Hi Jon and Paul,
I repeated the situation using my audio link, but could not repeat the
misbehavior
from V2.5.4 to V2.6.1 or other way round.
The slashed callsign is hashed completely so that cannot be the reason either.
I still stand my opinion that it is an operator action, hi!
73, Reino
I would not be surprised if only the main call is used to compute the hash.
Then this admittedly rare and apparently unforseen case, the same main call
being used by multiple different stations at the same time,
distinguished only by their slash "decoration", arises. Result: collisions
among W1AW
I guess it isn't shown in that screenshot, but after I worked W1AW/0 (when
I was calling W1AW/7), W1AW/0 called CQ, I called W1AW/7 again and W1AW/0
answered me, and I suspect it was the software answering thinking I was
calling 0.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 6:23 PM Jon Anhold wrote:
> I'm pretty
I'm pretty sure, although I can't know for certain, that W1AW/0's WSJT-X
auto seq answered me after his CQ when I was calling W1AW/7.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 4:42 PM Reino Talarmo via wsjt-devel <
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> Hi Jon,
>
> I don’t see any hash collision in those
Possible bug in 2.6.1 (MacOS)
Regardless of the status of the “Hold TX” checkbox, transmit frequency stays
locked. This can lead to calling your next contact of the previous one’s
frequency.
George J Molnar
College Park, Maryland
KF2TFM19ma
___
I had the same thing happen - as if the hash is the same for both /0 and /7, so
they both respond.
George J Molnar, KF2T
FM19ma - Maryland, USA
> On Jan 20, 2023, at 3:56 PM, Jon Anhold via wsjt-devel
> wrote:
>
> I was just on 20m trying to work W1AW/7, and W1AW/0 answered me, twice
Hi Jon,
I don’t see any hash collision in those messages. You should ask what W1WW/0
did? Perhaps operator was waiting a “73” from your, but you sent one to W1WW/3
and W1WW/0 decided to send you a new report. I don’t know whether that station
received your message at 205445 as you changed it
I was just on 20m trying to work W1AW/7, and W1AW/0 answered me, twice - is
this a known issue with longer/hashed callsigns?
[image: image.png]
73 de KM8V Jon
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Packages are built and working their way into the repo.
F37: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-cdac6441cd
F36: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-3877f14b73
Currently they are in the "pending" state but once they hit testing they
can be installed:
$ sudo dnf
Thu, 19 Jan 2023 12:43:28 -0600
Richard Shaw via wsjt-devel
kirjoitti:
> Yes, and had a few other things I've been working on. I maintain
> about 150 packages between Fedora and RPM Fusion :)
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
> KF5OIM
No worry, we have time to wait, as said compiled
and working with
10 matches
Mail list logo
