_and_ your print won't scroll up. As long as there is no CR/LF at the *end* of my call (just a space), it will be the first thing on the last (or active) line of your receive window. If that causes o
I think David has the right idea, this can be handled and improved algorithmically. And I won't be adding (more) CRLFs to my macros because there is small incentive for me to do so. If someone shows
The main concern was about adding a "newline" (as writelog calls it) after your exchange. This can require the other op to chase the exchange. A "newline" at the beginning of the xmsn doesn't cause a
Mine too. I for one would love to see our software insert a space character any time they see an end of transmission without a space sent before. We'd all benefit. Someday. ;) 73 jeff wk6i@W7RN -- Je
-- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: Spaces are better than nothing, but they don't prevent accidental word wrap right in the middle of your macro. An {ENTER} at the start of the macro does
Hi all. Not to look more silly of what I am, but ... It seems to me that this trending discovery of responders as CQers is happening much more since the introduction of the new RTTY skimmer. At least
I don't see how a word wrap anywhere affects anything. Jerry W4UK -- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: Spaces are better than nothing, but they don't prevent accidental word wrap right in th
Why do RTTY ops even put a "cq" at the end of their cq message? CW ops never put a CQ at the end (except for a few newbie converts from RTTY). 45 Baud RTTY is 60 wpm, a lot faster than contest CW, so
We have this discussion every year but here goes again. The reason I put a CQ at the end of my CQ message is so that anyone tuning across the end of my CQ message knows I'm calling CQ when they see C
Dave, I think the CQ on the end serves two purposes. First, if a S&P station tunes across a signal and misses the opening CQ he has no way of telling if this station is calling CQ or just finishing w
Dave I even put a CQ at the end of my TU message. TU VE7CC CQ Lee Dave, I think the CQ on the end serves two purposes. First, if a S&P station tunes across a signal and misses the opening CQ he has n
-- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: I'm sure if you were receiving a lot of word wraps, you would see the problem. Fortunately, most ops begin their macros with {ENTER} so you never see it.
-- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: It's not a case of "forgetting" that it was a CQ. It's a case of tuning across a station and getting only "...W6WRT W6WRT" The question is is W6WRT CQing
-- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: As I recall,, Don was the first op I ever heard use this technique. It caught on immediately, for good reason. 73, Bill W6WRT ___________________________
I get occasional word wraps, but it doesn't give me any problem. For instance, if a callsign is split, when I click on the first character of it, the entire call transfers into my call entry window.
I Agree - Don suggested it here a few years ago and as soon as I read his post, it made perfect sense to me. I have put a CQ at the end ever since. Thanks again, Don. Jerry W4UK perfect CQ macro for
A very very good thing indeed... 73/jeff/ac0c www.ac0c.com alpha-charlie-zero-charlie -- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) Why do RTTY ops even put a "cq" at the end of their cq message? CW ops nev
Hi All, I was using WinTelnetx as my Telnet interface, i had multiple skimmer windows as well as standard cluster windows funneling a ton of spots into Writelog. It didnt take long to notice the skim
Enjoying the thread. Not a skimmer user but this explains a lot of spots in Logger + that indicated call signs on frequencies that were not actually there. I couldn't understand it, but now it makes