Hi Core Developer Team,
For some time now I have been seeking guidance with patches for the Windows
JTSDK 3.1 x64 with respect to upgrading Windows CMAKE to a more contemporary
version found on many Linux distros (i.e. v3.14.4 is delivered in Greg KI7MT’s
original files; v3.18.2 is the current
Hi All,
Interesting discussion, but it may be time to drew conclusions on the WSJT-X
features point of view.
1. WSJT-X main target is to improve weak signal communication (minimum)
information exchange.
2. WSJT-X automatic sequencing should help user make QSOs, when protocol
*From: *Paul Randall
*Reply-To: *WSJT software development
*Date: *Wednesday, August 19, 2020 at 3:17 PM
*To: *WSJT software development
*Subject: *Re: [wsjt-devel] r2.2.2 Minor Issue with "short" calls that
use DX
*[External Email]*
Actually, NO.
I've asked stupid questions on
August 2020 8:38 AM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] r2.2.2 Minor Issue with "short" calls that use DX
PLS QSY to PM for any chat or popcorn you must have; I believe this channel
already in use for software development.
TKS 73s
Fro
y-To: WSJT software development
Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 at 3:17 PM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] r2.2.2 Minor Issue with "short" calls that use DX
[External Email]
Actually, NO.
I've asked stupid questions on here, been pointed at the answer elsewhere an
, 2020 at 3:17 PM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] r2.2.2 Minor Issue with "short" calls that use DX
[External Email]
Actually, NO.
I've asked stupid questions on here, been pointed at the answer elsewhere and
regretted my lack of "go find it".
What I
rejoice in asking questions, but
> please re-consider the bandwidth you are occupying, is it appropriate or
> perhaps better elsewhere?
>
> My 2p worth
>
> Paul G3NJV
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* Carey Fisher
> *Sent:* 19 August 2020 20:36
> *T
g questions, but please
re-consider the bandwidth you are occupying, is it appropriate or perhaps
better elsewhere?
My 2p worth
Paul G3NJV
From: Carey Fisher
Sent: 19 August 2020 20:36
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] r2.2.2
I find the discussion interesting.
73, Carey, WB4HXE
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:42 PM Gary McDuffie wrote:
>
> > On Aug 19, 2020, at 02:21, Stephen VK3SIR wrote:
> >
> >
> >
>
> On Aug 19, 2020, at 02:21, Stephen VK3SIR wrote:
>
>
> --
>
> Why has the stream been decoded (good) and the logic allowed it to be
> identified – displayed - as coming
Claude,
Excellent suggestion. Your method set here at the point of display is the most
efficient and generalist - but will prevent some non-standard but valid calls
getting through. That will help me with some other projects I am working on so
I cannot thank you enough ! For this project,
On 8/19/20 4:12 PM, Neil Zampella wrote:
The logic would need to be able to
distinguish between a valid callsign, and something that LOOKS like a
valid callsign but isn't.
As I have mentioned previously, I'm using the following regex test in perl:
if ( $hash{"CALL"} =~
Since Tx5 is can be used for "Free Text", adding any sort of 'callsign
check' would be hard to implement as anything can, and often is entered
into that message box. The logic would need to be able to
distinguish between a valid callsign, and something that LOOKS like a
valid callsign but
Frode,
All is extremely good and productive; it has been an invigorating and
enlightening discussion. Most of the discussion has been within the Spirit of
HAM – Help All Mankind. ☺
All I have done is have a look at code … and taken a brief look “into the
crystal ball” knowing that “to every
Steve,
My apologies that I hadn't noticed that Reino had already explained the
invalid call sign. I should have read all the messages this morning before
I responded to your e-mail.
I guess that we may wish that the WSJT-X algorithm for identifying the DXCC
entity should have had a checkpoint
Frode and The Community-at-large,
Yes its invalid – the discussion has clearly identified that and I suspected
that at the first post. The community has done a great job in clarifying this
not only just for me but also lots of others.
No more discussion needed on that subject of the callsign
qrz.com/db/n7c ) is a VERY valid and sought after call. I was
> able to make contact with that station but not this one !
