Search found 52 matches
- Sat 10. Feb 2024, 15:54
- Forum: RUMlogNG
- Topic: Using RTTY in Ventura 14.2.1 on a Mac mini
- Replies: 5
- Views: 2175
Re: Using RTTY in Ventura 14.2.1 on a Mac mini
This results in sending reverse. You haven‘t mentioned, you use an external device. But I'm not using an external device to my knowledge. The FSK is generated in the K3, I'm sending the text from the contest module software, OR I can use the internal keyer sending manual CW to result in RTTY out to...
- Sat 10. Feb 2024, 11:37
- Forum: RUMlogNG
- Topic: Using RTTY in Ventura 14.2.1 on a Mac mini
- Replies: 5
- Views: 2175
Re: Using RTTY in Ventura 14.2.1 on a Mac mini
Thank you. It was a POL setting that isn't even mentioned in the manual, In the MENU CONFIG settings there is an FSK POL selection. Choices are 0 (zero) or 1 (one). When I set it to 1 I was successfully decoded.
Thank you again.
- Sat 10. Feb 2024, 10:24
- Forum: RUMlogNG
- Topic: Using RTTY in Ventura 14.2.1 on a Mac mini
- Replies: 5
- Views: 2175
Using RTTY in Ventura 14.2.1 on a Mac mini
It's been a very long time since I've run RTTY in this configuration, but I had a notion to participate in the CQ-WPX-RTTY contest this weekend. I set it all up and everything looks good. I can hear and decode other users and I'm sending messges seemingly OK, BUT no matter who I call, they cannot de...
- Mon 6. Feb 2023, 17:59
- Forum: RUMlogNG
- Topic: Problem setting up for CQ WPX RTTY
- Replies: 3
- Views: 1193
Re: Problem setting up for CQ WPX RTTY
I'm using a CAT interface through a USB adapter. The radio is using FSK. This is on my Elecraft K3. Also, FYl I tried an older RUMlog version. I went back to version 5.9 and it works just fine in this setup. (I had been using 5.11 before I installed version 5.12, but apparently I didn't keep that in...
- Mon 6. Feb 2023, 15:45
- Forum: RUMlogNG
- Topic: Problem setting up for CQ WPX RTTY
- Replies: 3
- Views: 1193
Problem setting up for CQ WPX RTTY
I'm working in RUMlogNG version 5.12 and trying to set up for CQ WPX RTTY this coming weekend. It seems to be working fine except for the function key messages. No matter what I try, the program insists on sending every message twice, the second immediately after the first with no break at all betwe...
- Sun 11. Oct 2020, 17:01
- Forum: RUMlogNG
- Topic: Change QSL status of multiple QSOs
- Replies: 13
- Views: 5082
- Sun 11. Oct 2020, 16:22
- Forum: RUMlogNG
- Topic: Change QSL status of multiple QSOs
- Replies: 13
- Views: 5082
Re: Change QSL status of multiple QSOs
Let me change that, based on a different discovery. The changes that I made that had times the same as I had before were done using the logbook mask in the Search QSOs window. If I make the same type of change in the main log window, the times are much shorter. I did a change on an S50 callsign (16...
- Sun 11. Oct 2020, 16:11
- Forum: RUMlogNG
- Topic: Change QSL status of multiple QSOs
- Replies: 13
- Views: 5082
Re: Change QSL status of multiple QSOs
I made a test log with 210.000 QSOs. Now I can notice a hung, pending on the number of affected QSOs. While editing a QSO with S01 doesn't show any delay, there is a hung of up to eight seconds when editing a QSO with a DL station (22.000 Qs in the log) I addressed a performance problem and made fe...
- Sun 11. Oct 2020, 15:54
- Forum: RUMlogNG
- Topic: Change QSL status of multiple QSOs
- Replies: 13
- Views: 5082
Re: Change QSL status of multiple QSOs
I made a test log with 210.000 QSOs. Now I can notice a hung, pending on the number of affected QSOs. While editing a QSO with S01 doesn't show any delay, there is a hung of up to eight seconds when editing a QSO with a DL station (22.000 Qs in the log) I addressed a performance problem and made fe...
- Sat 10. Oct 2020, 18:42
- Forum: RUMlogNG
- Topic: Change QSL status of multiple QSOs
- Replies: 13
- Views: 5082
Re: Change QSL status of multiple QSOs
in a log of over 175K QSOS. Every time I make an edit to a QSO, I have a spinning rainbow wheel for at least 18 to 20 seconds before the log is usable again I will check if I can create a so huge file, 20 seconds are not acceptable. I agree. Actually, that time comes from a check done some time ago...