Attention Group this has recently come up, and personally I would
advise all members to follow the link, and opt out as suggested.
Whether you do or not is entirely upto you of course.... I have :-).

See Below

Dave G3VFP

Moderator

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Yahoo is Tracking Group Members

If you belong to ANY Yahoo Groups - be aware that Yahoo is now using
"Web Beacons" to track every Yahoo Group user. It's similar to
cookies, but allows Yahoo to record every website and every group you
visit, even when you're not connected to Yahoo. Look at their updated
privacy statement at

About half-way down the page, in the section on *cookies*, you will see
a link that says *WEB BEACONS*.

Click on the phrase "Web Beacons." On the page that opens, on the left
find a box entitled "Opt-Out."

In that section find "opt-out of interest-matched advertising" link that
will let you "opt-out" of their snooping. Click it and then click the
opt-out button on the next page.

Note that Yahoo's invasion of your privacy - and your ability to opt-out
of it - is not user-specific. It is MACHINE specific. That means you
will have to opt-out on every computer (and browser) you use.

Please forward this to your other groups. You might complain, too, but
I'm not sure if anyone is listening. I remember when they signed all
users up to get spam and we had to opt out of that a few years ago.

Related article:

<>

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Mel,
have a look here:

you got to narrow the bandwidth with the mouse wheel; preselection can
be done by Configuration-Modems-PSK.
73 Fred DL6XAZ


--- In win-fldigi@..., "Mel" <Gzerogqk@...> wrote:

No answers yet to the questions, but I have another.

What setting do I need to make to prevent the curser always jumping

to

the stronger signal ?. Its like a magnet !

Happy New Year, Mel G0GQK

I think turning down the acq range would reduce the afc action, or
turn off afc entirely. As to your previous questions, I don't have
any up or down arrows by the x1 indicator, so I don't know what you
are asking.

I think some of your questions may be answered by re-reading the
online help files. They are currently being worked on for the new
release.

Rich
WA4SXZ

No answers yet to the questions, but I have another.

What setting do I need to make to prevent the curser always jumping to
the stronger signal ?. Its like a magnet !

Happy New Year, Mel G0GQK

Hi Rich

It looks like the Hamlib compilation into FLdigi is later than that list on the Hamlib
site :-). Great on Joe for mentioning the CAT refresh rate, and glad the problem
is resolved.....excellent :-).

Cheers, and have a good 2009 guys.

Dave G3VFP


On 27/12/2008 02:50:45, Joe Vilardo (jvilardo@...) wrote:

Dave

I am running version 3.03.1 and it lists the FT450 in the hamlib as

one of

the rigs for selection. Is this a typo? As you say when I checked out

the

hamlib project web site it did NOT list the FT450 as functional.

Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: David
To: win-fldigi@...
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2008 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: [win-fldigi] Rig control not working with FT-450


Hi Rich

开云体育

开云体育

Hi Rich

As far as I am aware the FT450 is not in the list of supported radio's in either
hamlib, or rigcat. Whilst you can't edit the hamlib entry you can take another
Yaesu rigcat entry and modify it, saving it as your rig,xml

Here is the url of the hamlib project.

If you go to this url you will find the supported Yaesu entries for rigcat.



Not sure which rigcat one would be the closest to the FT450, maybe the FT1000.
In any event that one you could download, and edit it to match the baud rate
etc of your FT450, and as I mentioned save it as "rig,xml" in your "fldigi files"
folder. Then of course use rigcat for your CAT control.

Of course all of these rigcat, and hamlib entries have all been compiled by
users of those radio's. It is left to others to make one for themselves, unless
some kind soul does it for them hi.

Best Regards,

Dave G3VFP


On 26/12/2008 23:59:08, Richard C. (jck116@...) wrote:

Hi,
When I try to use fldigi with the Yaesu FT-450, I get an error that

says

"hamlib_init: rig not responding". However, rig control works in Ham
Radio Deluxe. Any ideas?

