Re: [digitalradio] MultiPSK and ALE141A
Hi John, Tried the calls plus HFN and QRZ but the band is closed from SW WI at 0400Z. 73, Rick, KV9U John Bradley wrote: > > for those of you who may be interested, VE5GPM and VE5MU are currently > on 14111.0 USB running 141A found on MultiPSK > > Please try and transfer small text files (under 3K) to either of these > stations. They are both programmed to respond to either a HFN or QRZ > call, so will respond to your sounding. > > The idea is to step beyond sending 1 line messages , and into an area > that might have practical applications, especially if we could > convince Patrick to > > add some “store and forward” ability. > > Under reasonable conditions a 1K file can transfer in under 3 minutes. > Both stations are running TS480SAT transceivers at about 75 watts. > > John > > VE5MU > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.7/1895 - Release Date: 1/15/2009 > 7:46 AM > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] MultiPSK and ALE141A
for those of you who may be interested, VE5GPM and VE5MU are currently on 14111.0 USB running 141A found on MultiPSK Please try and transfer small text files (under 3K) to either of these stations. They are both programmed to respond to either a HFN or QRZ call, so will respond to your sounding. The idea is to step beyond sending 1 line messages , and into an area that might have practical applications, especially if we could convince Patrick to add some "store and forward" ability. Under reasonable conditions a 1K file can transfer in under 3 minutes. Both stations are running TS480SAT transceivers at about 75 watts. John VE5MU
[digitalradio] New to the Group
Good day. I am new to the group and digital modes. My name is Steve Clark V73CS and I am located in the Marshall Islands. I am wanting to setup a digital station here. I have someone sending me an AEA 232 MBX for my station here. I was wondering about software for it and what other TNC/interface would be recomended for a beginner to setup a digital station. Thanks in advance for the bandwidth and have a great day. 73 Steve Clark V73CS/N4TKP Majuro, Marshall Islands
[digitalradio] MFTTY Path Simulaitons
All, It's good to see the enthusiasm about MFTTY. It has a nifty GUI and its easy to use. A few have mentioned a lack of lack of sensitivity and that does seem to be the case. But I think it's safe to say that we don't always need to bring an elephant gun to a turkey shoot ; ). For what it's worth, and with all due respect to the author, I've tested MFTTY with an HF path simulator and it is less sensitive and less robust than say PSK31. On air tests seem to show that the mode performs well with low power under quiet conditions. Many thanks to Norbert and those like him who give us the opportunity to experiment and play with new modes. If it wasn't for them, we'd still be lugging those heavy RTTY machines into the shack ; ). Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145
100%agree dg9bfc sigi - Original Message - From: Steinar Aanesland To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:11 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145 Well, I don't see the problem if the "Tower of Babel is getting larger and larger". I think diversity is crucial to innovation. I find it satisfactory to play with new modes, and I have to play with them to find out " what the advantages are (..) over previous modes" . My thanks to all of you guys who is working making free software for the ham community . 73 de LA5VNA Steinar Rick W wrote: > Is it just possible that there is not that much interest in the mode? I > did download the software yesterday and tried setting it up but I was > not able to get the RTS line keying the rig. I was able to listen to the > tones and it does appear to be DTMF tones. > > The question is ... why have yet another mode, unless it has some new > capabilities over what we already have? I think that some of us are > getting a bit concerned that the Tower of Babel is getting larger and > larger, and the result is not necessarily better digital communications, > but just more separate communications which reduces our interoperability. > > Would it not be better to use this tremendous energy and knowledge to > further the radio art and develop low cost technologies that work better > and faster and most importantly, adaptable to conditions? > > If some feel that I am being unfair, then could you please explain what > the advantages are of this mode over previous modes? > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > F.R. Ashley wrote: > >> *I've tried calling CQ endlessly on 20 and 80 meters but never once >> gotten a response or even heard an MFTTY station. Where is everyone >> hiding?* >> *I've read where some use 14.068 on 20 meters but it is so crowded >> there with PSK and all. I've also tried 3.591 on 80 meters but no >> luck there either.* >> ** >> *Can we all try to establish a meeting frequency for using this mode?* >> ** >> *73 Buddy WB4M* >> > > > > -- > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.7/1894 - Release Date: 14.01.2009 19:27 > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145
