[TenTec] An example of changing Orion firmware to meetexpectations of the operator.

[Phil Howlett]

We certainly do need something along these lines as the way the radio is now
it is user vicious. Apparently no one at T-T is a serious DXer who has ever
had the occasion to actually work DX with the various methods of DX
operating. As far as I'm concerned, T-T has really missed the boat with
their present user interface scheme. It would be so easy to correct if some
minds could be changed. I've mentioned my feelings on this subject to Scott,
Jack, and others and all I get is a response very similar to the one others
received when the CW MOX issue ran rampant several months ago. It would
appear an act of God will be necessary to have anything done about the user
vicious split issue with this radio. Thank goodness I don't need any DX
entity on SSB or CW or this radio would be on the floor and the Paragon put
back on line. That radio was a pleasure to use in pileups, far superior to
the Omni 6+ I had for several years and an order of magnitude superior to
the Orion.

Duane, thanks for your earlier post. Now I feel better even though we both
have a better chance of flying to the moon than seeing this split issue
corrected.

73,
Phil, W9XX

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Duane A Calvin" <ac5aa at juno.com>
To: <tentec at contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] An example of changing Orion firmware to
meetexpectations of the operator.


> I appreciate the design point of having two receivers, not two VFO's, and
> the potential flexibility that this provides us as users.  This does
> bring up the difficulty of how to manage the added complexity.  For
> example, as a DX'er, the thing I need in a rig to have an edge when the
> DX suddenly says "up 5" is the ability to be there and be the first guy
> he works there.  With my Omni VI+, that meant punching in XIT and dialing
> up 5 - very easy and fast.  With the Orion, however, if I want to make
> use of the 2nd RX for listening to the pile, it's more of a problem.  I
> punch A>B, then I have to remember to set TX to B, then I dial up 5 on
> the B VFO/receiver.  Hopefully the mode, PBT and BW follow since I'll
> also be listening on B to see where I am in the pileup (after all, it had
> been set to a shortware AM broadcast station).
>
> I'd like to see a "quick split" function that is definable by the user to
> do multiple things (perhaps activated by a 'long push' on the A>B
> button).  It might do the following:
>
>         - Copy A settings to B (user selectable as to which additional
> settings besides freq/mode)
>         - Set TX to B
>         - Optionally reset the headphone audio to a user defined
> preference
>
> There could be a complementary function that works the other way -
> copying from B>A on a long push and doing all the same functions but in
> the other order (TX to A, etc.)
>
> What's important is how it will be used, and how to implement in a way
> that brings an advantage to the user.
>
>         73, Duane
>
>
> On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 09:19:49 -0500 "Grant Youngman" <nq5t at comcast.net>
> writes:
> > > -- VFO's are not receivers --
> >
>   I suspect that not everyone buys into the traditionalist
> > view of
> > what switching VFOs ... uh .. receivers ... uh .. VFOs?  what?   I'm
> >
> > confused just thinking about it. :-)
> >
> > (It was good the way it was)
> >
> > Grant/NQ5T
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
> >
>
>
> Duane Calvin, AC5AA
> Austin, Texas
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>