K4SB contributed:
>In a previous message Ron Rossi made some comments on the difficulty
>of interfacing some radios, and "undocumented" features. Maybe you
>guys with newer manuals know this, but mine doesn't even hint about
>it.
And then shared some useful stuff he received from Ten-Tec that may
make the suggestion that came to me last night somewhat redundant:
If somebody has both an Omni & a 735, try setting them up for
what ICOM calls "transceive" (enable option where radio outputs info
as changes are made to it) & make sure that the Omni follows what the
735 does & vice versa.
Consistency in the CI-V implementation across ICOM models has been
a bit of a pain for Tree in the past & Ron's doing a bloody good job since
trying to lick it for good. It's not all that hard to imagine that Ten-Tec's
emulation of CI-V may have been thrown a wobbly as a result.
The 735 was an oddball with its four byte frequency length. If I recall
correctly, that was the first, if not one of the first rigs to come out with
native CI-V support after ICOM brought out the module for the 751-era
rigs (271, etc) to get past the dog's breakfast parallel thing that was
their previous external control interface.
I did some auto-QSY software for ICOMs so that W0RLI-based HF packet
BBSs in Asia could move between bands when forwarding traffic in a
previous life & just trying to make sense of the original UX-14 module
documentation in Jinglish was a challenge that no doubt could have
confused Ten-Tec or anyone else trying to emulate the same thing.
73, BW2/VR2BrettGraham
|