Re: [digitalradio] HFLinknet Feedback and Tips - The End
At 09:35 PM 6/24/2008, you wrote (in part): Along with the great majority of digital oriented hams, I prefer sound card modes and have no plans to move back toward legacy hardware. Would you not say that having the, as you put it legacy hardware and not using it would be a step backwards as well? I as well as a lot of other hams that do have and use that equipment enjoy it. There are a lot of very good sound card modes but I have yet to see a replacement for the ARQ modes. That can keep up with the hardware driven modes. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] HFLinknet Feedback and Tips - The End
John, I have always felt that the wisest thing is for each ham to decide for themselves what kind of operating they want to do. If they have legacy hardware, they may very well want to continue to use it. I used to work Amtor and Pactor and especially Clover II, but that was quite a few years ago. I have had Kantronics UTU, C64 plus firmware, homebrew RTTY (both tube and then XR chip based), AEA CP-1 with BMKMulty software, and finally the HAL P-38. I was one of the earliest users of the Aplink and Winlink systems. I used to have links with Ray Petit, W7GHM, inventor of CCW, Clover, and Clover II, not that we had great connections much of the time. It was fun to experiment with what was then new technology. I then set it aside due to cost and other interests. When PSK31 and then other digital modes modes were possible to do with a computer and sound card, I got back into digital modes and find that even more interesting than what we did with the hardware systems. It is sometimes more difficult, but I like the challenge (at least most of the time, HI). Hard to get any other local hams interested though:( I can't exactly compare the new ARQ sound card modes with Pactor since I don't have the hardware anymore, but FAE400 seems to be able to perform at least as well as Pactor for much of the time. The quasi duplex operation is quite similar to Clover II. Have you ever tried to do some comparison testing? I would be interested to hear of the results. Something like the RSGB study done some years ago would be most welcome. The advantage of sound card modes (other than the obvious low cost factor) is that once you are set up for one mode, you can expect to do most of them with the same setup. With hardware, you need to switch boxes and systems which is less convenient and drastically more expensive unless you already have the hardware. At this time, nothing can compare with the newest hardware modes, particularly Pactor 2 and 3, since there are no sound card modes that are as adaptable to conditions with different levels. If you have good propagation, the newest sound card QAM technology is quite competitive for sending images. And you can repair bad blocks after the fact without having resend the entire file. But it is not ARQ on the fly. The main thing is to do what you enjoy doing the most since as radio amateurs it is like having dozens of hobbies under one umbrella. 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Would you not say that having the, as you put it legacy hardware and not using it would be a step backwards as well? I as well as a lot of other hams that do have and use that equipment enjoy it. There are a lot of very good sound card modes but I have yet to see a replacement for the ARQ modes. That can keep up with the hardware driven modes. John, W0JAB
[digitalradio] HFLinknet Feedback and Tips
Hello Rick, Ok, lets see if we can steer you to some good future ALE contacts. As you know, a sound card has to measure up to the digital task it is being tasked to perform. Not all do. That topic I will leave to others that have covered this so well in the past on different forms many times. Next it is important that the transceiver being used is calibrated. Doesnt take too many Hz off frequency to not work well. One hundred hertz is too much for example. Many of us have ran into that one at one time or another, right? A couple calibration methods are at: http://hflink.com/calibration/ The ALE Channel Zero site is a great place to meet other Ale operators and find an Elmer: http://hflink.net/qso/ Dont forget that the HfLink forum is a source for information and links to other Ale operators. As with any computer system, make sure your computer uses the latest software and fill files. With all the Ale contacts going on world wide, I suspect there are some other issues with your Ale communications problems. Changes in any system are expected, and the ALE network is no exception. One of the nice parts for Ale systems is that you can scan and find those stations that you can work. Real-time status of all HFN Pilot Stations is provided both on the web and on the air (via hourly station identification). If in doubt about the Pilot stations you can link with, simply set your radio to receive scan all the listed primary data channels, and then link with the station(s) on the bands that are best. NVIS is OK if you can find it, but not needed. For your having problems I suspect you need to fine tune a bit more. The nature of a good ALE signal requires a better level of transceiver calibration, soundcard accuracy, and passband flatness than most other digital keyboarding modes do. In time I am sure you will work out your issues. Many have and can assist you too, on and off the air. Here is one source of setup information: http://hflink.com/pcale/setup/ Some of your concerns have been addressed before. Keep in mind that all this is a work in progress. Over time the system will continue to grow, software and features will be enhanced, and it goes with out saying, that bugs are being worked on all the time. just like any other system as it goes from conception to being routine. Keep trying, hang in there, and I am sure you will get it worked out. 73 from Bill - WD8ARZ Current ALE Station Activity http://hflink.net/qso/ Current Location of ALE Pilot HFN Stations http://hflink.com/hfn/ - Original Message - From: Rick W. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 10:04 AM Subject: [hfdec] HFLinknet I have been trying to use the HFN system for some time now. I have had minimal success with connecting to more distant stations, however, I have had no luck with stations within NVIS range. snip snip If anyone is having luck with the system, can you share your exact method of formatting the messages? My DTM nor DBM messages appear to be accepted but I never actually get the e-mail back. I am only using SMTP as recent information from one of the Pilot station operators indicated that if you send traffic to yourself via the Winlink2000 path (WL2K proword in the message header) it assumes you already have the message and will not route it to you. Thus I have been using only the SMTP proword. 73, Rick, KV9U
