First attempts at a net using FSQ: Critique
|
"Andrew O'Brien" <k3ukandy@...>
8 stations checked in via FSQ on 30M. The check in methods were easier than some other software . so that part worked quite well. The rest of the net seemed similar to other digital nets, that is.. some long pauses while others were unsure who (if anyone) was transmitting. Some doubles. The relays attempts I made did not work, presumably because I picked a relay station that was not always hearing me. Also, net control (me) did not always pause long enough for others to do their typing. The busy detect worked well but also prevented a few people from responding when asked a question by NCS. A nearby FAX xmission tripped the busy detect . I'd be interested in comments, but my first reaction is that it did not have any super advantage over using Fldigi in the usual net formats established by paNBEMS. Andy K3UK |
|
|
|
Ron Wenig <rwenig@...>
Hi Andy and All,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
It looks like I need an antenna improvement. I guess I was transmitting better than receiving. Checking in was good because just sending a selcal entered your call on the list. But taking comments causes confusion. For the slow typist it would good to have a message ready to go or keep replies short. At first the signals were all strong but fading. The relays looked strong but didn't work so I'm not sure why that happened. Bottom line is Fldigi does work better for formal nets but FSQ would work a lot faster for quick checkins. It was fun trying this on a new program. Also, I guess we should keep in mind this is a beta program so we shouldn't be using it for actual working conditions. 73, Ron NY3J On 03/07/2015 11:39 AM, 'Andrew
O'Brien' k3ukandy@... [NBEMSham] wrote:
|
|
|
|
Bryan C Hoffman <hoffgroup@...>
Sorry I missed the net.
Before I saw the comments I was thinking that this would be an interesting way to have stations checkin to a net. I could see NCO monitoring a given data freq allowing stations to checkin to their posts. While checkin they could also have the QTC msg sent to them with more info, such as voice freq or other instructions. Every so often NCO ack the checkins and they move to the given voice freq and monitor. My experience with exercise or actual unplanned callouts is the first period of time when everyone is coming online it can be overwhelming for a single NCO. Anyway, is there a a yahoo group that would be more fitting for FSQ conversation? 73 All. - Bryan - KC8EGV |
|
|
|
"Andrew O'Brien" <k3ukandy@...>
There are a few https://www.facebook.com/groups/323569771185409/ (Mainly USA) https://www.facebook.com/groups/1518375768428903/?fref=ts (Mainly Euopeans) Andy K3UK On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Bryan C Hoffman hoffgroup@... [NBEMSham] <NBEMSham@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Charles Brabham <n5pvl@...>
Andy forgot:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/digitalhamradio/info A discussion of digital ham radio not dominated by Winlinkers, under competent management. 73 DE Charles, N5PVL On 3/7/2015 3:00 PM, 'Andrew O'Brien'
k3ukandy@... [NBEMSham] wrote:
|
|
|
|
Neil Preston W0NRP
Hope I'm not beating a dead thread here, but the Missouri Digital Emergency Service operates a digital net using FSQ on 3598 KHz at 10 AM central time each Thursday. Propagation pretty well limits it to the state of MO, but here is how it works: During the half hour prior to the start of the official net, stations 'sound' their callsign in FSQ. These station calls are recorded in the net log. Stations may 'ping' other stations for reception reports using the '?' trigger. Net control sends announcements using 'allcall' and communicates with individual stations as necessary. Many of us run FSQCall along side of FLDigi. Files and other traffic can be sent using fldigi at 700 Hz while FSQ runs at 1500 Hz.
|
|
|