Double click on a spot doesn't change frequency on the RTX
For some time now, double clicking on a spot (Spot Collector) doesn't change the frequency of the RTX connected via CAT.
Sometimes after 5 or 6 mouse clicks the frequency finally changes but not always.
Until some time ago this did not happen and by clicking on each spot the radio immediately QSY.
?
The strange thing is that if I use the QSY function in the menu (using the right mouse button), the Rtx immediately switches to the correct frequency of the spot. Instantly
I use a PC with Windows 10 and all DX Lab applications updated to the latest versions.
I tried to search through the settings windows to see if there was an item to activate but without luck.
?
Note: DX Lab Commander manages 3 devices (Multiradio) and the problem is present on both radios (1 Icom and 2 Yaesu).
?
Thank you in advance to anyone who wants to give me some suggestions on where to investigate.
?
73, IZ4MJP Franco
|
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW
+ AA6YQ comments below
The big issue is the obsolete software used for the DXCC records.
The DXCC records are maintained on a legacy FoxPro database that
will only run on Windows 95 (97?) and earlier. ARRL have only
one computer that will run that orphaned operating system and
it has no available (up to date) anti-virus and/or firewall for
that OS.
As such, the DXCC records can no longer reside on the ARRL LAN
and automatic data transfer from Online DXCC ("Easy DXCC") and
LotW ... in addition automatic data (status) transfer to LotW is
not possible. Data from Online DXCC/LotW must be batch exported
to portable media, that media must be virus checked on a stand
alone computer before being loaded (and processed) one application
at a time on the DXCC system. Periodically, updated user records
are exported to portable media from the DXCC system, virus checked
on the stand alone system and imported to LotW to update user
records there.
Obviously, there are several "choke points" in the current system
and increased opportunity for data entry errors (like tagging
LotW credits as card credits) ... as well as delays due to the
batch export/validate/import ... export/validate/update processes.
+ Recall that just as the extension of LoTW to support WAZ was wrapping up in early 2018, ARRL management re-assigned the two developers that had been dedicated to LoTW to "higher priority tasks". One task was the deployment of the off-the-shelf Personify association management software package, whose stated objective was to enable ARRL members to renew, shop, and donate in a single transaction; that took another 4 years to accomplish. The other higher priority task was an internal effort to re-implement the DXCC system, which failed outright. + I was not aware that the ARRL's solution to the "FoxPro on Windows 95" problem was a sneaker-net connection between the DXCC system and LoTW. ? ? 73, ? ? ? ? ? ? Dave, AA6YQ
|
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW
On 2025-03-29 3:59 PM, Richard Hill via groups.io wrote: Note that LotW is not updating their status regarding progress on
emptying the backlog. Based on postings on the ARRL-LotW list, the backlog (processing delay) for DXCC awards is slowly coming down. It seems to have fallen from about six weeks in late February to around three weeks currently. The big issue is the obsolete software used for the DXCC records. The DXCC records are maintained on a legacy FoxPro database that will only run on Windows 95 (97?) and earlier. ARRL have only one computer that will run that orphaned operating system and it has no available (up to date) anti-virus and/or firewall for that OS. As such, the DXCC records can no longer reside on the ARRL LAN and automatic data transfer from Online DXCC ("Easy DXCC") and LotW ... in addition automatic data (status) transfer to LotW is not possible. Data from Online DXCC/LotW must be batch exported to portable media, that media must be virus checked on a stand alone computer before being loaded (and processed) one application at a time on the DXCC system. Periodically, updated user records are exported to portable media from the DXCC system, virus checked on the stand alone system and imported to LotW to update user records there. Obviously, there are several "choke points" in the current system and increased opportunity for data entry errors (like tagging LotW credits as card credits) ... as well as delays due to the batch export/validate/import ... export/validate/update processes. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2025-03-29 3:59 PM, Richard Hill via groups.io wrote: I had a problem with needed QSLs for WAZ being confirmed in LotW DXCC but
not credited under the WAZ Award. I informed LotW of the issue and their
response was basically, LotW is not perfect. N4BAA, WAZ awards manager,
was able to fix the issues in LotW and confirmed my WAZ.
I'd recommend not waiting too long. I doubt that problems will be fixed
without specific fix-it tickets for some time. Note that LotW is not
updating their status regarding progress on emptying the backlog. I
believe they are doing their best and I'm grateful that my little issue was
fixed for the moment, I have more for them. I need to make a new
application, and fix my status in LotW. My three year dues were not
recognized by LotW.
