Hi all,
I was interrupted late this afternoon just after committing r7654-76656,
and did not finish all the necessary additions. CMake of the full devel
branch will fail until tomorrow morning, when I will bring the
repository back into a self-consistent state.
For now, you can build from rev
On 27/04/2017 23:30, Rex Moncur wrote:
Not sure if it is relevant to what Michael is doing but JT4f and QRA64
use messages of the form Call+Call+signal report rather than OOO and
RO style signal reports.
HI Rex,
Mike is trying to unify the code programs which have a -t option to
test a s
Hi Michael and Bill
The meaning of the single tones for JT4 are as follows:
1000 Hz = tune
1250 Hz = please send messages
1500 Hz = RRR
1750 Hz = 73
Joe still intends to provide the same single tone messages for QRA64 as they
are about 4 dB easier to detect than the QRA64 progressive
On Fedora Core 25, x86_64
Same result for make or (make clean; make)
/home/josh/Downloads/wsjtx_src/lib/fsk4hf/cpolyfitw.f90:3: Error: Can't
open included file 'wsprlf_params.f90'
CMakeFiles/wsjt_fort.dir/build.make:1118: recipe for target
'CMakeFiles/wsjt_fort.dir/lib/fsk4hf/cpolyfitw.f90.o' fa
On 27/04/2017 20:15, Black Michael wrote:
So sounds like JT4 need the same added messages as JT65/JT9
Hi Mike,
no I don't think so. JT4 uses single tones for the "short codes", they
are not generated by the message encoding routines but synthesized
directly by the Modulator class. Otherwise
Looks like a file didn't get checked in
Building Fortran object
CMakeFiles/wsjt_fort_omp.dir/lib/fsk4hf/getfc1w.f90.objC:\JTSDK\src\wsjtx\lib\fsk4hf\getfc1w.f90:3:
Error: Can't open included file
'wsprlf_params.f90'CMakeFiles\wsjt_fort_omp.dir\build.make:1750: recipe for
target 'CMakeFiles/
Just trying to confirm what set/subset of messages each of these should have.
I wanted to include the same "expected" results in all of them and wanted to
know if any added messages should be added to any of them
So sounds like JT4 need the same added messages as JT65/JT9. MSK144 and QRA64
are
On 27/04/2017 17:14, Black Michael wrote:
I'd like to make all the "code" testers do what they are capable of or
expected to do and agree where possible.
Hi Mike,
I'm not quite sure what you are asking here? All the protocols in WSJT-X
except ISCAT use a similar, but not exactly the same, me
I'd like to make all the "code" testers do what they are capable of or expected
to do and agree where possible.
There's a difference between some in the additional messages they test.
#1 Should the JT65/JT9 messages be tested elsewhere?#2 Should the MSK144
messages be tested elsewhere?
JT65/JT9
