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

Re: [dxatlas] Blind Skimmer Option for Unassisted Categories

Expand Messages
  • rt_tclay
    You know you can already use version 1.2 blind . Just close the callsign spot window, and resize the column where callsign labels appear to its minimum width.
    Message 1 of 19 , Oct 29, 2008
      You know you can already use version 1.2 "blind". Just close the
      callsign spot window, and resize the column where callsign labels
      appear to its minimum width. Just put the mouse on the left edge of
      that column and click/drag. Then there is nothing identifying the
      callsigns.

      There is still the decoder at the very bottom, but I don't think that
      is really much use. Writelog has had a cw decoder for years and no
      one complained about that. I suppose you could put a piece of tape
      over that line if it really bothers you :)

      Tor
      N4OGW

      --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "bill_w4zv" <w0zv@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "ct1boh" <ct1boh@> wrote:
      >
      > > There is nothing wrong with havind the dot and dash on the
      waterfall
      > > display.
      > >
      > > If the operator "reads" the code on the display fine, it was him
      and
      > > not the decoder (i.e. the machine).
      > >
      > > The waterfall display of skimmer should stay as it is now. It is
      the
      > > text of the CW from the decoders that must be removed in the
      Blind
      > > Skimmer.
      >
      > Jose and Alex, after thinking about this, I agree. This should also
      > make implementation of the Blind option easier.
      >
      > > Also a faster way to tune the lines in the display, represented
      by the
      > > dots and dashes is a must. Using the mouse to click on the lines,
      it's
      > > not the most eficient way in a contest. I have suggested to Alex,
      that
      > > the arrow up/arrow down buttons in the keybord would be the ideal
      way
      > > to move the radio frequency into the next adjacent signal
      represented
      > > by the circles next to the line of each signal with the dashes
      and dots.
      >
      > Yes, but move up/down only to the *yellow* dots. The white ones are
      > often artifacts.
      >
      > Good suggestions Jose!
      >
      > 73, Bill
      >
    • rt_tclay
      ... And further- you can hide the decoder at the bottom under the Windows task bar. Then it is completely blind... Being able to turn off all decoding would
      Message 2 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
        --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "rt_tclay" <rt_clay@...> wrote:
        >
        > You know you can already use version 1.2 "blind". Just close the
        > callsign spot window, and resize the column where callsign labels
        > appear to its minimum width. Just put the mouse on the left edge of
        > that column and click/drag. Then there is nothing identifying the
        > callsigns.
        >
        > There is still the decoder at the very bottom, but I don't think that
        >

        And further- you can hide the decoder at the bottom under the Windows
        task bar. Then it is completely blind...

        Being able to turn off all decoding would probably speed it up
        considerably however.

        Tor
        N4OGW
      • bill_w4zv
        ... Maybe not minimum ...you still need the dots to be able to click on to send your receiver there. I m sure Alex will come up with something a little more
        Message 3 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
          --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "rt_tclay" <rt_clay@...> wrote:
          >
          > You know you can already use version 1.2 "blind". Just close the
          > callsign spot window, and resize the column where callsign labels
          > appear to its minimum width.

          Maybe not "minimum"...you still need the dots to be able to click on
          to send your receiver there. I'm sure Alex will come up with
          something a little more elegant which has no possibility of
          disqualification for the unassisted category.

          73, Bill
        • rt_tclay
          I don t understand...I just click on a signal in the waterfall display. It tunes the receiver there. You don t have to click on a dot. Yes, sometimes I have to
          Message 4 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
            I don't understand...I just click on a signal in the waterfall
            display. It tunes the receiver there. You don't have to click on a
            dot. Yes, sometimes I have to touch up the tuning with the radio knob,
            but with a little practice you get very close.

            Also, the dots still do show up, so you can click on those if you
            want. The minimum resize width is not zero, but seems to be just
            enough to keep the dots.

            Try it, just resizing the column eliminates all the text display but
            the dots are kept.

