On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 7:03 AM Joe DeVincentis <j...@ko8v.net> wrote:
> Personally, I'd like to see the K4 support something like the TinyFSK > protocol for doing RTTY. > There's really no urgent reason to do this once the KY host command is improved to allow message stacking with interrupt capability. If you want to use TinyFSK (which has its own problems), connect a Mortty to the K4 ACC port, same as you would on a K3. If you don't want to solder your own DE-15 connector, or if your ACC port is already occupied, use a Y-BOX <https://bit.ly/Y-BOX> plus 3.5mm stereo to dual RCA cable to connect Mortty to K3 or K4. I have a few of both still in stock. It will take a few weeks to order more boards if there is sufficient demand. It could present multiple serial ports. one for CAT, one for FSK and one > for Keying. This is already in plan. The K4 provides two virtual serial ports via the USB cable (FTDI), one legacy 9-pin serial port, plus the 15-pin ACC port. Any of them may be used for FSK keying, PTT, and CW keying, using MMTTY or your logging software. This is keying via TXD, DTR, or RTS pins, with no external hardware required (unless using ACC pins). EXTFSK will be required on the virtual serial ports. The 9-pin legacy port will not require EXTFSK if your PC serial port or USB-to-Serial adapter doesn't require it (example: Edgeport/4). The FSK could emulate tinyFSK and the keyer could emulate the K1EL > keyers. That way programs don't need to fight over who gets the serial > ports. > There will be no more fights over the serial port because the K4 has more than one, and they will operate independently and in parallel (unlike Icom rigs, which provide one and only one virtual serial port pin at a time for PTT keying). TinyFSK has a problem. Using it with MMTTY and a Mortty, try the "send RYRYRY... forever" macro while using TinyFSK.FSK. Hear the problem? It hesitates every 32 characters or so. So its timing is not as "perfect" as claimed, at least not with that configuration. While I despise the following phrase as a SW guy (specifically embedded > real time operating systems): Hey, it's just S/W. I can see this as very > doable in the K4 given what I know about the architecture to date.. Much > harder in the K3s. > As a software guy, you can appreciate that it is impossible to perfectly emulate someone else's code (or chip) if you have no access to the source code, and only work from the external API. Lots of devices have attempted to emulate the WinKey interface, but none of them are 100% compatible with the chip. This includes RemoteRig boxes, the YCCC SO2R Box, the Mortty, etc. None of them will pass the WKTEST program ( https://www.hamcrafters2.com/WKTESTX.html), last time I tried. The RemoteRig emulator works OK with N1MM+, but not with Win-Test or DXLog.net (unless you select a unique option). These programs all use the WinKey chip differently. They work fine with a real chip not with the emulators. The only devices that pass the WinKey 100% compatibility tests are devices that use a real WinKey chip inside, such as those provided by the microHAM devices. Retooling the K4 to put a real WinKey chip or Mortty hardware inside, or attempting emulation via firmware, could delay K4 shipment or distract from other higher priority issues. It could also raise the price a bit. I don't think anyone wants to see either. Finally, there's no reason for Elecraft to try to take sales opportunities away from the manufacturers of WinKey and Mortty devices, is there? 73, Bob, N6TV https://bit.ly/Y-BOX ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
