I’m using this software since his first time. I know about WSJT-X and JTDX and installed both on my computer since +/- 2016 and deleted both 1 month later.
I’m not an digital fanatic but in some case I can work SOTA activator’s like @F6HHK Bruno, @M1EYP Tom, @F5LKW Roger, @TF3EK Einar, @DH8IAT Thomas,@MM0EFI Frazer, @VE3YTP Andrew, @M0WIV John, @IK6BAK Eliseo, and newly @F4IVI Jérôme, on this mode.
I’m probably forgetting some but the list would be long and I’m not talking about chaser’s.
I had seen on some threads the difficulties of activators to initialize SOTA messages in these digital modes (not only FT8/4) when they wanted to activate summits.
I’m running MSHV V 2.70 64bits and today checked for a new release !
My surprise when I saw this
Interesting. I will give that a look. I actually use the WSJT-Z hack of WSJT-X and prefer that to JTDX and MSHV - but it has its disadvantages, so well worth a look at any new releases.
I hadn’t got round to trying the new MHSV 2.71 for my activation today. As such, I was snookered when called by GB0RNLI, and couldn’t find a way to complete the QSO - I was using MR1EYP/P!
So one job today is to get MHSV onto my laptop ahead of my planned MR1EYP/P activations tomorrow!
Hmm, tried it on the home (shack) PC and don’t like it. ISTR WSJT-X is/was ahead of WSJT-Z in terms of handling non-standard callsigns. Time to check for the latest updates and version numbers I think.
Tom @SQ9FVE - I can’t believe I’ve only just realised that the man behind WSJT-Z - you - is the SOTA DXpeditioner to Aconcagua, Svalbard etc!
Anyway, I checked, and I am running the latest version of Z (2.5.4) on the notebook laptop I use for SOTA, and on the shack PC. I’ve had a look at both MSHV and JTDX and don’t like them compared to WSJT-Z, despite their better handling of non-standard callsigns.
SOTA specific features sounds great - but of course the biggest improvement we wish for is complex/non-standard callsigns at both ends of a QSO being able to complete a contact. As mentioned above, today I (MR1EYP/P) was called by GB0RNLI, and the QSO was impossible. I had similar issues when I was activating as GB20SOTA earlier this year. Is this likely to be fixed in the next release of WSJT-Z?
Hehe, Svalbard was not really planed as a dxpedition, it was supposed to be a fun holiday, but it slowly morphs into a bit of a SOTA trip, if the weather permits of course
Funny you should mention two complex callsigns - not more than few hours away I was called by another JW/ station working from the local ham club station on FT8 (about 2km away from where I am), and unfortunately I was not able to complete that QSO using Z, it didn’t like two compound callsigns.
I know this is fixed in latest version of X, and we do have a version that already has that codebase merged, but it’s far from a stable release at the moment. And of course I will not be able to do any work on it until I’m back home, and even then finding enough time may be a challenge.
If you do want to give it a try, the latest release is posted on our groups.io. Not going to post anything here, but I’m sure you can easily find it
That’s approved now. Please make sure to test it at home before you leave and ideally keep the old installer on your laptop in case you need to rollback.
WSJT-Z 2.6.1 with mod v1.26 is running well on my home shack PC, and on the Lenovo notebook laptop I use for SOTA activations. Only issue I personally notice is the lack of red background when a station is calling me / working me - but this is already noted as a bug on the groups.io discussion.
It will be interesting to see what SOTA features you are planning to include. At present, I simply have my SOTA reference stored as a TX macro, then select it to send from Tx5, usually after the other station’s “73” and before my next “CQ”.
I sometimes edit my initial call to “CQ SOTA…”, but usually don’t. Advantages and disadvantages in doing that.
QSO from home shack between MR1EYP and DL100RADIO this morning using WSJT-Z 2.6.1 with Z-mod v1.26. Just need to see if the same is possible with M(R)1EYP/P now.
Tom, I was doing a POTA activation in Spain yesterday and attempted a QSO with you (it was on FT4 IIRC) I was EA7/M0WIV/P and you were MR1EYP so that probably must have been a good test. We didn’t complete but I think that was down to the conditions. I was using WSJT-X which isn’t ideal for SOTA/POTA. The missing features are not being able to send your grid when using complex callsigns and of course a simple and reliable way to send the POTA/SOTA reference. I know in theory you can use a tx macro but I can’t get to work, especially with FT4 where everything happens so quickly.
73
John
Hi John, it wasn’t conditions that scuppered the QSO, but your software! I received your call well and replied a couple of times with your report. The v1.26 mod on WSJT-Z 2.6.1 coped well with EA7/M0WIV/P from MR1EYP and allowed me to send the report. Unfortunately, your version of WSJT-X is not able to cope with that, so what I received from you was “MR1EYP EA7/M0WIV/P” - with the report lost through truncation. Not being able to send your grid is not so much of a problem; many stations on FT8/FT4 don’t send their grid anyway these days - but not being able to send the report ends the possibility of a completed QSO!
That is not really a matter of implementing a feature, it’s the specifics of the protocol used. The message is limited in size, hence with compound callsigns you will not be able to send the locator.
I will think about adding automated sota/pota reference reply after 73/rr73 in wsjt-z. After doing my first two activations on ft8, I agree that switching macros every time is not easy. Was also operating in gloves, which made it even more difficult.
Tom, thank you, that makes sense. I did see your report come through correctly. I wonder if I had used the callsign EA/M0WIV it would have worked? I might try that next time.
Tom, you are right of course the format does restrict what can be sent. For example I tried sending CQ POTA EA7/M0WIV/P but all it sent was CQ POTA EA7/M0 or something like that, it was truncated.
As I’ve suggested above using the callsign EA/M0WIV might be worth trying and still stay legal.
and ideally keep the old installer on your laptop in case you need to rollback.