Ihre Kommentare
Definition of the word SCANNING is the crucial word here. That's why I suggest SLOW "scan" max 3, maybe only 2 freqs on the same band per rig at anyone time of day for this Winmor "scan/dual" with same slow SW controlled Pactor scan.
1:
Dwelling abt 10sek when "scanning or creeping" within _same band_ makes it possible for the Busy detect to settle quicker than when changing bands.
2:
This option, beeing an option only, makes it possible to utilize better some few dedicated GOOD Qths if site area and fundings are available. Not so now.
3:
A client can always listen and know wether the server is occupied or not.
This way a lot of uneccesary QRM-making callings are avoided. Such callings in vain because the pactor server is occupied on another band out of reach is typically part of what has made quite some bad will towards the Winlink robots.
4:
Without this "creeping scan" it is "dangerous" to establish ANY server on 1600hz channel only. That is because, at least in Norway on the same channel voice SSB qsos are legal and are frequently ongoing. (In the middle of the small segment for unattended digital servers). We NEED 1 or 2 redundant "escape routes". If not: Alternative? I mean statistical probability of what are frequently going to happen?..... Even greater popularity of Winlink or what?
A setup like my suggestion has earlier been confirmed by you Rick, to actually being possible.
The standard defaulted old pactor way, DWELL 3 sek as RMS PACTOR is obviously impossible in a dual way, and this cross band quick scanning has also created quite some bad will towards Winlink. So that maybe should gradually be disencouraged.
1:
Dwelling abt 10sek when "scanning or creeping" within _same band_ makes it possible for the Busy detect to settle quicker than when changing bands.
2:
This option, beeing an option only, makes it possible to utilize better some few dedicated GOOD Qths if site area and fundings are available. Not so now.
3:
A client can always listen and know wether the server is occupied or not.
This way a lot of uneccesary QRM-making callings are avoided. Such callings in vain because the pactor server is occupied on another band out of reach is typically part of what has made quite some bad will towards the Winlink robots.
4:
Without this "creeping scan" it is "dangerous" to establish ANY server on 1600hz channel only. That is because, at least in Norway on the same channel voice SSB qsos are legal and are frequently ongoing. (In the middle of the small segment for unattended digital servers). We NEED 1 or 2 redundant "escape routes". If not: Alternative? I mean statistical probability of what are frequently going to happen?..... Even greater popularity of Winlink or what?
A setup like my suggestion has earlier been confirmed by you Rick, to actually being possible.
The standard defaulted old pactor way, DWELL 3 sek as RMS PACTOR is obviously impossible in a dual way, and this cross band quick scanning has also created quite some bad will towards Winlink. So that maybe should gradually be disencouraged.
The KAM option for PACTOR in RMS Express in addition to SCS and PK232 would be nice down the wish line.
73. LA7UM Finn
73. LA7UM Finn
This is a good idea.
As a compromise making it possible soon I turn the question upside down.
It may be divided into some sections:
1: Existing pactor only stations may go on as they already do if they wish.
They already make redundancy or "escape routes" to the server seen form the client point of vieuw.
2: New Winmor servers may/SHOULD! be allowed to scan slowly max 3 frequencies at a band at any one time of day 10 sec Dwell time. This will enourmuosly increase the redundancy seen from the client point of vieuw where he in the field may need finding a quieter frequency away form generator or other uncotrolled noice on the same band. The Busy-detect will have time for settling.
Then stations owning a P3 modem willing to accept this Winmor regime might add ther pactor 123 TNC scanning the same 3 frequencies ..narrow or wide..
RMS Express must increase its default call session to be 30 sec. About like pactor.
This whole dual scanning system may already be done elegantly using the BPQ32 system. So why not also with Original SW? (exept off course....sw need programming time to be implemented....., or maybe already some hidden plans for kind of integrations of SW are present?) I don't know at all.
Good reliable traffic statistics may also be a serious issue in the "big picture" of such as total SYSTEM as Wl2K is. This may prevent a mixture as mentioned above.
But why invent the wheel twice? if not necessary?
73 de la7um Finn
As a compromise making it possible soon I turn the question upside down.