>
>
>
> 73
>
>
>
> Steve I
>
> VK3VM / Vk3SIR
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Frode Igland
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 18 August 2020 9:08 PM
> *To:*
/ VK3SIR
From: Patrick 9A5CW
Sent: Wednesday, 19 August 2020 4:32 AM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] r2.2.2 Minor Issue with "short" calls that use DX
Hi all and Steve,
It took me 5 seconds or less to solve a partial callsign. As an HF+6m and UP
contester and D
g. I also bite-back at ignorance and
>> intolerance. The bullies should be bitten.
>>
>>
>>
>> HAM – help All Mankind. This discussion has helped me and others so
>> thanks to all – especially with the exact references in the docs that I
>> profess to not have been
Hi All,
The key issue is that the 5CT call sign does not fit with the source coding of
call signs. The third character needs to be a number. The 'third' is seen as
second in call signs commencing with K, G etc. as then the first one marked to
be empty. See Protocol specifications at 17.1. of
is discussion has helped me and others so thanks
> to all – especially with the exact references in the docs that I profess to
> not have been able to put my fingers on immediately.
>
>
>
> 73
>
>
>
> Steve I
>
> VK3VM / VK3SIR
>
>
>
> *From:* Enric
I suspect its due more to the fact that he was using the Tx5 message
with its 13 character limit, and not the Tx6 which allows the addition
of up to 4 characters between the 'CQ' and the callsign, and will also
include the full 4 character grid in the transmission.
Neil, KN3ILZ
On 8/18/2020
he email! ]
From: Patrick 9A5CW mailto:pat.9a...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, 18 August 2020 7:35 PM
To: WSJT software development
mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>>
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] r2.2.2 Minor Issue with "short" calls that use DX
Hi,
Nothing wrong with a call
t: Tuesday, 18 August 2020 7:35 PM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] r2.2.2 Minor Issue with "short" calls that use DX
Hi,
Nothing wrong with a call ;)
It is F5CT in JN08.
He probably messed up his setup in WSJT-X or any other similar probl
: WSJT software development mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> >
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] r2.2.2 Minor Issue with "short" calls that use DX
Steve, I guess that your statement "WSJT-X will not pick up this call" means
that WSJT-X will not automatically enter th
development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] r2.2.2 Minor Issue with "short" calls that use DX
Hi,
Nothing wrong with a call ;)
It is F5CT in JN08.
He probably messed up his setup in WSJT-X or any other similar problem.
Best regards and RR73 9A5CW
uto, 18. kol 2020. 10:05 Stephen VK3SIR
station but not this
> one !
>
> 73
>
> Steve I
> VK3VM / Vk3SIR
>
>
> From: Frode Igland mailto:frodeigla...@gmail.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 August 2020 9:08 PM
> To: WSJT software development <mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] r2.2.2 Minor Issue with "short" calls that use DX
Steve, I guess that your statement "WSJT-X will not pick up this call" means
that WSJT-X will not automatically enter this call into the "DX Call" field,
nor the locator into the
Steve, I guess that your statement "WSJT-X will not pick up this call"
means that WSJT-X will not *automatically *enter this call into the "DX
Call" field, nor the locator into the "DX Grid" field. That is true, but
WSJT-X will certainly pick up the call and grid as decoded if you enter it
----Original Message-----
> From: 5p1kzx Michael <5p1...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 August 2020 5:35 PM
> To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] r2.2.2 Minor Issue with "short" calls that use DX
>
> Hi Steve
>
> I don't think that 5
Tuesday, 18 August 2020 5:35 PM
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] r2.2.2 Minor Issue with "short" calls that use DX
Hi Steve
I don't think that 5CT is a valid callsign. A search on the Internet gave no
result.
73 de Michael 5p1kzx
Den 18-08-2020 kl. 08:06 s
Hi Steve
I don't think that 5CT is a valid callsign. A search on the Internet
gave no result.
73 de Michael 5p1kzx
Den 18-08-2020 kl. 08:06 skrev Stephen VK3SIR:
Hi Folks,
I am unsure whether this has been reported:
30m:
055130 -11 0.2 1626 ~ CQ CO8LY FL20 Cuba
055130 -17 0.3
Hi Folks,
I am unsure whether this has been reported:
30m:
055130 -11 0.2 1626 ~ CQ CO8LY FL20 Cuba
055130 -17 0.3 1342 ~ R3BV F1LYV RR73
055130 -19 0.3 618 ~ CQ DX 5CT JN0 Morocco <-- Will not allow this to
be picked this up
055200 -12 0.2 1627 ~ CQ CO8LY FL20 Cuba
33 matches
Mail list logo