            Tor
            N4OGW

            --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "bill_w4zv" <w0zv@...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com, "rt_tclay" <rt_clay@> wrote:
            > >
            > > You know you can already use version 1.2 "blind". Just close the
            > > callsign spot window, and resize the column where callsign labels
            > > appear to its minimum width.
            >
            > Maybe not "minimum"...you still need the dots to be able to click on
            > to send your receiver there. I'm sure Alex will come up with
            > something a little more elegant which has no possibility of
            > disqualification for the unassisted category.
            >
            > 73, Bill
            >
          • rt_tclay
            It can also be argued that clicking on dots in the present version of Skimmer (even if callsigns are hidden) should fall in the assisted class. Why?
            Message 5 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
              It can also be argued that "clicking on dots" in the present version
              of Skimmer (even if callsigns are hidden) should fall in the
              "assisted" class. Why? Because the color of the dots indicates
              something about whether Skimmer has decoded and/or verified a call.

              So an "unassisted" mode would need to remove any coloring from the dots.

              I don't see anything wrong with just having the waterfall going, with
              dots and text hidden.

              It would be however possible to distinguish between a carrier and a
              real cw signal based on statistics (signal variability) and not text
              decoding.

              Tor
              N4OGW
            • rt_tclay
              It can also be argued that clicking on dots in the present version of Skimmer (even if callsigns are hidden) should fall in the assisted class. Why?
              Message 6 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
                It can also be argued that "clicking on dots" in the present version
                of Skimmer (even if callsigns are hidden) should fall in the
                "assisted" class. Why? Because the color of the dots indicates
                something about whether Skimmer has decoded and/or verified a call.

                So an "unassisted" mode would need to remove any coloring from the dots.

                I don't see anything wrong with just having the waterfall going, with
                dots and text hidden.

                It would be however possible to distinguish between a carrier and a
                real cw signal based on statistics (signal variability) and not text
                decoding.

                Tor
                N4OGW
              • Dave Baxter
                Just an observation on this thread. With Skimmer in Blind mode, I don t see much difference then, compared to if you had Spectran (or any other spectrum
                Message 7 of 19 , Oct 31, 2008
                  Just an observation on this thread.

                  With Skimmer in "Blind" mode, I don't see much difference then, compared
                  to if you had Spectran (or any other spectrum waterfall display program)
                  showing, other than you can click on a signal to tune the radio.

                  Some would no doubt say that feature was "an assistance" too (click to
                  tune) There again, I'm not a contesting type these days (been there,
                  done that etc).. And I'm sure the purists would say that having any
                  sort of bandspread spectrum/waterfall display showing adjacent stations
                  was an unfair advantage.

                  As an aside, I just wish the contesters would keep the beacon
                  allocations clear +- 100Hz or so of a weekend. Here in the UK, 20m in
                  particular often has overseas CW, RTTY, even SSB stations working right
                  next to (within 10Hz) or on top of the beacons. If you listen with mk1
                  ear-ole, it's plain to see (hear) that they cannot even hear other
                  people calling them, so they probably cant hear the beacons.

                  The quality of some contest signals has to be questioned too, if it's
                  not sat directly on top of 14.100, the splatter or sproggies get you,
                  often from something 10's of kHz away! I'm fairly happy the RX is OK
                  (TS870s with attenuation and AIP on etc) as it's not just some of the
                  "big" signals that are bad, many of the less than S9 signals are
                  appalling too!

                  Still, even under those conditions, Faros (subject change) seems to do a
                  remarkable job detecting the presence of a distance beacon that I can't
                  even hear through the mayhem. OK so Faros seems to work OK, that is
                  when the big signals don't depress the radio's AGC too much. I have the
                  rig screwed down to 100Hz bandwidth, and even then it's a problem at
                  times.

                  Each to their own..

                  73.

                  Dave G0WBX.



                  > __________
                  > 1f. Re: Blind Skimmer Option for Unassisted Categories
                  > Posted by: "rt_tclay" rt_clay@... rt_tclay
                  > Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:10 am ((PDT))
                  >
                  > It can also be argued that "clicking on dots" in the present version
                  > of Skimmer (even if callsigns are hidden) should fall in the
                  > "assisted" class. Why? Because the color of the dots indicates
                  > something about whether Skimmer has decoded and/or verified a call.
                  >
                  > So an "unassisted" mode would need to remove any coloring
                  > from the dots.
                  >
                  > I don't see anything wrong with just having the waterfall going, with
                  > dots and text hidden.
                  >
                  > It would be however possible to distinguish between a carrier and a
                  > real cw signal based on statistics (signal variability) and not text
                  > decoding.
                  >
                  > Tor
                  > N4OGW
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.