WriteLog
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [WriteLog] Writelog's Future

To: <pcooper@guernsey.net>, <writelog@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [WriteLog] Writelog's Future
From: "Alec Otulak" <sp2ewq@wp.pl>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:30:59 +0100
List-post: <mailto:writelog@contesting.com>



Phil,

As I seem to have recovered after the CQ-WW
I want You to know I have replied to Your further message.
However, I cannot see it posted at all.

In my reply I have suggested implementation of the codes within Writelog,
which I find successfully used in 'Digital Master 780'
and are published at http://www.w1hkj.com/Fldigi.html

I have many more ideas which I would like to share. However, before
I do that I need to know whether there is anybody who may want to
listen to me at all.

By the way, during CQ-WW I could not use Writelog because it had taken me
too much time to configure it, so there was no time left to get a feel of
it, 
in this respect the deficiency is Writelog's obsolete 'help file'.

Have You received that message,
please ?

Yours,
Alec
SP2EWQ/2








-----Original Message-----
From: writelog-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:writelog-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Alec Otulak
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 6:17 AM
To: pcooper@guernsey.net; writelog@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [WriteLog] Writelog's Future with PSK31




Phil,

Yes, You were/are absolutely clear.
I do hope my point was/is also as clear as Yours.
Writelog has become MY software. However,
it does not meet my expectations, and the opinions 
I have presented are not just mine.

It is good we agree: improvements are welcome to it.

73,
Alec




-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Cooper [mailto:pcooper@guernsey.net] 
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 10:30 PM
To: Alec Otulak; writelog@contesting.com
Subject: RE: Writelog's Future with PSK31

Hi Alec,

You are missing the point here. WL does an EXCELLENT job on it's own, and
really does NOT need any additional "bells & whistles" to "improve" it.

I was merely suggesting that there is nothing stopping you opening another
program to get a full spectrum of what is happening on the band.

Personally, I only had the second window open to see what else was around.
The problem with that is - being a wide band decode - you can't always see
the weaker stations with this second window. Most times, all you decode are
those stations who insist on using way too much power for a mode such as
PSK31. (And PLEASE do not let us get into a discussion of power levels and
PSK again!)
The advantage of WL is that it offers way superior decoding, so you get to
work stations you would not otherwise hear.

My suggestion was to show that WL does NOT need to implement things which
are already available to you!

I am not going to suggest that WL cannot be improved, but it is up to the
individual to use whatever means they can to assist in ways which are
available readily.

An example of this may be that I sometimes open a second instance of MMTTY,
and choose a different "PROFILE" to see what differences are decoded. I have
sometimes opened MMVARI, just to see what difference that makes.

Does that imply a deficiency in WL? No, it does not, and nor should WL be
considered inferior simply because it is my choice to open a second MMTTY or
MMVARI window.

I hope that makes my position clear?

73 for now,

Phil GU0SUP



_______________________________________________
WriteLog mailing list
WriteLog@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
WriteLog on the web:  http://www.writelog.com/

_______________________________________________
WriteLog mailing list
WriteLog@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
WriteLog on the web:  http://www.writelog.com/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>