It may be divided into some sections:
1: Existing pactor only stations may go on as they already do if they wish.
They already make redundancy or "escape routes" to the server seen form the client point of vieuw.
2: New Winmor servers may/SHOULD! be allowed to scan slowly max 3 frequencies at a band at any one time of day 10 sec Dwell time. This will enourmuosly increase the redundancy seen from the client point of vieuw where he in the field may need finding a quieter frequency away form generator or other uncotrolled noice on the same band. The Busy-detect will have time for settling.
Then stations owning a P3 modem willing to accept this Winmor regime might add ther pactor 123 TNC scanning the same 3 frequencies ..narrow or wide..
RMS Express must increase its default call session to be 30 sec. About like pactor.
This whole dual scanning system may already be done elegantly using the BPQ32 system. So why not also with Original SW? (exept off course....sw need programming time to be implemented....., or maybe already some hidden plans for kind of integrations of SW are present?) I don't know at all.
Good reliable traffic statistics may also be a serious issue in the "big picture" of such as total SYSTEM as Wl2K is. This may prevent a mixture as mentioned above.
But why invent the wheel twice? if not necessary?
73 de la7um Finn
I wish that KAM v.6.1 (bugfri pactor1). KAM_E v.6.1 and above, and KAM+ v.6.1 and above is made avaiable in RMS Express for Pactor 1 (As as been done with PK(AEA)232.
Airmail already has an option of Pactor1 with KAMP+
Including in RMS Express the option of HighTones 2210 CF and (the locked) EU tones 1360hz (1350hz may be the case for later AEA versions) for LSB USE. The additional option for choosing even Side band for those old TNCs (like Airmail) might greatly enhance their narrow band use with extremely good old fsk narrowband filters for RX, and will increase their usability, for exemple with the great rigs FT1000 and FT 990. They only TX LSB in data mode. When Other connections has to be done running pure USB for WINMOR or PACTOR combi P123,(4) boxes when they get ready is can be done through other connectors...mic...plug.
BOTTOM LINE: 1:This requests will make it easy for us "Elmers" in the field to get anything working. 2: If Pactor1 is running and a Winmor Server is within reach, then go for WINMOR. But (as still is the case in EU), many more stations are qrv Pactor mode only, THEN the KAM+, even slow, may come in handy..
73 de la7um Finn
Airmail already has an option of Pactor1 with KAMP+
Including in RMS Express the option of HighTones 2210 CF and (the locked) EU tones 1360hz (1350hz may be the case for later AEA versions) for LSB USE. The additional option for choosing even Side band for those old TNCs (like Airmail) might greatly enhance their narrow band use with extremely good old fsk narrowband filters for RX, and will increase their usability, for exemple with the great rigs FT1000 and FT 990. They only TX LSB in data mode. When Other connections has to be done running pure USB for WINMOR or PACTOR combi P123,(4) boxes when they get ready is can be done through other connectors...mic...plug.
BOTTOM LINE: 1:This requests will make it easy for us "Elmers" in the field to get anything working. 2: If Pactor1 is running and a Winmor Server is within reach, then go for WINMOR. But (as still is the case in EU), many more stations are qrv Pactor mode only, THEN the KAM+, even slow, may come in handy..
73 de la7um Finn
Re: Question about RMS Pactor Logging
I have been thinking that in both RMS WINMOR and RMS PACTOR, an option for not
only Dayly Roster, but Weekly, Monthly and Yearly Roster would be nice. If
enabled.
It would simplify getting an overview of WHO doing the Trafic.
73 de la7um Finn
RMS LA3F, LA3F-5, LA3F-10
I have been thinking that in both RMS WINMOR and RMS PACTOR, an option for not
only Dayly Roster, but Weekly, Monthly and Yearly Roster would be nice. If
enabled.
It would simplify getting an overview of WHO doing the Trafic.
73 de la7um Finn
RMS LA3F, LA3F-5, LA3F-10
Customer support service by UserEcho
The statistics do show no P1 traffic. That is not true.
There was yesterday done P1 file transfer to a P1,2,3 40m freq on RMS LA3F using RMS Express and a PK232 running only P1 now documented by logs for both stations.
73 de la7um Finn