Submit now, worry later, grin!
Rich, NU6T
On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 12:46?PM Stan Gammons via groups.io <buttercup11421=
[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Dave,
Sorry to throw you in to the middle of this, Rick. Bj?rn, Stan, and
Salvatore: I don't have contact information for Jon Bloom; you'll probably
have to reach him via the LoTW Help Desk, as he requested: LoTW-help (at)
<LoTW-help@...>
Not a problem Dave. I think what I sent you off list is proof there’s a
problem. I’ll do what I can to help get it sorted out.
73
Stan
KM4HQE
|
I've learned much about monitors and graphics cards, and my ignorance remains vast, grin.? I've decided to try my existing system with a 2K, QHD, 1440p wide monitor, and go up from there as needed.? I'll report more later.
I chose to take a too good Amazon deal for $200 on a Spring sale after seeing a very similar model at Best Buy for $280:
I'm passing this along should others have an interest.??
I may later decide that I need a second small monitor for maps.? I have a 16" portable monitor that may work.? YMMV.
73 Rich, NU6T --
|
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW
I had a problem with needed QSLs for WAZ being confirmed? in LotW DXCC but not credited under the WAZ Award.? I informed LotW of the issue and their response?was basically, LotW is not perfect.? N4BAA, WAZ awards manager, was able to fix the issues in LotW and confirmed my WAZ.
I'd recommend not waiting too long.? I doubt that problems will be fixed without specific fix-it tickets for some time.? Note that LotW is not updating their status regarding progress on emptying the backlog.? I believe they are doing their best and I'm grateful that?my?little issue?was fixed for?the?moment,?I?have more for them.? I need to make a new application, and fix my status in LotW.? My three year dues were not recognized by LotW.
Submit now, worry later, grin!
Rich, NU6T On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 12:46?PM Stan Gammons via <buttercup11421= [email protected]> wrote:
Hi Dave,
Sorry to throw you in to the middle of this, Rick.? Bj?rn, Stan, and Salvatore: I don't have contact information for Jon Bloom; you'll probably have to reach him via the LoTW Help Desk, as he requested:
LoTW-help (at)?
Not a problem Dave.? I think what I sent you off list is proof there’s a problem.? I’ll do what I can to help get it sorted out.
73
Stan
--
|
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW
Hi Dave,
Sorry to throw you in to the middle of this, Rick. ?Bj?rn, Stan, and Salvatore: I don't have contact information for Jon Bloom; you'll probably have to reach him via the LoTW Help Desk, as he requested:
LoTW-help (at)?
Not a problem Dave. ?I think what I sent you off list is proof there’s a problem. ?I’ll do what I can to help get it sorted out.
73
Stan
|
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW
hello, Dave: I don't have contact information for Jon Bloom; you'll probably have
to reach him via the LoTW Help Desk, as he requested:
LoTW-help (at) arrl.org while I thank you for your interest in this problem, I think that I will pause for a while my first DXCC submission using LoTW confirmations, awaiting further developments on this issue. I don't know if new "first" submissions could be affected by this issue (I've never made one before, so I don't have any credit yet), but I feel it's better to wait on the river bank... 73 de Salvatore (I4FYV)
|
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW
Since I am banned from posting to the ARRL-LoTW online group, but knowing that ARRL CEO NA2AA religiously monitors the "My ARRL Voice" Group on Facebook, I posted this message there yesterday: "NA2AA: Since you banned me from the ARRL-LoTW online group for no reason other than my public opposition to your announced LoTW 2.0 plan - which New England Director AB1OC reported was subsequently cancelled because the ARRL couldn't afford it - I'll use this communications channel, which your ex-subordinates report that you carefully monitor, to inform you that the ARRL's DXCC system and LoTW are reporting inconsistent status for QSOs to which DXCC award credit has been granted. "Sure enough, Jon Bloom responded there today: "I don't believe this is generally true, but there may be particular records that aren't in sync. If you know of specific cases where LoTW users' DXCC records aren't displaying correctly, those should be reported to the LoTW help desk for action. Reporting that the system is "reporting inconsistent status" without any specific detail won't get you far."In response, I posted: "Well hello, Jon.For those who don't know Jon, he's ex-KE3Z - the developer who publicly released LoTW in 2003 with little testing and no user-oriented documentation. It crashed frequently with obscure error messages; its measured availability was less than 90%. Instead of focusing on improving reliability and usability, he instead added functionality: support for WPX and "Triple Play". By November 2012, LoTW ground to a halt, unable to make forward progress -- the result of a longstanding defect that a trivial stress test would have