100%agree dg9bfc sigi - Original Message - From: kh6ty To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145 There is always a search for a "Holy Grail" of digital modes for ham radio, with ease of use, performance, robustness, resistance to atmospheric doppler, bandwidth, speed, FUN, etc! Personally, I just like the musical sound of MFTTY and appreciate the uniqueness of Norbert's approach. Once the user friendliness gets ironed out, I look forward to being able to find people using the mode often. MFTTY is easily distinguishable from other modes - it sounds a little like Throb perhaps, but not idential, so I do not think it is so much a "different tongue" on the Tower of Babel that is difficult to distinguish on the waterfall presentation, as some of the flavors of Olivia and DominoEx are. Other opinions may vary, of course, but my opinion is that I just ENJOY using the mode. It probably will never be as popular as PSK31 for chatting, but it definitely is FUN in my persoanl opinion! (I am one of those old guys who started with a green key machine on RTTY and miss the clatter and smell of the machine oil - but I also appreciate the progress in performance, convenience, and friendliness of the soundcard modes). Let's all play with MFTTY and send Norbert our comments and suggestions. It might turn out to be more than it appears at first glance. One thing is for sure, Norbert has done a very complete and respectable job on these initial beta implementations! 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: "Steinar Aanesland" To: Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145 > > > Well, I don't see the problem if the "Tower of Babel is getting larger > and larger". I think diversity is crucial to innovation. > I find it satisfactory to play with new modes, and I have to play with > them to find out " what the > advantages are (..) over previous modes" . > > My thanks to all of you guys who is working making free software for the > ham community . > > 73 de LA5VNA Steinar > > > Rick W wrote: >> Is it just possible that there is not that much interest in the mode? I >> did download the software yesterday and tried setting it up but I was >> not able to get the RTS line keying the rig. I was able to listen to the >> tones and it does appear to be DTMF tones. >> >> The question is ... why have yet another mode, unless it has some new >> capabilities over what we already have? I think that some of us are >> getting a bit concerned that the Tower of Babel is getting larger and >> larger, and the result is not necessarily better digital communications, >> but just more separate communications which reduces our interoperability. >> >> Would it not be better to use this tremendous energy and knowledge to >> further the radio art and develop low cost technologies that work better >> and faster and most importantly, adaptable to conditions? >> >> If some feel that I am being unfair, then could you please explain what >> the advantages are of this mode over previous modes? >> >> 73, >> >> Rick, KV9U >> >> >> F.R. Ashley wrote: >> >>> *I've tried calling CQ endlessly on 20 and 80 meters but never once >>> gotten a response or even heard an MFTTY station. Where is everyone >>> hiding?* >>> *I've read where some use 14.068 on 20 meters but it is so crowded >>> there with PSK and all. I've also tried 3.591 on 80 meters but no >>> luck there either.* >>> ** >>> *Can we all try to establish a meeting frequency for using this mode?* >>> ** >>> *73 Buddy WB4M* >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.7/1894 - Release Date: >> 14.01.2009 19:27 >> >> > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.9.2/1785 - Release Date: 11/13/2008 > 9:12 AM > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145
dear rick conventional dtmf does need a very good s/n ratio BUT in mftty there are slower modes with much less shift and very narrow filters so you can pick up a very low signal out of the noise you know surely if bandwith is getting lower the s/n increases i tested the soft "off-air" and i could detect a signal with my pc mic in front of pc speaker that i could not detect by ear ... and i had some background noise during the test cause my girlfriend was watching tv :-) i know that this is not a real test like testing it on the air but i am sure it will work for weak signals greetz dg9bfc sigi - Original Message - From: Rick W To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 10:43 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145 DTMF tones are easy to distinguish for us OT's. Maybe not so easy for new digital hams, but and that might be a useful characteristic as long as it can compete well against the existing modes of which we have many, some with not that much difference in performance. A couple days ago I started working on a new document that looked at the various digital modes, particularly the sound card modes, to put some kind of perspective for hams new to digital modes. But after working on this for a while, I realized that there were only a few that do work well in terms of speed vs ISI vs Doppler, vs weak signal, vs bandwidth, etc., so it is nearly a moot point. And even though some modes