|
Hi folks.?Does anyone use IL2P?? I tested the QTSoundmodem's IL2P and it seems very good, but I don't see anyone commenting.? Would it be better for HF than the FX25?
TIA
|
Hi Mauro?
Most of the UK hf runs on il2p +crc on 40m 7050.50 usb at 2250hz (or change dial to suit)?
73s? Steve?
Hi folks.?Does anyone use IL2P?? I tested the QTSoundmodem's IL2P and it seems very good, but I don't see anyone commenting.? Would it be better for HF than the FX25?
TIA
|
Hello, Mauro,
Fyi, there is a relatively small quantity of stations in the Midwest using IL2P on HF. They span Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio. As far as I know we are all running FX25 and IL2P on the same dial frequency using different center frequencies. Some are on both 20 and 40 meters; I'm only on 40. Also Daria, VE3DTJ, in Ontario was on it as well, but her station has been offline for a while due to a physical move.
It may work marginally better than FX25 - it's hard to say. On 40 we are on 7101.3 usb @ 2000 Hz with FX25 @ 1000Hz.
73, Lee K5DAT
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 8:25?AM Mauro Veiga via <maurorveiga= [email protected]> wrote: Hi folks.?Does anyone use IL2P?? I tested the QTSoundmodem's IL2P and it seems very good, but I don't see anyone commenting.? Would it be better for HF than the FX25?
TIA
|
Thanks for this info Lee. I have had QPSK V26A 600 on 7101.3 usb
@ 2000Hz for 6+ months now. A few sigs were decoded shortly after
I first enabled it but I have not copied anything since. I set it
up this way based on one of PE1RRR's docs and vid. Since our nodes
usually have a decent late in the day path on 40m I'll flip it to
IL2P sometime over the weekend and see what decodes.
73 de Rich WA3WLH
On 8/2/24 10:00, Lee Bengston wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Hello, Mauro,
Fyi, there is a relatively small quantity of
stations in the Midwest using IL2P on HF. They span Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio. As far as I know we are all
running FX25 and IL2P on the same dial frequency using
different center frequencies. Some are on both 20 and 40
meters; I'm only on 40. Also Daria, VE3DTJ, in Ontario was on
it as well, but her station has been offline for a while due
to a physical move.
It may work marginally better than FX25 - it's hard to say.
On 40 we are on 7101.3 usb @ 2000 Hz with FX25 @ 1000Hz.
73,
Lee K5DAT
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at
8:25?AM Mauro Veiga via <maurorveiga= [email protected]>
wrote:
Hi folks.?Does anyone use IL2P?? I tested
the QTSoundmodem's IL2P and it seems very good, but I
don't see anyone commenting.? Would it be better for HF
than the FX25?
TIA
|
Sounds good, Rich. I can say MN, WI, IN, OH and PA then.? :-)
If you see any of these stations in your MH for 7101.3 usb @ 1000Hz, you should start seeing them on IL2P @ 2000Hz.
W0GA-7 W9GM-7 KB9PVH-7 K5DAT-7
WW6Q-7 NC8Q-7
73, Lee K5DAT
Thanks for this info Lee. I have had QPSK V26A 600 on 7101.3 usb
@ 2000Hz for 6+ months now. A few sigs were decoded shortly after
I first enabled it but I have not copied anything since. I set it
up this way based on one of PE1RRR's docs and vid. Since our nodes
usually have a decent late in the day path on 40m I'll flip it to
IL2P sometime over the weekend and see what decodes.
73 de Rich WA3WLH
|
Try Robust Packet Radio (RPR) Highly underrated digital mode. Great on HF.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-------- Original message -------- From: Mauro Veiga <maurorveiga@...> Date: 8/2/24 9:25 AM (GMT-05:00) Subject: [bpq32] IL2P in HF
Hi folks.?Does anyone use IL2P?? I tested the QTSoundmodem's IL2P and it seems very good, but I don't see anyone commenting.? Would it be better for HF than the FX25?
TIA
|
RPR either costs a lot in SCS hardware, or you run an illegally distributed piece of windows software. Neither are optimum solutions.
When Direwolf officially supports the current state of IL2P I'll be using it more again. CRC and the slower 150Bd settings are the interesting HF bits that have been added to ninoTNC recently.
|
Seems like Nino removed 150Bd but there are other HF mode improvements so I guess not all is lost. It was not meant for HF from the outset so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.?
|
On 8/2/24 09:25, Mauro Veiga wrote:
Hi folks.?Does anyone use IL2P?? I tested the
QTSoundmodem's IL2P and it seems very good, but I don't see
anyone commenting.? Would it be better for HF than the FX25?
TIA
_._,_._,_
Mario et alia:
I have 2 ports of IL2P on my QtSoundModem configured.
