Date   

Re: Fldigi

Brennan Long <prankster2261@...>
 

My baud rate is 9600 I also dont use signal link my audio  is all USB Codec I know that my settings in FLDIGI is incorrect though.


Re: Fldigi

Andy_VE4PER
 

I run an FT-857D and use a SignalinkUSB for audio. I set baud rate in the rig at 38,400 and leave it there. I use the yaesu CAT USB cable to control the rig from the PC. I also use the USB connection to the SignalinkUSB as the audio device when you config rigs, and audio cards in the FLdigi program. You likely have to config FLrig as well to match the port, xml device files and baud rates.

I also use PC-ALE and do the same there configure the program to use CAT for rig control and PTT and use the same comm port # and baud rate in both programs so it can be used easily just by starting and stopping the programs.


On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 08:41 -0700, Brennan Long wrote:
ok thanks I will try that. I use windows and a usb cable. I can decode in fldigi though and I was able to get the frequency correct on the dial but after I hooked up to WSJTX it messed up everything. But even thoung it does not show my frequency I can still decode. I could be a setting in the radio as well.


Re: Fldigi

Brennan Long <prankster2261@...>
 

ok thanks I will try that. I use windows and a usb cable. I can decode in fldigi though and I was able to get the frequency correct on the dial but after I hooked up to WSJTX it messed up everything. But even thoung it does not show my frequency I can still decode. I could be a setting in the radio as well.


Re: Fldigi

501_Andy_VE4PER <ve4per@...>
 

check here to get your rigs file and then put it in thew rigs folder on your PC then go to fldigi config anf select it as the rig to use.


I spent a few extra mins and just downloaded all the rigs files so I can use my laptop with any deployed installation as it were.
cheers & 73

On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 08:31 -0600, Brennan Long wrote:
Hello, new to this group. It said that this is for FLDIGI. I have a ft991 and it hooks up fine with WSJTX but not fldigi. If someone has a FT991 with fldigi will you please send me the settings at k6bfl456@....
73 k6bfl


Re: Fldigi

Andrew OBrien <k3ukandy@...>
 

In FLdigi , are you using the “Rig CAT” option ? If so, do you have a .xml file for your rig specified in the CAT configuration area ? You can get the required files from the “rigs” section of the FLdigi we site .
Andy K3UK


On Nov 1, 2018, at 10:31 AM, Brennan Long <prankster2261@...> wrote:

Hello, new to this group. It said that this is for FLDIGI. I have a ft991 and it hooks up fine with WSJTX but not fldigi. If someone has a FT991 with fldigi will you please send me the settings at k6bfl456@....
73 k6bfl


Fldigi

Brennan Long <prankster2261@...>
 

Hello, new to this group. It said that this is for FLDIGI. I have a ft991 and it hooks up fine with WSJTX but not fldigi. If someone has a FT991 with fldigi will you please send me the settings at k6bfl456@....
73 k6bfl


Re: Pre-emphasis or Not for VHF digital modem tones

David Ranch
 

Hello Paul,

I think the main Fldigi list would be the best place for this qurstion since it really has nothing to do with the NBEMS type usage of Fldigi. 

Anyway, the issue of mismatched emphasis is mostly a matter of the software decoding the signals.  In a packet setup using old TNC2 hardware, the mismatch or "twist" really hurt the the decode performance.  More modern systems like KPC3s and software TNCs like Direwolf, UZ7HO Soundmodem, etc. all deal with the mismatch pretty well.  Generally speaking, all HAMs should use the right configuration but some modern radios do the WRONG thing on the "1200bps" RX pin and TX pin on the rear 6pin "DATA" jack and NOT apply the expected de-emphasis and emphasis!  Beware!

So the question of how Fldigi deals with it will generally depend on the modes you're using.  The potential risk I see is a remote station transmitting via the 6pin discriminator input at maximum levels and then a local station applying de-emphasis on the signal and lowering the high frequency levels by ~6dB. 
The wider the bandwidth, the more potential impact there might be.  I bet that the Fldigi modem will deal with the different levels just fine.