are superior to other modes under some conditions, if no one uses them, then no matter how good they may be, it won't matter. Over the past few years, we have seen a new mode come along, get a lot of comments on groups like this one to try and coordinate with other hams, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. But after a few weeks, it dies down and you never hear much again. If I understand Patrick, F6CTE's critique of his implementation of DTMF, which has been in Multipsk for some time, this is not a weak signal mode and requires signals to be well above zero dB S/N. Or is this implementation that much different? I sure do not miss the green keys and my Model 15 TTY and homebrew TU and loop supply. I am totally sold on computer generated digital modes, especially the sound card modes that avoid vendor lock in and special hardware. 73, Rick, KV9U kh6ty wrote: > There is always a search for a "Holy Grail" of digital modes for ham radio, > with ease of use, performance, robustness, resistance to atmospheric > doppler, bandwidth, speed, FUN, etc! > > Personally, I just like the musical sound of MFTTY and appreciate the > uniqueness of Norbert's approach. Once the user friendliness gets ironed > out, I look forward to being able to find people using the mode often. MFTTY > is easily distinguishable from other modes - it sounds a little like Throb > perhaps, but not idential, so I do not think it is so much a "different > tongue" on the Tower of Babel that is difficult to distinguish on the > waterfall presentation, as some of the flavors of Olivia and DominoEx are. > > Other opinions may vary, of course, but my opinion is that I just ENJOY > using the mode. It probably will never be as popular as PSK31 for chatting, > but it definitely is FUN in my persoanl opinion! (I am one of those old guys > who started with a green key machine on RTTY and miss the clatter and smell > of the machine oil - but I also appreciate the progress in performance, > convenience, and friendliness of the soundcard modes). > > Let's all play with MFTTY and send Norbert our comments and suggestions. It > might turn out to be more than it appears at first glance. One thing is for > sure, Norbert has done a very complete and respectable job on these initial > beta implementations! > > 73, Skip KH6TY > >
[digitalradio] Update on FT-450 problems
I know this is probably a bit off topic here but just thought I would update you on using my FT-450 on digital modes. As Bonnie pointed out, from this graph ... http://www.projectsandparts.com/misc/ft-450tx.gif ... you can see that the published FT-450 Transmitter Specifications: "Audio Response (SSB): Not more than -6dB from 400 to 2600Hz" is nowhere near my measured results. This was using a Sound Blaster Audigy 2ZS and Signalink SL-1+ interface (which have been in regular use with other rigs for 3+ years without problem) After contacting Yaesu a 3rd time and asking their engineer to look at this graph again their final response is this: "Sholto: At this point if you believe your radio is not up to specs to analyze it properly. I repeat that the information you sent does not indicate a problem. 73 (name witheld) Amateur Radio Technical Support" Regardless of whether there really is a problem with this rig or not if a Yaesu engineer cannot ascertain that a roll off of more than -26dB within the stated passband is greater than the published -6dB specifications then there is no realistic hope of asking them to fix it. I doubt I will ever buy Yaesu again. 73 Sholto KE7HPV
[digitalradio] For any one testing MFTTY or looking at testing it
A new version .046 and some more updates. Russell = IN GOD WE TRUST ! = Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145
DTMF tones are easy to distinguish for us OT's. Maybe not so easy for new digital hams, but and that might be a useful characteristic as long as it can compete well against the existing modes of which we have many, some with not that much difference in performance. A couple days ago I started working on a new document that looked at the various digital modes, particularly the sound card modes, to put some kind of perspective for hams new to digital modes. But after working on this for a while, I realized that there were only a few that do work well in terms of speed vs ISI vs Doppler, vs weak signal, vs bandwidth, etc., so it is nearly a moot point. And even though some modes are superior to other modes under some conditions, if no one uses them, then no matter how good they may be, it won't matter. Over the past few years, we have seen a new mode come along, get a lot of comments on groups like this one to try and coordinate with other hams, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. But after a few weeks, it dies down and you never hear much again. If I understand Patrick, F6CTE's critique of his implementation of DTMF, which has been in Multipsk for some time, this is not a weak signal mode and requires signals to be well above zero dB S/N. Or is this implementation that much different? I sure do not miss the green keys and my Model 15 TTY and homebrew TU and loop supply. I am totally sold on computer generated digital modes, especially the sound card modes that avoid vendor lock in and special hardware. 