Evenings through mornings I am on 7103.3 and 7102.8 kHz center.
Mid-day I am on 14104.3 and 14103.8 kHz center.
1 port is also FX/AX.25 on 7102.8 or 14104.3 kHz center.
Everyone is welcome to compare AX.25, FX.25, and IL2P on
7102.8/14103.8 kHz.
?
73, Chuck
|
I think there is a fairly active group of folks in the UK using IL2P+CRC on 40 meter NVIS.?
?
The most robust HF mode in the NinoTNC now is 300 symbol/sec BPSK, switch position 1000 on recent firmware. It's filtered to occupy around 500 Hz, and uses coherent demodulation for sensitivity. It can track carrier frequency drift and offset up to +/- 25Hz.
?
There is also a 1200 sym/sec BPSK mode at switch position 1010, which occupies about 2.4kHz. That's much faster, but requires a bit more SNR.
?
I'm working on a firmware update that will improve the QPSK demodulators in NinoTNC firmware. That should make QPSK 600 and QPSK 2400 more viable on HF in the future. They work now, but require very good conditions.
?
All the HF PSK modes in NinoTNC use a 1500Hz center. Also, all these modes are available in qtSoundModem.
?
73,
Nino
|
Thank you for your comments Chris, N6CTA on Robust Packet Radio, However, I'd like to request where you are getting your data from?
?
I just bought a SCS tracker clone called a Teensy RPR TNC for about $130.00EU. Add another $30 for a TNC-radio cable made by? (because I'm horrible at soldering my own cables) and one can hardly say this is an expensive venture...
?
The Teensy RPR TNC follows the former SCS Tracker that had its end of production in 2020 due to spare parts no longer available on the market.
The?Teensy RPR TNC is not a commercial product but an amateur radio project not aiming for any profit.?
?
?
As far as the software is concerned, it is still developed by SCS personnel. WinRPR was created with Peter from SCS. Not open source and still proprietary, but completely legal.
?
?
BTW, The Teensy TNC does KISS, so? I'm looking forward to adding RPR as a HF port on my BPQ BBS.
?
73 de Chris
On 08/02/2024 4:15 PM EDT Chris, N6CTA via groups.io <mail@...> wrote:
?
?
RPR either costs a lot in SCS hardware, or you run an illegally distributed piece of windows software. Neither are optimum solutions.
When Direwolf officially supports the current state of IL2P I'll be using it more again. CRC and the slower 150Bd settings are the interesting HF bits that have been added to ninoTNC recently.
|
RPR is copyrighted. It is not an open mode. I myself have access to software I've been paid to develop that I should not but could put out into the world that my employer may or may not choose to sue me over. There is no explicit legal blessing here I've seen or the software would be up on SCS's page and not a random dropbox account right?
?
Why are people so intent on pushing proprietary modes in this hobby?
|
Thanks a lot for all answers. I'll test IL2P.? :-)
Hi folks.?Does anyone use IL2P?? I tested the QTSoundmodem's IL2P and it seems very good, but I don't see anyone commenting.? Would it be better for HF than the FX25?
TIA
|
Is possible to use WinRPR on BPQ32 to offer a RMS Gateway? Em sex., 2 de ago. de 2024, 12:31, Chris Lance WW2BSA via <Ww2bsa= [email protected]> escreveu:
Try Robust Packet Radio (RPR) Highly underrated digital mode. Great on HF.
-------- Original message -------- Date: 8/2/24 9:25 AM (GMT-05:00) Subject: [bpq32] IL2P in HF
Hi folks.?Does anyone use IL2P?? I tested the QTSoundmodem's IL2P and it seems very good, but I don't see anyone commenting.? Would it be better for HF than the FX25?
TIA
|
Yes, you can. But unless you have clients wanting to use it it may
not be worthwhile. According the traffic stats on the Winlink.org
site, of the 20,525 HF connections last month only 2 were using
Robust Packet.
73, John
On 05/08/2024 15:20, Mauro Veiga wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Is possible to use WinRPR on BPQ32 to offer a RMS Gateway?
Em sex., 2 de ago. de
2024, 12:31, Chris Lance WW2BSA via
<Ww2bsa= [email protected]>
escreveu:
Try Robust Packet Radio (RPR) Highly
underrated digital mode. Great on HF.
-------- Original message --------
Date: 8/2/24 9:25 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: [bpq32] IL2P in HF
Hi folks.?Does anyone use IL2P?? I
tested the QTSoundmodem's IL2P and it seems very good,
but I don't see anyone commenting.? Would it be better
for HF than the FX25?
TIA
|
You're right, it's not worth it. Thanks, John.
73 Em seg., 5 de ago. de 2024, 13:05, John G8BPQ via <john.wiseman= [email protected]> escreveu:
Yes, you can. But unless you have clients wanting to use it it may
not be worthwhile. According the traffic stats on the Winlink.org
site, of the 20,525 HF connections last month only 2 were using
Robust Packet.