Thank,

73,
Rich AB1HD

Hello,

Can someone tell me something about those buttons with the up'down
symbols next to the X1 button ? I've been pressing them while I've been
monitoring but I can't detect anything has happened after I've pressed
them.

Why is there a need to have the waterfall going faster,and why is there
a need to have X2 and X4 with the tracks looking like old vapour
trails ?

On the PSK browser there are some lines of text going east, and some
going west, why don't they all go the same way ?

Last one ! The two windows next to the diamond shaped indicator which
shows overloading are showing different colours and the line in the
middle is jiggling a little bit, what is this telling me ?

Not good again today but I did see that there were a number of times
when the software was printing text and there was no visible evidence
of a trail. Its good isn't it !

Kind regards, Mel G0GQK

Hi Dave et al.
your well pondered words are appreciated very much always. I do not
comment on what is in the bag for fldigi-win as Dave who does a great
lot of work on that program is in a better and adequate position to
let the community know.
What starts to annoy me with MixW is that apparently Nick and his
partner(s) have lost interest in improving a meantime antiquated but
still excellent program which I shall keep going irrespective of what
fldigi will bring us. One reason is the ability to read AmtorFEC and
Pactor1, even to have FEC QSOs, although that is the poor man's
solution for Amtor, and the other reason is that it contains FSK31
and FAX-rx which I use for monitoring Wx-charts on short wave. It has
been and still is a good companion. Whether under present
circumstances I would pay the US$ 50 for the license would remain to
be well pondered.
Then on the other hand we got e.g. Multipsk which also contains very
interesting features and gives the possibility to see the development
of new modes although the graphic appearance apalls me so that apart
from one trial I did not use it on air.

As for the modes mentioned which Dave says he is not going to
implement, we must agree that they are extremely rare on the air,
sometimes being a guesswork even for the experienced operator to
distinguish the characteristic sounds of each mode. Considering that
90% of digital QSOs are done in bpsk, the remainder being shared by
mfsk, hellschreiber and one or other fuzzy mode like Throb, Thor,
Domino etc. by the more curious hams, there is doubtful whether it
would pay off the time and effort in programming something into
fldigi which could be not worth the effort.

Regarding the difference between Linux and Windows versions I am not
in a position to evaluate which one might be better. What I can say
is that I am very happy to have this "newcomer" fldigi-win at hand
and to accompany its development by hams who are not out for profit.

I take the opportunity to send my best season's greeting and best
wishes for a happy new year 2009 to all members of this board.
vy73 Fred DL6XAZ




--- In win-fldigi@..., David <g3vfp@...> wrote:

Hi

Well of course we appreciate FLdigi and the amound of hard work
that has, and is ongoing to make it even better to use. However

there

are situations which mean it may never achieve what MixW does. For
example FSK, or CW keying from a com port. Both of these are pseudo
functions in FLdigi via a secondary audio keying channel, requiring

external

decoding to key, and of no use when a user is using a transceiver

with dual

receive capability that utilises both audio channels ( in such a
scenario they
cannot use FLdigi for simulataneous dual receive anyhow ) Or simply

and

probably
much more common, a user does not have the way of it all to make up
cusomised
interfaces to support those two functions. I admit though that I

have

never found
a problem in using AFSK for RTTY, but there are those who would

never use

that method. But CW tx is another matter. and I would use a Windows

software

for that simply because of the tx issue.

The use of com port signals for such features are prime functions

for a

multimode true Windows software using intelligent interfaces which

can make

use of them by RS232/485 /USB ports, or via programmable UARTS in

USB

port interfaces to achieve below 300 baud shift rates. Or in the

case of

MMTTY to use an
external software UART.

So whilst I am an ardent supporter of Windows FLdigi, obviously
otherwise I wouldn't
use it, I feel we must not denegrate other "true" Windows ham comms
software which
in the main have much more overall product support for ancillary
equipment, drivers
etc than Linux has currently, or Linux software ported for Windows
(FLdigi) where some
of the inherent drawbacks may remain.