revealed years earlier.From your response to my post, Jon, it's clear that you've learned nothing since then. Are you aware that in 2013, the ARRL Board was persuaded to approve the acquisition of a second hardware instance so that modifications to LoTW could be tested before being publicly released? Your acknowledgement that "there may be particular records that aren't in sync" makes it clear that you failed to test your changes. Again.Not only has there been no improvement in LoTW's usability and functionality since 2018, you're now reversing the LoTW development team's hard-won gains in reliability - back when there was a competent LoTW development team.Were I able to post on the ARRL-LoTW group, I would of course have provided details and examples. You can get them from K1MU, who monitors the online group in which they were reported."Sorry to throw you in to the middle of this, Rick. ?Bj?rn, Stan, and Salvatore: I don't have contact information for Jon Bloom; you'll probably have to reach him via the LoTW Help Desk, as he requested: LoTW-help (at) arrl.orgDuring my 50+ years in the computer hardware and software design business, there have only been two situations in which I was part of? a team that worked flat out to accomplish a difficult technical objective, only to have defeat be grasped from the jaws of victory. The first was documented by Tracy Kidder in "Soul of a New Machine"; the second was the ARRL-LoTW team's attempt to salvage LoTW from 2012-2018. I'll never forget either of them... ? ? ? 73, ? ? ? ? ? ?Dave, AA6YQ
|
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW
From what I can see, all the LOTW QSL i submitted and got credit for a month ago are correct.
The only "error" is that submission is listed as a card submission in my application history.
In my case it seems only the LOTW QSL that were credited during the restoration? period (that is, last fall) have incorrect credits when downloaded.?
Bj?rn SM7IUN On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 2:33?PM Salvatore Besso via <salvatore.besso= [email protected]> wrote:
hello,
?> This is hard evidence of a breakdown in the interface between
?> the ARRL's DXCC system and LoTW - probably caused by whatever
?> was done to salvage the DXCC system after last May's "ARRL
?> system disruption
Dave, what is your suggestion, since I was going to prepare my first
submission with LoTW confirmations for now. Could it be risky?
Thank you.
73 de
Salvatore (I4FYV)
|
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW
+ AA6YQ comments below
> This is hard evidence of a breakdown in the interface between > the ARRL's DXCC system and LoTW - probably caused by whatever > was done to salvage the DXCC system after last May's "ARRL > system disruption
Dave, what is your suggestion, since I was going to prepare my first submission with LoTW confirmations for now. Could it be risky?
+ I don't know what the developer(s) working on LoTW have done, are doing, or will do. The evidence so far is that some QSOs confirmed by LoTW, included in a DXCC submission, granted DXCC award credit, and displayed in your DXCC record as "award credit granted" are reported by LoTW via its "lotwreport.adi" web service as "confirmed, DXCC award credit not granted".
+ This is not the case for all LoTW-confirmed QSOs meeting those criteria.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
|
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW
hello, This is hard evidence of a breakdown in the interface between
the ARRL's DXCC system and LoTW - probably caused by whatever
was done to salvage the DXCC system after last May's "ARRL
system disruption Dave, what is your suggestion, since I was going to prepare my first submission with LoTW confirmations for now. Could it be risky? Thank you. 73 de Salvatore (I4FYV)
|
Re: Column order in Spot Collector main window
Thanks Dave, I'll have a look and make it's all set up correctly to prevent recurrence.? SC appears to be working OK - spots have streamed in since this morning.
?
73,
?
Mike VK2IG
|
Re: Column order in Spot Collector main window
Thanks Tom, most helpful - columns are now arranged in preferred order!
?
73,
?
Mike VK2IG
|
Re: Column order in Spot Collector main window
Recently started using Spot Collector, and am pleased report that it has already helped collect a few band-specific "new ones".
Had a bit of a scare though, LOL - hadn't run it for a few days and yesterday evening and today it wouldn't display any new spots ... which was a bit surprising today given it's the CQ-WPX-SSB weekend. Read various threads on here and went through the suggested troubleshooting steps, but couldn't fix it. Read the error log, which said "program error 3049 in module SpotDatabaseModule.RecordSpot with state = 371: Cannot open database ''. It may not be a database that your application recognizes, or the file may be corrupt" - found the database had grown to 2GB (!) and telling the app to prune the database and compact it (in the Spot Database tab's Size Control panel) ... now the database is only 6MB and spots are coming in. Just thought I'd share that in case someone runs into a similar issue.