73, John
On 05/08/2024 15:20, Mauro Veiga wrote:
Is possible to use WinRPR on BPQ32 to offer a RMS Gateway?
Em sex., 2 de ago. de
2024, 12:31, Chris Lance WW2BSA via
<Ww2bsa= [email protected]>
escreveu:
Try Robust Packet Radio (RPR) Highly
underrated digital mode. Great on HF.
-------- Original message --------
Date: 8/2/24 9:25 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: [bpq32] IL2P in HF
Hi folks.?Does anyone use IL2P?? I
tested the QTSoundmodem's IL2P and it seems very good,
but I don't see anyone commenting.? Would it be better
for HF than the FX25?
TIA
|
Huh?
?
I am a bit disappointed about your answer John. In my opinion it is not a good reflection for a outstanding preforming protocol on HF, to use the amount of users on a system.? ;-). In Europ the Robust Packet Network brings joy and experimenting opportunities. The BPQ software adds al lot of opportunities combining it with Robust Packet.
?
By the way, not understanding Why are people so intent on pushing proprietary modes in this hobby?? ?Could it be the other way around?? Why not let your fellow hams get interested in high performance digital communication. American hams have until recently been restricted by law to use more data throughput hence pactor 4.? It has nothing to do with so called "expensive" modems. But ancient thinking.?
?
Best 73'. Jan PA3GJX?
|
Huh?
?
I am a bit disappointed about your answer John. In my opinion it is not a good reflection for a outstanding preforming protocol on HF, to use the amount of users on a system.? ;-). In Europ the Robust Packet Network brings joy and experimenting opportunities. The BPQ software adds al lot of opportunities combining it with Robust Packet.
?
John was simply reporting that Robust Packet is rarely used by Winlink, which is what Mauro was asking about. VARA, however, is widely used in that context. Are you saying that only Robust packet is an
"outstanding performing protocol on HF", but VARA is not?
?
By the way, not understanding Why are people so intent on pushing proprietary modes in this hobby?? ?Could it be the other way around?? Why not let your fellow hams get interested in high performance digital communication. American hams have until recently been restricted by law to use more data throughput hence pactor 4.? It has nothing to do with so called "expensive" modems. But ancient thinking.?
There are plenty of American hams using modes such as VARA and RP - plus some have the expensive modems also. The discussion here was specifically about Robust packet usage by Winlink. There's no need to jump to conclusions. I think the main issue with Robust Packet is with those already using VARA - for them is there really a reason (or room) to run another high performance protocol?
That said, I fully respect those who want to operate using open, non-proprietary protocols. I don't think that stance is a matter of "ancient thinking".
73, Lee K5DAT
?
|
I'm not against Robust Packet. In fact I have RP ports on my main HF
nodes. I was just questioning whether it will get any Winlink
traffic - after all the question was about a WinRPR Winlink gateway.
I'm all for supporting non-proprietary modes. I also run ARDOP on my
HF nodes and find it very effective. But surely Robust Packet is a
proprietary mode ?
73,
John
On 06/08/2024 18:51, Jan PA3GJX wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Huh?
?
I am a bit disappointed about your answer John. In my opinion
it is not a good reflection for a outstanding preforming
protocol on HF, to use the amount of users on a system.? ;-). In
Europ the Robust Packet Network brings joy and experimenting
opportunities. The BPQ software adds al lot of opportunities
combining it with Robust Packet.
?
By the way, not understanding Why
are people so intent on pushing proprietary modes in this
hobby?? ?Could it be the other way around?? Why not let your
fellow hams get interested in high performance digital
communication. American hams have until recently been
restricted by law to use more data throughput hence pactor 4.?
It has nothing to do with so called "expensive" modems. But
ancient thinking.?
?
Best
73'. Jan PA3GJX?
|
Hi,
?
I hope I‘m not wrong but neither RPR nor VARA are Open Source. The one is in the hands of SCS, the other in the hands of EA5HVK - so the difference is more ore less the technology behind. RPR has a low throughput but for short messages it uses a small bandwidth on HF and can share the frequency range with APRS (i.e mostly used on 30m) and PR. VARA is a high throughput mode if conditions are good enough, same with PACTOR 4. So it depends on the use case and of course what you‘ll like to play with.
RPR on WINLINK has to less stations in Europe now and the Winlink team stops support of RPR in 2023 so it is only a question of time till there are no RPR WINLINK stations in the air. That‘s the reason why I‘ll build up my BPQ which I want to put with RPR on the HF side, so to be part to keep RPR alive.
?
73 Erwin, OE1EKG?
|
Mauro Veiga
Nino KK4HEJ in VA
Jan PA3GJX