Regarding the use of a Pi 3 that is not a good idea.
One of the WSJT-X developers posted a note in the last year or so
stating that a Pi 4 does not have enough compute power for FT8.?
Does it work?? Yes it does but only to a certain point.
Last year I started off using a Pi 4 and I found that when the
band gets busy with a lot of weak signals the Pi 4 cannot keep
up.? I had "Deep" decode set as well.? When I was trying to work a
DX station the Pi 4 could not decode the response within 15
seconds.?? The Pi 4 would decode the DX's response after
15 seconds.? And of course the Pi 4 had already started
transmitting again but not the correct sequence for the QSO.??? I
missed some DX this way :-)
To help you can change the decode to normal or fast.? But you may
wind up missing some QSO's that way.
So the issue will be worse with a Pi 3.
You don't need a top of the line computer to run WSJT-X but you
need something reasonable.?? I helped another ham setup WSJT-X on
his Windows computer and I saw the same issue when the band got
busy.?? He was running a low end PC.
FYI I am a retired software engineer who specializes in Linux and
in performance.??
Marc
WA6HBR
On 9/4/23 08:32, Richard Hattaway via
groups.io wrote:
Hi Dean,
You don’t mention the computer you are using.?
Because of the lack of reasonable Pi 4s I incorporated a Pi 3
for my V3 QDX. If I try to run anything but my logging program (
CQRLog ) and WSJT I end up missing decodes. ?
The resultant characteristics are the same as yours. Is your
computer fast enough? ?Running extra programs that might take
needed resources? ?
73
Dick
W4PID
--
Yes, that really is my last name.