+ I would assume that you Spot Database has been corrupted. To correct this,
1. terminate SpotCollector
2. in SpotCollector's Databases folder, delete the file Spots.mdb
3. review
+ and the "Size of the Spot Database" section of
4. start SpotCollector
5. configure SpotCollector to limit the size of its Spot Database to a reasonable value, based on what you learned in step 3
6. if you haven't reviewed it already, the first section of
+ will be helpful
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
|
Re: Column order in Spot Collector main window
Hi Mike,
"To change the order of columns in the Spot Database Display, click on the caption of a column you wish to relocate. Then click-and-drag the column until the two red positioning triangles indicate the desired new location."
See:
73
Tom
|
Column order in Spot Collector main window
Hi all,
?
Recently started using Spot Collector, and am pleased report that it has already helped collect a few band-specific "new ones".
?
Had a bit of a scare though, LOL - hadn't run it for a few days and yesterday evening and today it wouldn't display any new spots ... which was a bit surprising today given it's the CQ-WPX-SSB weekend.? Read various threads on here and went through the suggested troubleshooting steps, but couldn't fix it.? Read the error log, which said "program error 3049 in module SpotDatabaseModule.RecordSpot with state = 371: Cannot open database ''. ?It may not be a database that your application recognizes, or the file may be corrupt" - found the database had grown to 2GB (!) and telling the app to prune the database and compact it (in the Spot Database tab's Size Control panel) ... now the database is only 6MB and spots are coming in.? Just thought I'd share that in case someone runs into a similar issue.
?
Anyway, my question is unrelated to that.? I have trimmed the number of columns in the main window down to the few I need, but the order they appear in is fixed.? Is there some way of re-ordering them so that, for example, I have the "DXCCPrefix" column first on the left, then the "Callsign" column, then the "Frequency", etc?
?
73,
?
Mike VK2IG
|
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW
I had a similar problem with the DXKeeper numbers and LoTW numbers
not matching and talked to Dave about it off list. Compare showed
this. These were cards I had checked.
KM4HQE DXCC Verification Discrepancies 28-Mar-2025
Log file???? = C:\DXLab\DXKeeper\Databases\KM4HQE.mdb
DXCC Account = Stan Gammons, KM4HQE
??? Entity Prefix???? Band or Mode???? Log Status??? ARRL Status???
Entity Code?? Entity
?????????????? 4S????????????? 30m????????????? C?????????????
V??????????? 315?? Sri Lanka
?????????????? 4S????????????? 17m????????????? C?????????????
V??????????? 315?? Sri Lanka
?????????????? 4S????????????? 15m????????????? C?????????????
V??????????? 315?? Sri Lanka
???????????? SV-A????????????? 40m????????????? C?????????????
V??????????? 180?? Mount Athos
???????????? SV-A????????? Digital????????????? C?????????????
V??????????? 180?? Mount Athos
???????????? SV-A??????????? Mixed????????????? C?????????????
V??????????? 180?? Mount Athos
I "think" I fixed it after I changed LoTW rcvd from C to V.?
DXKeeper numbers and LoTW numbers match now and compare shows no
discrepancies.? I'm good with that.
73
Stan
KM4HQE
On 3/28/25 00:46, Bj?rn SM7IUN wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
The problem I am trying to solve is to make QSO
representing verified DXCC credits?
have a "V" QSL or LOTW received status rather than the
incorrect "C" that I now see?
for a number of QSO.
The QSL/LOTW received status is shown in the mode/band
matrix in DXView and in the?
QSL/Online QSL sections in DXKeeper.
Thank you for the tip about Compare. When I click it I get
a list of 51 QSO.?
For years I have been relying on Ctrl-clicking the Sync
LoTW QSLs button after?
applying for DXCC credits. From what I have seen, the QSO
representing credited?
DXCC award points have then switched from C to V. Now, with
the "problem QSO",?
this does not happen. They stay C. In the LOTW web
interface, these QSO look like?
card QSL when opened in the DXCC challenge credit tab but
like a LOTW QSL when?
opened in the QSO or Application tabs. This must simply be
a LOTW bug.?
Using the Credits function in DXKeeper's?Check progress tab
I was able to repair my situation.
Since the problem QSO credits only has a date and a mode,
they were not automatically linked?
to QSO but I could do this manually.
Now the question is - if I Ctrl-click the Sync LOTW QSL
button next time I apply for credits, will the?
status of these QSO be reverted to C?