FLdigi is an excellent software without doubt, but Windows utopia

it

isn't ( yet :-) ) I
don't believe. If it had been conceived as a Windows platform

software

rather than Linux
I am sure things would be different, but then I doubt it would have
achieved the development
support that Linux tends to draw from professionals, and amateur
programmers alike.

Please note I reiterate I am not knocking FLdigi, or Linux, this is
simply my overview, and whilst
I may play with Linux, it has not yet achieved the overall

versatility

of Windows for applications,
add on's, or the Windows ease and availability of drivers and their

install.

More modes etc, yes naturally users want to see them. But never

lose

sight of the fact that is
a group of guys who have lives to live, families to keep, and all

this

is done out of the interest,
and goodwill free of any cost to the end user, and may in fact not

be

achievable anyhow.

In fact I guess this is a rare insight into the human condition
especially in the times in which we live,
where guys will give of their skills freely to others. I appluaud

them

sincerely because I do not have
those particular software skills, and sometimes wonder how time

fly's

even doing what I do let alone
sitting in front of a pc developing code and getting it all to

correlate

with other developers, and function for others :-)

To them we raise out hands, and to all, a Very Happy Christmas.

Regards

Dave G3VFP

Moderator.




On 20/12/2008 02:34:16, lou_sica (ac0x@...) wrote:
> btw.. IMHO, FLDigi has a better interface than MixW. I
> didn't want to
> give the impression that I'm using FLDigi solely because
> of cost.
>
> --- In win-fldigi@..., "lou_sica" wrote:
> >
> > Oh well. I guess I'm looking for something with MixW's

selection of

> > modes and FLDigi's price. You can't have everything I guess.

But

> I'm
> > also shying away from MixW because it hasn't been updated in a
> year
> > and a half, and if I'm going to pay $50 for a program I'd like

to

> > know its still being actively supported.
> >
> >
> > --- In win-fldigi@..., "David Freese" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In win-fldigi@..., "lou_sica" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Are additional text modes (AMTOR, Packet) possible in

future

> > versions
> > > > of FLDigi?

For me it works fine. I use N2AMG's DXLabs bridge so I use WinWarbler
for CW/FSK RTTY. For SSTV I use MMSSTV, for TOR/Packet (the once an
eon I use that) I have a version of TrueTTY I paid for a 100 years
ago, and for HF FAX (are there still any of those on?) I have SeaTTY
from the same bunch. And, as far as layout goes at least, between
DM780/MixW/MultiPSK/TrueTTY/FLDigi I actually like the feel of
FLDigi's layout the best. Maybe we can get all the modes of MultiPSK
and the look and feel of FLDigi and mix them up with some cookie
batter (got plenty of that around this time of year) and we'll get a
progran that has the modes of MultiPSK (without it's INFAMOUS
interface) and the ergonomics of FLDigi ;)

--- In win-fldigi@..., David <g3vfp@...> wrote:

Hi

Well of course we appreciate FLdigi and the amound of hard work
that has, and is ongoing to make it even better to use. However

there

are situations which mean it may never achieve what MixW does. For
example FSK, or CW keying from a com port. Both of these are pseudo
functions in FLdigi via a secondary audio keying channel, requiring

external

decoding to key, and of no use when a user is using a transceiver

with dual

receive capability that utilises both audio channels ( in such a
scenario they
cannot use FLdigi for simulataneous dual receive anyhow ) Or simply

and

probably
much more common, a user does not have the way of it all to make up
cusomised
interfaces to support those two functions. I admit though that I

have

never found
a problem in using AFSK for RTTY, but there are those who would

never use

that method. But CW tx is another matter. and I would use a Windows

software

for that simply because of the tx issue.

The use of com port signals for such features are prime functions

for a

multimode true Windows software using intelligent interfaces which

can make

use of them by RS232/485 /USB ports, or via programmable UARTS in

USB

port interfaces to achieve below 300 baud shift rates. Or in the

case of

MMTTY to use an
external software UART.