73, Rick, KV9U kh6ty wrote: > There is always a search for a "Holy Grail" of digital modes for ham radio, > with ease of use, performance, robustness, resistance to atmospheric > doppler, bandwidth, speed, FUN, etc! > > Personally, I just like the musical sound of MFTTY and appreciate the > uniqueness of Norbert's approach. Once the user friendliness gets ironed > out, I look forward to being able to find people using the mode often. MFTTY > is easily distinguishable from other modes - it sounds a little like Throb > perhaps, but not idential, so I do not think it is so much a "different > tongue" on the Tower of Babel that is difficult to distinguish on the > waterfall presentation, as some of the flavors of Olivia and DominoEx are. > > Other opinions may vary, of course, but my opinion is that I just ENJOY > using the mode. It probably will never be as popular as PSK31 for chatting, > but it definitely is FUN in my persoanl opinion! (I am one of those old guys > who started with a green key machine on RTTY and miss the clatter and smell > of the machine oil - but I also appreciate the progress in performance, > convenience, and friendliness of the soundcard modes). > > Let's all play with MFTTY and send Norbert our comments and suggestions. It > might turn out to be more than it appears at first glance. One thing is for > sure, Norbert has done a very complete and respectable job on these initial > beta implementations! > > 73, Skip KH6TY > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145
There is always a search for a "Holy Grail" of digital modes for ham radio, with ease of use, performance, robustness, resistance to atmospheric doppler, bandwidth, speed, FUN, etc! Personally, I just like the musical sound of MFTTY and appreciate the uniqueness of Norbert's approach. Once the user friendliness gets ironed out, I look forward to being able to find people using the mode often. MFTTY is easily distinguishable from other modes - it sounds a little like Throb perhaps, but not idential, so I do not think it is so much a "different tongue" on the Tower of Babel that is difficult to distinguish on the waterfall presentation, as some of the flavors of Olivia and DominoEx are. Other opinions may vary, of course, but my opinion is that I just ENJOY using the mode. It probably will never be as popular as PSK31 for chatting, but it definitely is FUN in my persoanl opinion! (I am one of those old guys who started with a green key machine on RTTY and miss the clatter and smell of the machine oil - but I also appreciate the progress in performance, convenience, and friendliness of the soundcard modes). Let's all play with MFTTY and send Norbert our comments and suggestions. It might turn out to be more than it appears at first glance. One thing is for sure, Norbert has done a very complete and respectable job on these initial beta implementations! 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: "Steinar Aanesland" To: Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145 > > > Well, I don't see the problem if the "Tower of Babel is getting larger > and larger". I think diversity is crucial to innovation. > I find it satisfactory to play with new modes, and I have to play with > them to find out " what the > advantages are (..) over previous modes" . > > My thanks to all of you guys who is working making free software for the > ham community . > > 73 de LA5VNA Steinar > > > Rick W wrote: >> Is it just possible that there is not that much interest in the mode? I >> did download the software yesterday and tried setting it up but I was >> not able to get the RTS line keying the rig. I was able to listen to the >> tones and it does appear to be DTMF tones. >> >> The question is ... why have yet another mode, unless it has some new >> capabilities over what we already have? I think that some of us are >> getting a bit concerned that the Tower of Babel is getting larger and >> larger, and the result is not necessarily better digital communications, >> but just more separate communications which reduces our interoperability. >> >> Would it not be better to use this tremendous energy and knowledge to >> further the radio art and develop low cost technologies that work better >> and faster and most importantly, adaptable to conditions? >> >> If some feel that I am being unfair, then could you please explain what >> the advantages are of this mode over previous modes? >> >> 73, >> >> Rick, KV9U >> >> >> F.R. Ashley wrote: >> >>> *I've tried calling CQ endlessly on 20 and 80 meters but never once >>> gotten a response or even heard an MFTTY station. Where is everyone >>> hiding?* >>> *I've read where some use 14.068 on 20 meters but it is so crowded >>> there with PSK and all. I've also tried 3.591 on 80 meters but no >>> luck there either.* >>> ** >>> *Can we all try to establish a meeting frequency for using this mode?* >>> ** >>> *73 Buddy WB4M* >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.7/1894 - Release Date: >> 14.01.2009 19:27 >> >> > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.9.2/1785 - Release Date: 11/13/2008 > 9:12 AM > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145
