The issue I have raised NOT whether we should LOCK TX/RX or HOLD TX. There
is actually no way to stop the locking of TX/RX so it is not a matter of
whether people will change or not.
The issue is the way you now have to LOCK TX/RX. It requires a 2 hand
operation and there are those of us who do not have 2 functioning hands.
In an ideal world we should/could have a simple button to select either
providing the freedom for the user to choose which method they wish.
Regards
Dave
M6RUG
From: David Fisher [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 18 October 2017 21:08
To: WSJT software development <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT 1.8.0 RC3
My concern with all of this is not the change, but how to get the FT8 users
to change. Habits have already formed. I'm wondering if we should push
harder by inverting the defaults so that a fixed TX frequency is the
default, and allowing it to move has to be enabled. In the words of our new
Laureate in Economics, give a "Nudge".
Dave / NX6D
_____
From: Ria Jairam <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:50:35 PM
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT 1.8.0 RC3
I have to agree that I like the new way of operating with rc3 rather
than the old.
I have had many start up CQing on my frequency because the software
caused them to do so. They work me, then they figure they would start
CQing because hey, there's DX on the band. Right on top of me because
both RX and TX moved.
With this NEW behavior you basically have your own TX slot. Everyone
should be monitoring the entire band and then the software picks up
when someone calls you.
One handed operation can be accomplished by clicking where you want to
go, then click TX-> RX. Not super complicated...
73
Ria, N2RJ
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Bill Somerville <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
> On 18/10/2017 16:23, Gary McDuffie wrote:
>>
>> If everyone were to split, only half the number of stations would fit in
a
>> given bandwidth.
>
>
> Hi Gary,
>
> that is incorrect. Given N slots there are N possible QSOs, there is no
> reason for any QSO to have both partners on the same frequency. Having
both
> parties to a QSO on the same frequency is conceptually simpler but in
theory
> one party may have QRM from half of another QSO or local QRN, in that case
> moving improves the number of successful QSOs overall.
>
> 73
> Bill
> G4WJS.
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
