FR: Get/set Transmit VFO Mode: 0 = VFO A; 1 = VFO B; (2 = Split only for Set) FT: Get/set Receive VFO Mode: 0 = VFO A; 1 = VFO B; (2 = Split only for Set)
Is this correct, or twisted? I have downloaded 1.03y but did not any testing yet.
It depends on your definition of correct, and your definition of twisted. The description is correct. The TS-480 probably does not quite function the same as the QCX so some changes were required.?
In GET mode (commands FR; or FT; are used):
FR: Returns 0 if VFO A is being used for receive, and 1 if VFO B is being used for receive. But when 0 is returned (VFO A), that could mean EITHER the VFO Mode setting is VFO A or Split - because VFO A is also used for Receive during split. So there is an ambiguity.?
FT: Returns 0 if VFO A is being used for transmit, and 1 if VFO B is being used for transmit. But when 1 is returned (VFO B), that could mean EITHER the VFO Mode setting is VFO B or Split - because VFO B is also used for Transmit during split. So there is an ambiguity.?
During SET mode (commands FR1; or FT1; for example, where here 1 means VFO Mode B), both the FR and FT function operate the same. In both cases, the VFO mode is set to A, B or Split for supplied parameter values 0, 1 or 2 respectively. I did it this way because there is otherwise no way to overcome the ambiguity inherent in the FR and FT commands in the QCX implementation.?
If there is a better way to do this, please suggest it and I shall be pleased to amend it.?