So whilst I am an ardent supporter of Windows FLdigi, obviously
otherwise I wouldn't
use it, I feel we must not denegrate other "true" Windows ham comms
software which
in the main have much more overall product support for ancillary
equipment, drivers
etc than Linux has currently, or Linux software ported for Windows
(FLdigi) where some
of the inherent drawbacks may remain.

FLdigi is an excellent software without doubt, but Windows utopia

it

isn't ( yet :-) ) I
don't believe. If it had been conceived as a Windows platform

software

rather than Linux
I am sure things would be different, but then I doubt it would have
achieved the development
support that Linux tends to draw from professionals, and amateur
programmers alike.

Please note I reiterate I am not knocking FLdigi, or Linux, this is
simply my overview, and whilst
I may play with Linux, it has not yet achieved the overall

versatility

of Windows for applications,
add on's, or the Windows ease and availability of drivers and their

install.

More modes etc, yes naturally users want to see them. But never

lose

sight of the fact that is
a group of guys who have lives to live, families to keep, and all

this

is done out of the interest,
and goodwill free of any cost to the end user, and may in fact not

be

achievable anyhow.

In fact I guess this is a rare insight into the human condition
especially in the times in which we live,
where guys will give of their skills freely to others. I appluaud

them

sincerely because I do not have
those particular software skills, and sometimes wonder how time

fly's

even doing what I do let alone
sitting in front of a pc developing code and getting it all to

correlate

with other developers, and function for others :-)

To them we raise out hands, and to all, a Very Happy Christmas.

Regards

Dave G3VFP

Moderator.




On 20/12/2008 02:34:16, lou_sica (ac0x@...) wrote:
> btw.. IMHO, FLDigi has a better interface than MixW. I
> didn't want to
> give the impression that I'm using FLDigi solely because
> of cost.
>
> --- In win-fldigi@..., "lou_sica" wrote:
> >
> > Oh well. I guess I'm looking for something with MixW's

selection of

> > modes and FLDigi's price. You can't have everything I guess.

But

> I'm
> > also shying away from MixW because it hasn't been updated in a
> year
> > and a half, and if I'm going to pay $50 for a program I'd like

to

> > know its still being actively supported.
> >
> >
> > --- In win-fldigi@..., "David Freese" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In win-fldigi@..., "lou_sica" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Are additional text modes (AMTOR, Packet) possible in

future

> > versions
> > > > of FLDigi?

Hi

Well of course we appreciate FLdigi and the amound of hard work
that has, and is ongoing to make it even better to use. However there
are situations which mean it may never achieve what MixW does. For
example FSK, or CW keying from a com port. Both of these are pseudo
functions in FLdigi via a secondary audio keying channel, requiring external
decoding to key, and of no use when a user is using a transceiver with dual
receive capability that utilises both audio channels ( in such a scenario they
cannot use FLdigi for simulataneous dual receive anyhow ) Or simply and probably
much more common, a user does not have the way of it all to make up cusomised
interfaces to support those two functions. I admit though that I have never found
a problem in using AFSK for RTTY, but there are those who would never use
that method. But CW tx is another matter. and I would use a Windows software
for that simply because of the tx issue.

The use of com port signals for such features are prime functions for a
multimode true Windows software using intelligent interfaces which can make
use of them by RS232/485 /USB ports, or via programmable UARTS in USB
port interfaces to achieve below 300 baud shift rates. Or in the case of MMTTY to use an
external software UART.

So whilst I am an ardent supporter of Windows FLdigi, obviously otherwise I wouldn't
use it, I feel we must not denegrate other "true" Windows ham comms software which
in the main have much more overall product support for ancillary equipment, drivers
etc than Linux has currently, or Linux software ported for Windows (FLdigi) where some
of the inherent drawbacks may remain.

FLdigi is an excellent software without doubt, but Windows utopia it isn't ( yet :-) ) I
don't believe. If it had been conceived as a Windows platform software rather than Linux
I am sure things would be different, but then I doubt it would have achieved the development
support that Linux tends to draw from professionals, and amateur programmers alike.

