Rick W escribió:
> Similarly, I have used Multipsk's packet modes on both HF and VHF with
> success. With the advance of technology, I moved away from packet around
> 15 years ago! It is just not robust enough for HF and can only go a
> short distance on VHF, compared with newer modes
>
I moved from HF 300 baud packet to Pactor (PTC-II) ten years ago. It
meant a tenfold increase in forwarding thruput,
with ten times less power. About a hundredfold improvement...
> What seems like an unfulfilled need is a framework similar to packet,
> with the ability to insert different modes as they are developed. You
> would not have to keep inventing the wheel over and over.
>
My feeling is that even when the modulation/signalling speed was quite
less than optimal, the network worked.
(Runing a network costs, but there existed a will to keep it going. Life
is more expensive nowadays)
The Achilles heel has been the radio channel access method.
> This would mostly have practical value for groups that want to set up a
> BBS system. For example, I have monitored the packets on an 80 meter BBS
> here in my state where most of the transmissions are retries. And this
> is during the day under NVIS conditions.
NVIS has the longest time spread of all ionospheric propagation modes.
Even 300 baud can be too fast at times.
> A much more robust mode needs
> to be used. Then you would be able to send and receive direct or time
> shifted messages. This is the one thing we can not do with any other
> system, but there does not seem to be any interest in developing such a
> system.
>
It is EASIER with the Internet...as long as it is up.....
> At this time, it is true that a slower baud rate packet system could be
> used, such as the software 110 baud speed available in Multipsk. This is
> why hardware packet TNC's are a poor choice for our advancing technology
> and why almost no one uses them anymore.
Rick, I do not agree with this. My feeling is that manufacturers took the easy
way out
with a stagnant product, and the market fell on its knees because of lack of
innovation.
With a market scale vision, hams are not a profitable market.
SCS has the merit of distributing easily flashable firmware updates. Who else
has done so?
Of course, with a CPU running a single task... ("Real men use hardware
TNC's..." 8-) )
MultiPSK has the merit of being a working option at less than 300 baud.
The sound card itself is not a panacea, when used in a multitasking (or quick
task switching) OS.
Multitasking cannot handle tight ARQ timing windows.
It is a pity that noone has come forward (as far as I know) a real time OS
(RTL, for instance) with a proposal
usable on an old PC as packet engine with a sound card as modem. The problem is
not the PC itself, but the
prevalent OS's.
> You are locked into a mode
> developed over 30 years ago with no FEC or ability to be adaptive for
> conditions. And yet, I admit that if you want a BBS system today, what
> other choices do you have?
>
> 73,
>
> Rick, KV9U
>
>
> Bev & Jerry Chambers wrote:
>
>> I have used MixW for packet, both on 2 meters and on HF and found it
>> to work fine.
>>
>> Jerry - W6LQR
>>
>>
>>
73,
Jose, CO2JA
