[mailto:j...@princeton.edu]
Sent: Sunday, 25 February 2018 12:09 p.m.
To: WSJT software development <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] extended CALL, FT8 spare bit
On 2/20/2018 4:23 PM, g...@isect.com ZL2IFB wrote:
> I noticed that /M and /MM are missing from the
On 2/20/2018 4:23 PM, g...@isect.com ZL2IFB wrote:
I noticed that /M and /MM are missing from the "Short-list of Add-on
Suffixes" under the Help menu: is that just a little error on the help text
or a genuine (if surprising) omission from the list?
I'm puzzled because I worked a /MM station
Re: [wsjt-devel] extended CALL, FT8 spare bit
Itzok --
On 2/19/2018 11:56 PM, Iztok Saje S52D wrote:
> Z6 is not (yet) on the list of 330 valid prefixes (prefixes.txt), as
> it is rather new.
Your comment seems to indicate a serious misunderstanding about the way
standard callsigns
Itzok --
On 2/19/2018 11:56 PM, Iztok Saje S52D wrote:
Z6 is not (yet) on the list of 330 valid prefixes (prefixes.txt), as it
is rather new.
Your comment seems to indicate a serious misunderstanding about the way
standard callsigns and compound callsigns are handled in the structured
Hi Bill,
Z6 is not (yet) on the list of 330 valid prefixes (prefixes.txt), as it is
rather new.
For numeric: Indeed. As numeric length is reasonable long,
we might say "replace last numeric characters", then G4 becomes G250,
and S52D becomes S5000D if needed.
Using two bits for position is
On 20/02/2018 00:38, Laurie, VK3AMA wrote:
On 19/02/2018 8:35 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
I am confused about what he issue with the above Z6/S56A callsign is
as that is a valid type 2 prefix compound callsign and should be
handled reasonably well by the existing source encoding.
Bill,
I
On 19/02/2018 8:35 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
I am confused about what he issue with the above Z6/S56A callsign is
as that is a valid type 2 prefix compound callsign and should be
handled reasonably well by the existing source encoding.
Bill,
I wonder if the OP was referring JTDX rather
On 18/02/2018 21:16, Iztok Saje wrote:
Z6/S56A had some nice stories, I guess some people who managed QSO do
not even know they have Z6 worked.
Hi Iztok,
your proposal looks interesting and using one or more of the extra FT8
payload bits for better exotic callsign handling has been
Hello!
With FT8 avalanche on shortwave, we are facing more and more problems with
CALLs that can not be encoded in JT65/FT8 etc.
Z6/S56A had some nice stories, I guess some people who managed QSO do not even
know they have Z6 worked.
I am not sure have I worked RI1ANO or RI150ANO? I put both