Well, I don't see the problem if the "Tower of Babel is getting larger and larger". I think diversity is crucial to innovation. I find it satisfactory to play with new modes, and I have to play with them to find out " what the advantages are (..) over previous modes" . My thanks to all of you guys who is working making free software for the ham community . 73 de LA5VNA Steinar Rick W wrote: > Is it just possible that there is not that much interest in the mode? I > did download the software yesterday and tried setting it up but I was > not able to get the RTS line keying the rig. I was able to listen to the > tones and it does appear to be DTMF tones. > > The question is ... why have yet another mode, unless it has some new > capabilities over what we already have? I think that some of us are > getting a bit concerned that the Tower of Babel is getting larger and > larger, and the result is not necessarily better digital communications, > but just more separate communications which reduces our interoperability. > > Would it not be better to use this tremendous energy and knowledge to > further the radio art and develop low cost technologies that work better > and faster and most importantly, adaptable to conditions? > > If some feel that I am being unfair, then could you please explain what > the advantages are of this mode over previous modes? > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > F.R. Ashley wrote: > >> *I've tried calling CQ endlessly on 20 and 80 meters but never once >> gotten a response or even heard an MFTTY station. Where is everyone >> hiding?* >> *I've read where some use 14.068 on 20 meters but it is so crowded >> there with PSK and all. I've also tried 3.591 on 80 meters but no >> luck there either.* >> ** >> *Can we all try to establish a meeting frequency for using this mode?* >> ** >> *73 Buddy WB4M* >> > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.7/1894 - Release Date: 14.01.2009 > 19:27 > >
[digitalradio] Resolving HF Noise Issues
Many folks have run into the same issue that I have in the past. The cheep commercial networking routers and cable modems will create tons of noise on the HF bands. We simply created a Faraday Cage and placed all the gear inside and mounted it under the house. The network gear consists of 1 Cable Modem, 1 Netgear router and 1 Airlink wireless router configured as a glorified gateway. http://www.kb7tbt.com/pix/faradaycage These photos are of my friend Sean KE7CDE working on the Faraday Cage and Ground. James KB7TBT www.kb7tbt.com www.ne4ga.org www.myspace.com/kb7tbt
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145
Is it just possible that there is not that much interest in the mode? I did download the software yesterday and tried setting it up but I was not able to get the RTS line keying the rig. I was able to listen to the tones and it does appear to be DTMF tones. The question is ... why have yet another mode, unless it has some new capabilities over what we already have? I think that some of us are getting a bit concerned that the Tower of Babel is getting larger and larger, and the result is not necessarily better digital communications, but just more separate communications which reduces our interoperability. Would it not be better to use this tremendous energy and knowledge to further the radio art and develop low cost technologies that work better and faster and most importantly, adaptable to conditions? If some feel that I am being unfair, then could you please explain what the advantages are of this mode over previous modes? 73, Rick, KV9U F.R. Ashley wrote: > *I've tried calling CQ endlessly on 20 and 80 meters but never once > gotten a response or even heard an MFTTY station. Where is everyone > hiding?* > *I've read where some use 14.068 on 20 meters but it is so crowded > there with PSK and all. I've also tried 3.591 on 80 meters but no > luck there either.* > ** > *Can we all try to establish a meeting frequency for using this mode?* > ** > *73 Buddy WB4M*
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145
dear howard answers are intermitted in your txt To All, I did download the new release and found a couple of things. Pressing the Appointments button takes me to K3UK's page but there's no way to post comments or log in. If I instead go to my "Favorites" and select the page, I can log in and post comments, etc. i dropped a mail to norbert that the link has to be changed Also, I've been running in HALF setting. Has anyone tried the other settings: Double or 1/4? I tried Normal and found garbage on the screen with no success in cleaning it up, operator error possibility not withstanding. i tested the software with my pc mic laying in front of my pc speaker with different speed settings . all worked fine Is there a real incentive for operators to be able to change tone frequencies in the TX options? some users use narrow filters or passband tuning when opperating digital modes if you have your "sweet dpot" maybe on 1500hz or on 2000hz changing option of the af frequency is a "must have" Are we supposed to uninstall the previous release before