and allows anyone to have fun in a contest that does not require a tower and legal limit station. |
|
|
|
Locked
Re: FT4 WARC Bands
Dave_G0WBX
Morning.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I for one, am all in favour of keeping FT4 off the narrow WARC bands. (Personally & FT8 too!) Remember that contesting is a niche interest, but very costly in spectrum. (Just view 20m with a pan-adapter/SDR on just about any weekend! What internationally agreed band "plans" there may be, are thrown out of the window.) The vast (less vociferous) majority prefer to have proper conversations or "QSO's", not a "wham bam thank you mam QRZ contest" exchange"! Anyone can do that with these modes, that is part of the attraction of course, but the automation has taken the skill out of the operating, plus no useful "real" information (with the possible exception of a coarse location) is exchanged, you don't even get a contest sequence number exchange! Commonly needed for many European VHF contests at least. (Not without a lot of faffing about at least.) From what I'm reading on the lists, this is not just my opinion it seems, so why can't we all play nice without stomping on each other's toes? I'm not anti the technology, far from it, the signal processing advances being made are truly stellar. But I do wonder about it's use at the expense of all others. Plus, it's not without problems in it's current form. Call-sign hash collisions. The inability to use "any valid", but non-standard call-sign (special events, suffixes/prefixes etc, as often used by contesters and DX stations.) A fragile protocol that no one seems to agree on (the RRR vs RR73 fiasco & when to log) etc. Plus now it seems a retrograde step in the handling of the sound system default levels! (OK, a QT5 issue, but, brush and tar etc...) As FT4 is quicker, why not add some more data bits and begin to make it truly useful? If just to sort out the non-standard call-sign mess. Regards. Dave G0WBX (Tin hat ready, and I'm off out doing other non radio stuff this weekend.) PS: And yes, I am aware of, and have used JS8 call. It works, and quite well It is also being evaluated by several EMCOM groups around the world.. I wonder if there will be a FT4 based version, with more data bits. << --
Created on and sent from a Unix like PC running and using free and open source software: |
|
|
|
Locked
Re: where are all the FT4 experimenters?
Kenneth Holcombe
Jim,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I went where the fish are; hard to argue with success. Ken W1KE Sent from my iPhone On May 3, 2019, at 7:50 PM, Jim - N4ST <newsgroup@...> wrote: |
|
|
|
Locked
Re: where are all the FT4 experimenters?
Ken,
I'm not in my hamshack at the moment, but those frequencies don't look correct. Did you follow the setup instructions and reset the frequencies once you made the FT4 configuration and selected the FT4 mode? There are many signals on 20M (14.080) all day long. ___________ 73, Jim - N4ST From: WSJTX@groups.io <WSJTX@groups.io> On Behalf Of Ken N9VV Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 16:25 To: WSJTX@groups.io Subject: [WSJTX] where are all the FT4 experimenters? I have only found an FT4 QSO on 10.140 which seems mostly abandon all day long. I have listened to 7.090 and called CQ in FT4 with no luck. Where are the FT4 experimenters on 80/40/20/17? I have looked at the suggested frequencies (3.595, 7.090, 14.140(SSB) and never saw/heard an FT4 signal. mny tnx, 72/73 de Ken N9VV |
|
|
|
Locked
Re: where are all the FT4 experimenters?
Kenneth Holcombe
I don’t view FT4 as a contest mode as I have never entered a contest and don’t want to, but I like FT4, I like it, oh yes I do.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Ken W1KE Sent from my iPhone On May 3, 2019, at 7:16 PM, Bob <k4cy@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Locked
Re: where are all the FT4 experimenters?
Bob
It's a 'contest mode', so naturally we're waiting for a contest ... The devil made me do it 👿 On May 3, 2019 at 4:25 PM Ken N9VV <n9vv@...> wrote: |
|
|
|
Locked
Re: where are all the FT4 experimenters?
Kenneth Holcombe
Hey, other Ken:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I have logged 14 QSOs on 14.080 today, all on FT4. It’s like fishing; you have to go to where the fish are. FT4 frequencies are not standardized like FT8. I would log a QSO when I walked by my computer and saw that “I had landed one.” It was quite effortless. Ken W1KE Sent from my iPhone On May 3, 2019, at 3:25 PM, Ken N9VV <n9vv@...> wrote: |
|
|