The beta and software being developed in the foreseeable future will be focused on Winlink 2000. It won't have a peer to peer function, unless it is temporarily put there as we had with the SCAMP protocol some years ago. Even then, they planned to remove PtoP once the software was made available for general use.
Eventually the protocol will be tested and deployed and as Rick has pointed out: "Remember that WINMOR was not designed to be just another sound card mode like PSK31 or Domino. It is designed for binary message forwarding and is part of an entire email system (WL2K) and for it to work and be properly evaluated all the parts that integrate the new mode must also be built and tested." Also, he says he will "probably make a DLL of WINMOR available for others to use." Of course all software developed by the Winlink team has been Windows centric and will continue to be. There has been work done by a Linux developer who has been able to provide Telpac and now RMSpacket clients for Winlink 2000 and perhaps he will be able to make an open source Linux version of WINMOR. The final design won't be ready until real world beta testing is done. The thing that struck me the most is that he sees Pactor becoming obsolete since it is not that good of a mode compared with WINMOR. Of course Pactor 2 and Pactor 3 are much more competitive with any sound card mode for the forseeable future. So the beta testing will be operating the Winlink 2000 system as you normally would, but using a sound card mode in place of P2 or P3. Ideally, everything else will be about the same. It should be similar to how SCAMP was beta tested, except when conditions go near to zero dB and maybe even a bit below zero dB SNR, the mode will continue working. SCAMP failed much below +8 or +10 dB SNR. The 4 FSK mode intrigues me the most as having a robust mode that can handle at least moderate ISI and Doppler along with the 15 or so dB capabilities for weaker signals. As a comparison, the RFSM sound card modems, although they are based on MIL-STD-188-110A, did not implement the more robust modes, particularly the 75 bps mode designed for the worst conditions. It would have been fascinating to see how well (or not) that mode works. A friend of mine who uses this stuff regularly for military applications says that these "ALE" type systems are not that great. But he also does not have any experience with ham HF modes. If anyone else does have the experience with both it would be appreciated if they would share what they have found, especially in terms of robustness and throughput. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: > I am a member of the WINMOR reflector and I am encouraged by the > author's intentions. However, since I have avoided Pactor and used > thinks like AirMail and Winlink very little over the past couple of > years, I am not sure just what the intended beta use of WINMOR will > be. I have seen the explanation but it implies knowledge of the > current P3 emcomm system, can someone break down what they are > expecting from WINMOR OTHER than it being a soundcard based mode ? > > Andy K3UK > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > > Recommended software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1969 - Release Date: 02/24/09 > 06:43:00 > >
