Date
1 - 8 of 8
Locked Tx Enable from an external program #WSJTX_config
|
Борис Романов <ux8iw@...>
Hello!
The WSJT-X program, when used in conjunction with an external program (for example: the radio amateur log LogHX), allows you to enable transmission from an external program only on CQ messages.
The prohibition to turn on the transmission on messages containing RR73 \ 73 restricts the possibilities of external programs for prompt communication both in contests and during normal work on the air. You have to manually turn on the Tx Enable button.
A request to the developers of the WSJT-X program to allow enabling transmission (the Tx Enable button) from an external program on messages containing RR73 \ 73. Thank you. Boris Romanov UX8IW |
|
|
|
Roger
On 06/01/2021 19:52, Борис Романов via groups.io wrote:
Hello!I don't support that. I believe having to manually enable Tx is needed to protect users from wayward support programmes to prevent accidental transmission. Some of the automatic operation I already see is beyond what I believe to be friendly and I don't want to see operating standards reduced further. 73 Roger G#4HZA |
|
|
|
Joe Subich, W4TV
A request to the developers of the WSJT-X program to allow enabling transmission (the Tx Enable button) from an external program on messages containing RR73 \ 73.That will never happen. The developers of WSJTX and the underlying protocols have stated that providing an external API to toggle the TX Enable button would open WSJTX to robot operation. The developers are strongly opposed to robot operation which in practice means that external programs can only activate TX Enable with messages TX1 (answer a CQ) or TX6 (call CQ). 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2021-01-06 2:52 PM, Борис Романов via groups.io wrote: Hello! |
|
|
|
Bob
Blah, blah, blah, so much folklore and hearsay on this reflector (does that violate the new rules Jay?) ... Last I checked, a long time ago, FT8 did not allow replies to 73 or RR73 but FT4 did. When I raised the issue on this reflector I was told that it wasn't intentional. I don't know if that meant FT8 should behave like FT4, or FT4 should behave like FT8. Also, I don't know if changes have been made to correct this. SeventyThree(s).
|
|
|
|
Lawrence Godek
When i send an RR73, whether using FT8 or FT4, i at least most of the time get a 73 reply from the station i am working. I give the other station 3 tries to send that 73 response. If nothing for whatever reason i don't log the qso. That's the way i do it whether it s agreeable with anyone else or not. My log, my rules, my procedure. It doesn't happen much but it does happen. Larry W0OGH
21 7:25 AM, Bob wrote: Blah, blah, blah, so much folklore and hearsay on this reflector (does that violate the new rules Jay?) ... Last I checked, a long time ago, FT8 did not allow replies to 73 or RR73 but FT4 did. When I raised the issue on this reflector I was told that it wasn't intentional. I don't know if that meant FT8 should behave like FT4, or FT4 should behave like FT8. Also, I don't know if changes have been made to correct this. SeventyThree(s). |
|
|
|
Борис Романов <ux8iw@...>
Hello.
I think that then we can say that the permission to enable transmission from an external program on CQ messages (Tx Enable) also provides an opportunity to create a robot. Boris Romanov UX8IW |
|
|
|
neil_zampella <neilz@...>
FWIW ... you send a RR73 .. that's basically saying ... I
acknowledge your last, over and out. You shouldn't have to get
a 73 when you send that. You send RRR, that requires a 73 back
to you.
|
|
|
|
Roger
We're going through the same arguments yet again so I'm closing this at 1200ish GMT tomorrow.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Roger G#4HZA moderator On 07/01/2021 22:14, neil_zampella wrote:
FWIW ... you send a RR73 .. that's basically saying ... I acknowledge |
|
|