--David
KI6ZHD


Re: Duplicate check with ACLog (N3FJP)

Ed W3NR
 

On 10/31/18 10:53 AM, kc3fl via Groups.Io wrote:
I am using Fldigi 4.0.18 on Windows 10.  Just added ACLog V6.4 and it works great, however the Duplicate Check in Fldigi stops working.  Normally when a dupe is entered the call sign is highlighted and if the log is viewed the last contact is brought up.  When the API in ACLog is connected the Duplicate Check fails and if the Fldigi log is viewed the last contact is not displayed.  Looks like Fldigi doesn't go thru the check.  Any suggestions on a fix or where I went wrong?
_._,_._,_

ACLog should show the dupes.

Ed W3NR


Pre-emphasis or Not for VHF digital modem tones

ad7i
 

Greetings --

I posted this a while back in winfldigi@groups.io  but didn't get much of a response, so I'm reposting it in this group.

I'm somewhat new to using fldigi at VHF.  In doing testing and observing on the air signals, I see that some VHF stations are using pre-emphasis in their transmissions and others are not, often with some of those VHF stations not aware that they either are or are-not transmitting with pre-emphasis.

The difference appears to come about because some operators inject their fldigi TX audio into the microphone jack of their VHF transceiver, because that's the only option available to them (so their signals are transmitted with pre-emphasis).  And other operators inject their fldigi TX audio into the 6 pin (or 8 pin) mini-DIN jack on the back of their VHF radio when their radio has such a jack, because it's convenient way to connect to the transceiver, and those transmissions in most cases appear to be without pre-emphasis.

For high-speed wide-bandwidth operation at VHF is there any consensus among experienced VHF fldigi operators as to whether it's better to make those transmissions with or without pre-emphasis?  I would presume it's best for everyone to do the same thing (pre-emphasis or no-emphasis), but is it better for everyone to do it one way or the other?  If no pre-emphasis is the best option, should those who are forced to inject fldigi audio into the VHF transceiver's mic jack add some sort of external de-emphasis circuit before the mic jack, so that their transmitted audio spectrum has a flat frequency response?

thanks,

Paul, ad7i


Duplicate check with ACLog (N3FJP)

John
 

I am using Fldigi 4.0.18 on Windows 10.  Just added ACLog V6.4 and it works great, however the Duplicate Check in Fldigi stops working.  Normally when a dupe is entered the call sign is highlighted and if the log is viewed the last contact is brought up.  When the API in ACLog is connected the Duplicate Check fails and if the Fldigi log is viewed the last contact is not displayed.  Looks like Fldigi doesn't go thru the check.  Any suggestions on a fix or where I went wrong?


Re: flrig 1.3.40 bugs

Dave
 

Please test

with your Seismograph application.

Dave

On 10/21/18 11:36 PM, A Schwarz wrote:
HI Dave and all;

I was trying to run the RF-Seismograph with fl-rig 1.3.40 and the XML serial connections between rig and RF-Seismograph; it stopped working!
It was working on 1.3.39 when  we first implemented.

Alex - VE7DXW


Re: flrig 1.3.40 bugs

A Schwarz
 

HI Dave and all;

I was trying to run the RF-Seismograph with fl-rig 1.3.40 and the XML serial connections between rig and RF-Seismograph; it stopped working!
It was working on 1.3.39 when  we first implemented.

Alex - VE7DXW


Re: Narrow Band Emergency Messages

Steve Bellner
 

Thank you for the insight about the tone. I have used it on HF but not on the repeaters. Tuesday is our training session and we have been trying to get the local ARES personnel to engage  using the NBEMS program. Most members do not have  a soundcard interface. This will help Thanks.

Steve, W8TER


On 10/14/2018 12:17 PM, Frank Olaughlin wrote:
Charles,

Excellent points. Well said. The pilot tone can be hugely effective.


Re: Narrow Band Emergency Messages

Frank Olaughlin
 

Charles,

Excellent points. Well said. The pilot tone can be hugely effective.


Re: Narrow Band Emergency Messages

Charles Hargrove
 

The various PSK modes may have issues going through an FM repeater because of reactance tuning. However, the 8PSK modes were made for
repeaters, especially when the 500hz pilot tone is activated. The
pilot tone keeps the signal within 1 or 2 hz so that it is stable.
Some repeaters will exhibit a notch in the waterfall when there is
a tone used for linking repeaters. Our main repeater system in NYC
has this as I see a deep notch at 2200 hz in the waterfall, so I
make sure that a 1500 hz centered signal does not reach 2200 hz on
the high end. The 500 hz pilot tone is above the PL squelch range
of 67-254 hz. And as was said previously, NO acoustic coupling.
A stable audio chain between the radio and computer is needed. If
you don't have a souncard interface dongle, then use regular audio
cables for mic and speaker and turn on the VOX with a short delay.