unpacking a newer release? i never deinstalled the older versions but you have to cklick on "don´t make shortcuts in the programmfolder" and "don´t make shortcut on desktop" during the installing process but the cleanest way is to deinstall the older version before installing a new one After running the newest version now for a few minutes, I find now that I cannot get it to go to maximized from a minimized condition. The small replica of the program does appear when moving the cursor to the minimized position on the lower bar. on my pc i can minimize to taskbar and when clicked on the tab on the taskbar the programm reopens to normal size don´t know what is the problem c ause on my pc all is working fine you should send a mail to norbert and tell him that problem I also downloaded the Magic Clip, I believe it is called, and am playing with that for a bit. i didn´t try this magic clip so i can´t say anything about Is there some way to save the definitions created in the Macro Keys rather than have them erased each time a newer version of the software is installed? That is one reason why I am looking at that Magic Clip thingie and not just to reduce my transmitting burden just backup text1.txt text2.txt ... text8.txt after installing the new version just copy them back to programmfolder I know this is a "new" mode, but has anyone determined just what the direction will be for MFTTY? I think it's a slick offering but.that's just me. I'd be curious about other thoughts. just a new mode for weak signal :-) best 73´s de dg9bfc sigi
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145
dear buddy just go on the spot page (chatpage) and there you can find others to test with greetz dg9bfc sigi
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145
dear kevin just drop norbert a mail and he will answer how to solve the problem i will forward this mail to him maybe he has a solution greetz dg9bfc sigi - Original Message - From: Kevin Mitchell To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:14 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145 HI, I have just downloaded this program and installed it on my radio computer. Problem, when I run it after installing I get the error message "Run-time error '372' Failed to load control 'RichTestBox' from RICHTX32.OCX. Your version of RICHTX32.OCX may be outdated. Make sure you are using the version of control that was provided with your application. I am running XP Pro and have down-loaded VB6 Runtime from the MFTTY website. I have even downloaded the RICHTX32.OCX file and followed the instructions to install on my computer, BUT this has not fixed the problem, still getting the same error message. Is there any reason why this might be happening? Any help would be grateful Kevin, ZL1KFM. On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 6:35 PM, F.R. Ashley wrote: I've tried calling CQ endlessly on 20 and 80 meters but never once gotten a response or even heard an MFTTY station. Where is everyone hiding? I've read where some use 14.068 on 20 meters but it is so crowded there with PSK and all. I've also tried 3.591 on 80 meters but no luck there either. Can we all try to establish a meeting frequency for using this mode? 73 Buddy WB4M - Original Message - From: W6IDS To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 12:23 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145 To All, I did download the new release and found a couple of things. Pressing the Appointments button takes me to K3UK's page but there's no way to post comments or log in. If I instead go to my "Favorites" and select the page, I can log in and post comments, etc. Also, I've been running in HALF setting. Has anyone tried the other settings: Double or 1/4? I tried Normal and found garbage on the screen with no success in cleaning it up, operator error possibility not withstanding. Is there a real incentive for operators to be able to change tone frequencies in the TX options? Are we supposed to uninstall the previous release before unpacking a newer release? After running the newest version now for a few minutes, I find now that I cannot get it to go to maximized from a minimized condition. The small replica of the program does appear when moving the cursor to the minimized position on the lower bar. I also downloaded the Magic Clip, I believe it is called, and am playing with that for a bit. Is there some way to save the definitions created in the Macro Keys rather than have them erased each time a newer version of the software is installed? That is one reason why I am looking at that Magic Clip thingie and not just to reduce my transmitting burden I know this is a "new" mode, but has anyone determined just what the direction will be for MFTTY? I think it's a slick offering but.that's just me. I'd be curious about other thoughts. Howard W6IIDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: Siegfried Jackstien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 4:31 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Version .144 new version of mftty now it is version 30.145 see here http://www.polar-electric.com/MFTT/index.html download it and try it out greetz dg9bfc
