MODE vs. SUBMODE for FT8 or FT4 #FT8 #logging #FT4 #adiFiles


Rick Tavan
 

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


Bill Somerville
 

On 29/08/2021 21:19, Rick Tavan wrote:
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

Hi Rick,

the ADIF fields for modes used by WSJT-X are consistent with the official ADIF specification.

73
Bill
G4WJS.


 

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
 

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


neil_zampella
 

From reading what's on the DX4WIN website, the latest version is 903 ??   If you're using a version in the 800 series or earlier, you may need to purchase an upgrade. 

Or, you can move to the free DXLab suite which has DX Keeper, which does recognize the proper ADIF modes for the WSJT-X modes.

Neil, KN3ILZ

On 8/30/2021 12:31 PM, Rick Tavan wrote:
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




Rick Ellison
 

Rick..

Someone post to your message in the N1MM group that in his version of DX4WIN there is a way to mark it as a submode of FT4 and the program will indicate that after it was done.

 

73 Rick N2AMG

 

From: main@WSJTX.groups.io [mailto:main@WSJTX.groups.io] On Behalf Of Rick Tavan
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 1:31 PM
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


Virus-free. www.avast.com


 

When I mentioned committee, that was a polite word for the blog collective. But it is obviously DX4WIN that is confusing you. How does DX4WIN display SSB contacts? Contact them about this matter.

 

LotW drove the immediate need to adopt FT8 as a mode as a lot of people were already uploading a lot of contacts. However LotW will record the current ADIF MODE/SUBMODE classification.

 

73 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


 

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