On 10/13/2018 8:44 PM, Frank Olaughlin wrote:
Steve,
Yes, you are spot on. Acoustic coupling and 8PSK modes are a dead end street. We have had excellent success with them using Signalink or other external interfaces.
Frank WQ1O
--
Charles J. Hargrove - N2NOV
NYC-ARECS/RACES Citywide Radio Officer/Skywarn Coord.

NYC-ARECS/RACES Nets 449.025/123.0 PL
ARnewsline Broadcast Mon. @ 8:00PM
NYC-ARECS Weekly Net Mon. @ 8:30PM
http://www.nyc-arecs.org

NY-NBEMS Net Saturdays @ 10AM & USeast-NBEMS Net Wednesdays @ 7PM
on 7.036 Mhz USB (alt 3.536)/1500 hz waterfall spot; MFSK-16 or 32

"Information is the oxygen of the modern age. It seeps through the walls topped
by barbed wire, it wafts across the electrified borders." - Ronald Reagan

"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus

"Molann an obair an fear" - Irish Saying
(The work praises the man.)

"No matter how big and powerful government gets, and the many services it
provides, it can never take the place of volunteers." - Ronald Reagan


Re: Narrow Band Emergency Messages

Frank Olaughlin
 

Steve,

Yes, you are spot on. Acoustic coupling and 8PSK modes are a dead end street. We have had excellent success with them using Signalink or other external interfaces.

Frank WQ1O


Re: Narrow Band Emergency Messages

Steve Bellner
 

Just a comment...

We here in NW Ohio have been using MT 63 through the repeaters for training. We just started playing with 8PSK and note that stations using audio coupling have a very limited success rate at copying the PSK modes. Those using soundcard interfaces with 8PSK seem to have more success.

Steve, W8TER


On 10/13/2018 12:16 PM, Frank Olaughlin wrote:
Jack,

Thanks for your thoughts on this and info about your operations. My apologies in my labeling......it should have read 8PSK500F/125F. The 125F is an old test mode for us. 8PSK500F is the repeater standard. We have had no issues with it on reliability. One big thing we found for higher 8PSK modes (not non-8PSK) is to use 1800 and not 1500 on sending. People have argued with me on his, but it doesn't matter. That's what we've found having sent many thousands of messages during real operations. 1800 works best, especially using 1000F and 1200F.( you have to use the pilot tone on 1200F...it's a huge difference!). The big issue with repeaters is that their quality of audio can vary from one to the other. MT632KL has always been reliable. It's just so slow. it's painful. This is especially true using Flamp. QPSK500 was a huge step up (despite no RSID...no biggie if your group uses a standard). We still keep it as a backup. I have to say that adopting 8PSK500F was major. A normal message runs about 12-14 seconds.
I'm always concerned about relying on repeaters too much. Our best and most reliable mode is 8PSK1000F and 8PSK1200F(need good signal) simplex. A message is usually less than 8 seconds. We have designated 5-7 stations with real good height and coverage. 8PSK1000F is so fast that they all can relay that message between them and cover about 100% of our area. This method, of course, is dependent on the size of your operations area. Many areas of the county are huge compared to mine, so this would be rendered impractical. Where there's a will, there's a way. Especially with the flexibility of the NBEMS programs. Jack, do you use one main repeater and have a backup? That is pretty much what is done here, although I like simplex where I can get away with it.

Thanks for your comments

Frank WQ1O
Cape Cod and Islands ARES DEC


Re: Narrow Band Emergency Messages

Richard E Neese <kb3vgw@...>
 

Where can I find the fldigi nbems macros you all use if any ?

