There were some who were not that happy about the development attempt of SCAMP since they had such a large investment in their modems. But the owners wanted to come up with an alternative to the SCS modem.
SCAMP was put on hold because the programmer did not have time to continue further programming due to the pressing needs of the changes they needed to make to the underlying infrastructure. From what I can tell, they have only one main programmer and while his ability is in the spectacular range, one person can only do so much. Almost no one else could do the things that he has been able to do. In fact, there were those who were claiming that it was not possible to do. But SCAMP just could not perform well enough to be useful on HF, except when conditions were quite favorable. It needed to either have the protocol replaced (OFDM?) which could then be made adaptive to conditions, or else it would need a fall back protocol. If you look at how the original Aplink system evolved to the old Winlink system, it was possible to run several modes at one time on the same equipment and the same frequencies. In fact, RTTY Digital Journal had a very detailed article on how this was done a decade or two ago. Very clever set up of equipment and switching capabilities. Remember at one time they had both Clover II and Pactor. If SCAMP had been competitive with Pactor 3 would it have been used? Absolutely, no question about it whatsoever. Many of those who now complain about Pactor 3, would been quite unhappy about SCAMP today as it was about the same bandwidth and was a very aggressive sounding mode. I would expect many more HF users of the Winlink 2000 system today and more use of the bands. 73, Rick, KV9U jgorman01 wrote: > Ask yourself why scamp died. Do you really think the winlink users > who have spent a thousand dollars or more on pactor modems are going > to relish throwing that investment away because the winlink admin's > have decided to go to a soundcard mode? > > Jim > WA0LYK > >
