--- Charles Greene <W1CG@QSL.NET> wrote:
> I agree that there needs to be some rethought on the
> interface on rig control software. One needs to
> think "Communicating" as instead of rig control as
> an objective. What do you need to get the job done?
Another part of this equation is achieving a much
better situational awareness of band conditions at any
given moment, spectrum scopes on the radio itself is a
small step in the right direction but they aren't
really the best way to fully achieve it though. The
problem with radio panel mounted spectrum displays are
that they are all too small, and the signals that you
do see there are too cumbersome to get to quickly and
efficiently with the panel only controls provided.
> Other secondary objectives may be
> "Reduce Interference," and various transceiver
> filters are set up. The operator makes choices
> between options presented. Of course, the operator
> has the ability to over ride and make selections
> himself.
Even more exciting would be having the ability to
"draw" whatever filter shape passband that you need
based on the real-time spectrum display for the
segment of the band you are currently using, bye, bye
fixed filter shapes and bandwidths. Imagine drawing a
notch width as big (or as many), as you need to remove
interfering signal(s)? Or how about rolling off those
excessive lows for those folks with that "sewer pipe"
sounding audio that they are so often proud of.
> I have used several rig control programs and most
> duplicate transceiver controls, sometimes
> simplifying operation of complex operations.
> However, sometimes it is easier to use the rig
> controls instead of the mouse.
This is simply an indication that the computer control
program was not written (or possibly being used)
correctly, or that the radio that it is driving can't
be controlled effectively, or some combination
thereof.
> Another thing is you need to consider the state of
> the art of transceivers and the ability to control
> functions. I have two K2s and sometimes operate
> SO2R with them, and an Omni VI. You can not control
> all functions on these two rigs. New top of the
> line rigs like the Orion or IC-7800 are more
> amenable to complete "Objective" control.
While they are better than their predecessors they
both are still designed to be panel driven first and
computer controlled/integrated second. Until that
design priority order is reversed our radios will
always be lacking for doing exciting types of computer
integration. While the 7800 does have an Ethernet port
it remains to seen if it will ever do anything truly
useful. All of the computer interface design effort
presented so far for the 7800 was to make a huge RS232
command set, that just underscores the legacy thinking
of that radio's designers when it came to computer
control.
> One thing I would like to see in a rig control
> program is a band and simultaneous controllable
> narrow sub spectrum displays and the ability to
> select frequencies/stations by the click of a mouse.
> This would help operator control, and make a display
> do more than just provide information. I you run
> two transceivers, have two sets of displays.
These are the kinds of concepts that I have had a hard
time successfully explaining to most people, it is a
fundamentally different way to view our radios and how
we interact with them. Once you've worked with, and
have become comfortable with a radio configuration
that does some of these things you will probably find
that tuning a radio with a large VFO knob will seem
downright awkward if you want to be zipping about the
bands quickly.
> One thing I have done is to run two simultaneous
> copies of MixW, controlling two K2s on different
> bands, and transmit/receive digital signals on one
> or the other, shifting rigs by the click of a mouse
> and typing in the window that is selected. The non
> transmitting rig copies the selected station
> while transmitting on the other. Typical SO2R
> operation.
Similarly in concept I've been running 4 "radios"
simultaneously on 4 separate bands and have all of
them communicating with WriteLog. Works pretty darn
slick too, rather than trying to drive radios from
WriteLog I drive the radios from the N4PY software
sessions and the WriteLog program dutifully follows. I
can envision many improvements over what I'm now
doing, but the limitations to date are mostly the
hardware that is being driven, not the software, after
all software can only do what the hardware will let
it.
> At 08:44 AM 6/27/2004, Mark Erbaugh wrote:
> ... To date, most computer based radio
> control programs have tried to
> make the computer screen look like a traditional
> radio front panel. The radio front panels were
> designed because that was an effective user
> interface given the limitations of knobs and
> buttons. We really need to
> think of the radio control program as a computer
> program and design an interface that works for that.
This is 100% correct, it is also a key concept that
many cannot connect with, that is unfortunate.
> I'm not sure what the improved interface is as I've
> been using knob and buttons for so long that I'm
> used to the way they work and tend to think of
> my interaction with the radio in those terms, but I
> have to believe that there is a totally new design
> out there.
The reality is that there isn't any one single user
interface that is appropriate for all types of users
or uses. Radio designers trying to achieve that
impossible goal is one of the main reason that the
complexity of the knobs/buttons/menu driven radios of
today have gotten so far out of hand. They are rapidly
reaching a point of not being very usable by anyone
for any style of operating. That is why separate and
different software control programs need to each be
written to be optimized for what the intended task is.
And also why simple more traditional knobs/button
control panels still have a very important place as
well. And finally it also illuminates why our radios
(stations) need to be more modular, not less, - the
160M-23CM all in one box radio trend is a huge
hindrance and a major step backwards for achieving
true flexibility for the end-user.
I want to have the option to use what works best for
what I want to do on any given day rather than trying
to figure out how to make what the radio manufacturer
has given me to only be usable by making compromises
for everything that I do. On that point most all of
today's higher end radios are failing pretty
miserably.
Duane
N9DG
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|