Re: FREQ OBJECT Uniqueness (Tones and OFFSETS)


sbd sbd
 

That looks to be the case, so it is usable

 

Steve Daniels

G6UIM

Torbay Freecycle Moderator


From: aprsisce@... [mailto:aprsisce@...] On Behalf Of Lynn W Deffenbaugh (Mr)
Sent: 11 May 2012 19:50
To: aprsisce@...
Subject: Re: [aprsisce] FREQ OBJECT Uniqueness (Tones and OFFSETS)

 

 

So, if I see those right, the PHG information is parsed and stripped off, but the trailing / AND the !DAO! are left in the humanly readable comment.  At least it's readable, anyway.

Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows Mobile and Win32

On 5/11/2012 1:40 PM, Steve Daniels wrote:

Hopefully the attached VX8 images will go through, if not will email Lynn direct

 

Steve Daniels

G6UIM

Torbay Freecycle Moderator


From: aprsisce@... [mailto:aprsisce@...] On Behalf Of Lynn W Deffenbaugh (Mr)
Sent: 10 May 2012 18:10
To: aprsisce@...
Subject: Re: [aprsisce] FREQ OBJECT Uniqueness (Tones and OFFSETS)

 

 

Actually, I'd be interested in seeing how the newly proposed FTM-350 workaround PHGnnnn/FFF.FFFMHz ... packets appear on the VX-8s display.  If the PHG is removed, whether or not the / is removed, and whether the frequency is visible or line-wrapped and how much of the subsequent information is included on the display.

Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows Mobile and Win32

On 5/10/2012 12:35 PM, Bob Bruninga wrote:

Ø  I have a VX8 user local to me, I know it does not do QSY but I can check how it displays the information, if that’s a help

 

Thanks, but I believe the answer has been given that no, they do not.  Just the FTM-350.

 

Bob, WB4aPR

 

Steve Daniels

G6UIM

Torbay Freecycle Moderator


From: aprsisce@... [mailto:aprsisce@...] On Behalf Of James Ewen
Sent: 10 May 2012 15:30
To: aprsisce@...
Subject: Re: [aprsisce] FREQ OBJECT Uniqueness (Tones and OFFSETS)

 

 

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Bob Bruninga <bruninga@...> wrote:
>> It would be nice to have taken a bit of time to ensure
>> that the BASELINE is currently correct rather than firing
>> off something incomplete to the manufacturers.
>
> Relax.  How can we assure it is correct without involving them in that
> assessment?  Afterall, until Lynn came along, they were the ONLY players in
> the game!

Nailing an accurate definition down would be a first step, and then
assess the implementation.

> I have many DOZENS of emails over several years with them clarifying these
> details in the FREQ SPEC.  The SPEC evolved along with our mutual
> understanding.  And I guess that contributed somewhat to its poor
> organization.  Which I am trying to fix now.

I ended up working until midnight last night, so didn't get any time
to work on looking into your changes, nor towards creating a test
packet array to be used to identify the various implementations.

--
James
VE6SRV






 

 

Join APRSISCE@groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.