Please note I reiterate I am not knocking FLdigi, or Linux, this is simply my overview, and whilst
I may play with Linux, it has not yet achieved the overall versatility of Windows for applications,
add on's, or the Windows ease and availability of drivers and their install.

More modes etc, yes naturally users want to see them. But never lose sight of the fact that is
a group of guys who have lives to live, families to keep, and all this is done out of the interest,
and goodwill free of any cost to the end user, and may in fact not be achievable anyhow.

In fact I guess this is a rare insight into the human condition especially in the times in which we live,
where guys will give of their skills freely to others. I appluaud them sincerely because I do not have
those particular software skills, and sometimes wonder how time fly's even doing what I do let alone
sitting in front of a pc developing code and getting it all to correlate with other developers, and function for others :-)

To them we raise out hands, and to all, a Very Happy Christmas.

Regards

Dave G3VFP

Moderator.

btw.. IMHO, FLDigi has a better interface than MixW. I didn't want to
give the impression that I'm using FLDigi solely because of cost.

--- In win-fldigi@..., "lou_sica" <ac0x@...> wrote:

Oh well. I guess I'm looking for something with MixW's selection of
modes and FLDigi's price. You can't have everything I guess. But

I'm

also shying away from MixW because it hasn't been updated in a year
and a half, and if I'm going to pay $50 for a program I'd like to
know its still being actively supported.


--- In win-fldigi@..., "David Freese" <w1hkj@> wrote:

--- In win-fldigi@..., "lou_sica" <ac0x@> wrote:

Are additional text modes (AMTOR, Packet) possible in future

versions

of FLDigi?

No plans for either AMTOR or Packet

And (this may be outside the scope of the program) are the

analog

image

modes (SSTV/HF Fax) a possibility?

HF Fax is current available in the form of MFSKpic mode.

No other HF Fax (ie wx fax) is planned at this time.

Dave

Oh well. I guess I'm looking for something with MixW's selection of
modes and FLDigi's price. You can't have everything I guess. But I'm
also shying away from MixW because it hasn't been updated in a year
and a half, and if I'm going to pay $50 for a program I'd like to
know its still being actively supported.


--- In win-fldigi@..., "David Freese" <w1hkj@...> wrote:

--- In win-fldigi@..., "lou_sica" <ac0x@> wrote:

Are additional text modes (AMTOR, Packet) possible in future

versions

of FLDigi?

No plans for either AMTOR or Packet

And (this may be outside the scope of the program) are the analog

image

modes (SSTV/HF Fax) a possibility?

HF Fax is current available in the form of MFSKpic mode.

No other HF Fax (ie wx fax) is planned at this time.

Dave

--- In win-fldigi@..., "lou_sica" <ac0x@...> wrote:

Are additional text modes (AMTOR, Packet) possible in future versions
of FLDigi?

No plans for either AMTOR or Packet

And (this may be outside the scope of the program) are the analog image
modes (SSTV/HF Fax) a possibility?

HF Fax is current available in the form of MFSKpic mode.

No other HF Fax (ie wx fax) is planned at this time.

Dave

Are additional text modes (AMTOR, Packet) possible in future versions
of FLDigi?

And (this may be outside the scope of the program) are the analog image
modes (SSTV/HF Fax) a possibility?

This is usually a good place to check for info. I think that you will
be very impressed with the next release version. Some new features
and some easier things to set up.

Rich
WA4SXZ

Hello Rich.

Thanks for telling me. I'm still finding my way round and I hadn't
thought about that. Not much of any interest on the bands again during
the day or tonight so I had a look at who's at the bottom end of the
bands, I don't do Morse !

FLDigi is really good at decoding even those who are not good it, and
its very good with weak PSK, I'm enjoying using this software I find it
nice to look at and easy to use. In the past I've looked at most of the
digital software but I've always preferred to use Digipan because I'm
not good at trying to understand complicated software, and life has
enough difficulties !

Kind regards, Mel G0GQK