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 


Re: Narrow Band Emergency Messages

Frank Olaughlin
 

Jack,

Thanks for your thoughts on this and info about your operations. My apologies in my labeling......it should have read 8PSK500F/125F. The 125F is an old test mode for us. 8PSK500F is the repeater standard. We have had no issues with it on reliability. One big thing we found for higher 8PSK modes (not non-8PSK) is to use 1800 and not 1500 on sending. People have argued with me on his, but it doesn't matter. That's what we've found having sent many thousands of messages during real operations. 1800 works best, especially using 1000F and 1200F.( you have to use the pilot tone on 1200F...it's a huge difference!). The big issue with repeaters is that their quality of audio can vary from one to the other. MT632KL has always been reliable. It's just so slow. it's painful. This is especially true using Flamp. QPSK500 was a huge step up (despite no RSID...no biggie if your group uses a standard). We still keep it as a backup. I have to say that adopting 8PSK500F was major. A normal message runs about 12-14 seconds.
I'm always concerned about relying on repeaters too much. Our best and most reliable mode is 8PSK1000F and 8PSK1200F(need good signal) simplex. A message is usually less than 8 seconds. We have designated 5-7 stations with real good height and coverage. 8PSK1000F is so fast that they all can relay that message between them and cover about 100% of our area. This method, of course, is dependent on the size of your operations area. Many areas of the county are huge compared to mine, so this would be rendered impractical. Where there's a will, there's a way. Especially with the flexibility of the NBEMS programs. Jack, do you use one main repeater and have a backup? That is pretty much what is done here, although I like simplex where I can get away with it.

Thanks for your comments

Frank WQ1O
Cape Cod and Islands ARES DEC


Re: Narrow Band Emergency Messages

Jack Dellinger
 

Frank. WQ1O
Curious as to why you went to 8PSK125F after testing QPSK500.?
We did some testing after reading your article. ALL testing is on local 2 meter repeater with wide coverage area.  
Using your article as test message we found that:
MT632kL sent message in 2:30 minutes  copy by 5 stations no errors
QPSK500 sent message in 35 seconds  copy by 5 stations no errors
8PSK125F sent message in 1:18 minutes 2 of 5 stations not good copy.
We have used MT632KL for over 5 years for sending message (IS-213) traffic. Traffic is copied by multiple stations with near 100 percent copy rate.
We have tired the 8PSK modes several times over the last year.  There always seems to be stations that don't get a good copy and have to have resends.
So if QPSK500  is much faster and more reliable, why use the 8PSK modes???
MT632KL has been so reliable for us and usually any traffic we need to send fits within the repeater 3 minute time out window, so we are reluctant to change.
the QPSK500 mode looks very good to us so far.  Hope to do a lot more testing, including using FLAMP.   Like the 8PSK modes BUT reliability of good receive just doesn't seem to be there.

Jack KC3JD
York AREA RACES SKYWARN (YARS)
PA. SouthCentral Task Force (SCTF) Amateur Radio Work Group (ARWG)


On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:27 PM Frank Olaughlin <wq1o.frank@...> wrote:

Cape Cod and Islands uses NBEMS for our county MACC facility. We use it to communicate with other EOCs and the also the state. We have been using and testing NBEMS for some time. We started off with MT632KL for VHF/UHF. We started using it because it seemed to be a sort of standard. It worked fine, but after testing other modes in Fldigi, we realized there was no sense in continuing to use it since it was so slow. We quickly switched to QPSK500 and never looked back. In recent years, we use 8PSK125F/500F on one of our repeaters and 8PSK1000F/1200F on simplex. We have used 8PSK1200F successfully during very intense coastal storms last Winter. Winds were around 100mph or so and both AT&T and Comcast were basically offline. The multicast capability makes it a great system. Our incident management team was impressed by both the ICS forms in Flmsg and sending files with Flamp. They needed a codeplug for two Motorola CDM-1550s in different areas. Using Flamp, we sent it to both in one shot using 8PSK. This really impressed them.

I think Meshnet systems do have potential, but I agree with the poster who was concerned by increasing use of infrastructure. We have to be careful not to abandon tested communications options just because something new comes along. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use new ideas as they come along. We just have to watch that we don't become the very same infrastructure dependent system that agencies use us to back up. I think the people advancing MESH tech realize this and are keeping system redundant and as interoperable as they can. It has a great future, as long as we remember not to put all our eggs in any one basket.

We also use Winlink, but to a lesser degree. It will likely see more use here with ARDOP coming along for HF. Pactor 4 is too expensive for me and most others.

What I really like about NBEMS is that I can use an old laptop with Linux, cheap 10 dollar Kenwood mobile bought at a fleamarket, cheap J-pole, and still have good speed digital operations with Flmsg and Flamp. Got to hand it to Dave for that……This stuff works.