FT8/4 & SOTA - try MSHV by LZ2HV

Hi all,

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 :upside_down_face:

I haven’t uploaded the new version yet but I think there will be a lot of curious :slight_smile:

This is where it happens, the LZ2HV Christo site :


73, Éric


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.

1 Like

Tom did you try today the new V2.71 ?

I downloaded MSHV a few weeks ago but couldn’t get it to work.

I will try again!

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!

1 Like

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.

I will release new version of Z once I get back from JW. Will think about adding SOTA specific features too.

1 Like

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?

1 Like

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 :slight_smile:

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 :slight_smile:



Thank you, will do. I have sent a join request; just waiting for that to be approved now so that I can download the v2.6.1.

Hopefully that may happen tonight so that I can try out the new release on SOTA activations tomorrow.

That’s approved now. Please make sure to test it at home before you leave :wink: and ideally keep the old installer on your laptop in case you need to rollback.



Thank you Tom, it’s downloading now.

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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. :slight_smile: 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.

1 Like

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.


I suspect that still won’t work in most cases; certainly not if the other call is non-standard.

The only fixes AIUI are:

  • Use JTDX
  • Use MSHV

(Note - I have not tested these solutions as I quickly determined that I much preferred WSJT).

  • Update WSJT to WSJT-Z 2.6.1 with mod v1.26 (unstable release* only available from the WSJT-Z groups.io group).

*Works perfectly for me so far both at home on shack PC, and while activating with Lenovo notebook).

1 Like