Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [N1MM] More Feedback: v1.1.377 with FT100MP

Expand Messages
  • N1EU
    Like Tony, I can t ever imagine setting mode with keyboard. I d vote to keep going in this direction Tom. I ll try to put in some time with the testing and
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Like Tony, I can't ever imagine setting mode with keyboard. I'd vote
      to keep going in this direction Tom. I'll try to put in some time
      with the testing and read any release notes carefully for any testing
      notes from you. If you need anything real specific tested, feel free
      to email me directly.

      Tnx/73,
      Barry N1EU

      --- In N1MMLogger@y..., "Tom Wagner" <tfwagner@s...> wrote:
      > Re-reading the FT-1000MP doc, I should be able to fix the
      > mode, rit & offset bugs already reported.
      >
      > How things are supposed to work is
      > documented in the key assignments
      > section of the help. Certain things had to
      > be different because of the swapping.
      >
      > Any other votes for "go for broke"?
      >
      > Tom
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "tonyjw1" <tonyjw@m...>
      > To: <N1MMLogger@y...>
      > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 19:02
      > Subject: Re: [N1MM] More Feedback: v1.1.377 with FT100MP
      >
      >
      > > --- In N1MMLogger@y..., "Tom Wagner" <tfwagner@s...> wrote:
      > > Tom,
      > >
      > > I would vote to "go for broke". This latest approach to VFO
      support
      > > seems much simpler and more intuitive. What other functions might
      be
      > > lost, besides the ability to set mode from the keyboard (which is
      a
      > > feature that means next to nothing to me, anyway).
      > >
      > > I'd like to help with testing the VFO support, but I'm never sure
      how
      > > things are SUPPOSED to work. I can, however, tell you what I do
      and
      > > don't like. I'll help as much as I can.
      > >
      > > Tony
      > > KM0O
      > >
      > > > I wrote the FT-1000MP support a couple of years ago. At
      > > > the time, I made the decision to only support swapping of
      > > > the vfo's. To tell the truth, I don't remember why, but it
      > > > seemed the thing to do at the time. There was something
      > > > unequal about the two vfo's and I don't remember what.
      > > >
      > > > Problem is, it is a few weeks before ARRL. I don't want
      > > > to screw up FT-1000MP support just in time for the contest.
      > > >
      > > > I always had the impression that the second Yaesu vfo was not
      > > > very useful implemented in the way I had it. Kenwood (my
      > > > radio) supports A&B vfos very equally, and it was easy
      > > > to make them very independent.
      > > >
      > > > So here is the big question: Do we go for broke, and
      > > > make FT-1000MP work as well as possible with independent
      > > > vfos, and if we have to lose stuff like being able to set mode
      on
      > > > vfo b from the computer, that's ok? Or do we proceed
      > > > cautiously and wait until after ARRL?
      > > >
      > > > Bottom line: As bad as it is now, do you like it better than
      > > > with the swapping approach? If so, we should proceed,
      > > > because it should only get better. How much, I don't know.
      > > >
      > > > 73,
      > > > Tom
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > From: "N1EU" <n1eu@y...>
      > > > To: <N1MMLogger@y...>
      > > > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 17:37
      > > > Subject: [N1MM] More Feedback: v1.1.377 with FT100MP
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > > First off, let me say that I am "bowled over" by the added
      > > > > functionality for the 2 VFO's in 1.1.377. I've had my own
      > > personal
      > > > > crusade, mostly on the Writelog reflector, for the last year
      to
      > > add
      > > > > the ability to send a spot to VFO B while running on VFO A.
      > > Nobody
      > > > > seemed "to get it." Many, many thanks for adding the shift-
      click
      > > > > functionality to the packet spot window. THIS IS SO COOL!!!
      > > > >
      > > > > On another note, wanted to report what seems like a bug to me:
      > > > > With VFO B active, grabbing a spot with a different mode puts
      the
      > > new
      > > > > freq into VFO B correctly but puts the new mode into VFO A
      > > > >
      > > > > Thank you so much for 1.1.377 & 73,
      > > > > Barry N1EU
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > > > N1MMLogger-unsubscribe@y...
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > N1MMLogger-unsubscribe@y...
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
    • Jim Martin
      Hi Tom I am still on the steep learning curve with the program but the recent changes have certainly been for the better for my FT1000MP. I am happy to keep
      Message 2 of 8 , Feb 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Tom
        I am still on the steep learning curve with the program but the recent changes have certainly been for the better for my FT1000MP. I am happy to keep trying out new versions and to report back. Over the weekend I will concentrate my thoughts on the VFO issue and as said earlier things are looking good.
        Thanks
        Jim
        MM0BQI
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Tom Wagner
        To: N1MMLogger@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 11:37 PM
        Subject: Re: [N1MM] More Feedback: v1.1.377 with FT100MP


        So here is the big question: Do we go for broke, and
        make FT-1000MP work as well as possible with independent
        vfos, and if we have to lose stuff like being able to set mode on
        vfo b from the computer, that's ok? Or do we proceed
        cautiously and wait until after ARRL?




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • N1EU
        I just had a couple of minutes before leaving for work: Grabbing spot with VFO A: cw spot sets filter to 2.0 instead of 500hz With VFO A active, sending spot
        Message 3 of 8 , Feb 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          I just had a couple of minutes before leaving for work:

          Grabbing spot with VFO A:
          cw spot sets filter to 2.0 instead of 500hz

          With VFO A active, sending spot to VFO B:
          seems to alway set USB 2.4 filter, even if cw spot


          Will do more after work

          73,
          Barry N1EU
        • N1EU
          Message 4 of 8 , Feb 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In N1MMLogger@y..., "N1EU" <n1eu@y...> wrote:
            > I just had a couple of minutes before leaving for work:
            >
            > Grabbing spot with VFO A:
            > cw spot sets filter to 2.0 instead of 500hz
            >
            > With VFO A active, sending spot to VFO B:
            > seems to alway set USB 2.4 filter, even if cw spot
            >
            >
            > Will do more after work
            >
            > 73,
            > Barry N1EU
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.