Bj?rn SM7IUN
On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at
1:05?AM Chuck, KM3V via
<chuck.hartley= [email protected]>
wrote:
Hi
Bj?rn
I'm not what the problem is you are trying to solve?? Is it
that your DXCC Challenge numbers shown on LOTW don't match
what is reported in in your DXCC report in DXKeeper?? If so,
you should use the 'Compare' button in the DXCC progress
section of DXK as a starting point.
Also what is the "the DXView matrix" you are referring to?
73, Chuck KM3V
|
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW
+ AA6YQ comments below
The problem I am trying to solve is to make QSO representing verified DXCC credits?
have a "V" QSL or LOTW received status rather than the incorrect "C" that I now see?
for a number of QSO.
?
The QSL/LOTW received status is shown in the mode/band matrix in DXView and in the?
QSL/Online QSL sections in DXKeeper.
?
Thank you for the tip about Compare. When I click it I get a list of 51 QSO.?
?
For years I have been relying on Ctrl-clicking the Sync LoTW QSLs button after?
applying for DXCC credits. From what I have seen, the QSO representing credited?
DXCC award points have then switched from C to V. Now, with the "problem QSO",?
this does not happen. They stay C. In the LOTW web interface, these QSO look like?
card QSL when opened in the DXCC challenge credit tab but like a LOTW QSL when?
opened in the QSO or Application tabs. This must simply be a LOTW bug.?
?
Using the Credits function in DXKeeper's?Check progress tab I was able to repair my situation.
Since the problem QSO credits only has a date and a mode, they were not automatically linked?
to QSO but I could do this manually.
?
Now the question is - if I Ctrl-click the Sync LOTW QSL button next time I apply for credits, will the?
status of these QSO be reverted to C?
+ I asked Bj?rn to invoke "Update from LoTW" on one of his QSOs that LoTW is shown in his online DXCC status as "DXCC credit granted", and then send me the resulting ADIF file. That file shows that DXCC Credit has not been granted.
+ This is hard evidence of a breakdown in the interface between the the ARRL's DXCC system and LoTW - probably caused by whatever was done to salvage the DXCC system after last May's "ARRL system disruption". I can't report this because the ARRL CEO has banned me from the ARRL-LoTW online group for no reason other than my public opposition to his public plan to redesign LoTW 2.0 from scratch - a project that was subsequently cancelled as unaffordable. Thus someone else will have to explain this to the ARRL. + Anyone else encountering discrepancies between DXCC credits reported in their DXCC account and DXCC credits reported by LoTW should assume the same root cause. ? ? ? ?73, ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Dave, AA6YQ
|
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW
The problem I am trying to solve is to make QSO representing verified DXCC credits? have a "V" QSL or LOTW received status rather than the incorrect "C" that I now see? for a number of QSO.
The QSL/LOTW received status is shown in the mode/band matrix in DXView and in the? QSL/Online QSL sections in DXKeeper.
Thank you for the tip about Compare. When I click it I get a list of 51 QSO.?
For years I have been relying on Ctrl-clicking the Sync LoTW QSLs button after? applying for DXCC credits. From what I have seen, the QSO representing credited? DXCC award points have then switched from C to V. Now, with the "problem QSO",? this does not happen. They stay C. In the LOTW web interface, these QSO look like? card QSL when opened in the DXCC challenge credit tab but like a LOTW QSL when? opened in the QSO or Application tabs. This must simply be a LOTW bug.?
Using the Credits function in DXKeeper's?Check progress tab I was able to repair my situation. Since the problem QSO credits only has a date and a mode, they were not automatically linked? to QSO but I could do this manually.
Now the question is - if I Ctrl-click the Sync LOTW QSL button next time I apply for credits, will the? status of these QSO be reverted to C?
Bj?rn SM7IUN
On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 1:05?AM Chuck, KM3V via <chuck.hartley= [email protected]> wrote: Hi Bj?rn
I'm not what the problem is you are trying to solve?? Is it that your DXCC Challenge numbers shown on LOTW don't match what is reported in in your DXCC report in DXKeeper?? If so, you should use the 'Compare' button in the DXCC progress section of DXK as a starting point.
Also what is the "the DXView matrix" you are referring to?
73, Chuck KM3V
|
Re: Tom NY4I is the new steward of the N1MM-DXKeeper Gateway
Thanks Tom!
I have SDR-Control on my phone, and as you said, it had not occurred to me yet that the N1MM-DXLab Gateway would allow me to log directly to DXKeeper.?
It works great, thank you!
?
?Erik - n2epe
|
Bj?rn SM7IUN
Tom DF7TV