Hello Paul,
Version 0.8 r3058 on WSPR15 runs for days on end here on Windows 7 pro
64 Bit, no memory leaks nothing, just keeps on keeping on! As you know
I have tried asking on the WSJT-X forum for sub modes, but they seem
adamant it isn't going to happen :(
Thursday, September 6, 2018, 12:03:09 PM, you wrote:
> On 09/05/2018 10:31 AM, Rik Strobbe wrote:
>> Another alternative would be to revive the longer JT9 modes
>> (JT9-2 or even JT9-5). JT9-2 would allow a QSO in +/- 10 minutes,
>> about 3dB advantage over JT9-1. To get the same I would need to
>> pump up the power from 350 to 700W or increase the antenna height
>> from 14m to 20m. JT9-5 will even be about 7dB better compared to
>> JT9-1, but there might be issues with doppler effect and/or
>> multipath propagation. Does anyone have a WSJT-X version that
>> supports these modes? Or even better: could we convnice the WSJT
>> team to include at least JT9-2 in the newest version of WSJT-X?
> Hello Rik and all LFers,
> I wish we could convince the developers to bring back JT9-2, JT9-5
> and JT9-10 at least! I would even like to see JT9-30 supported. I
> believe these slow modes would allow for many more 137 kHz QSOs over
> long distances. At least some of these sub-modes should be useful on
> 475 kHz also. Unfortunately it seems these and WSPR15 have been
> completely abandoned.
> Maybe if enough people would ask the developers? It's worth a try,
> but I doubt it. They are too busy with 'mainstream' modes for HF use
> now to care about LF and MF.
> I have been trying for almost a year to get WSJT-X 0.95 to run under
> Windows 10 but it keeps crashing. Unfortunately I do not have a PC
> with an older version of Windows I can try. I do not know if Windows
> 10 is the problem or whether 0.95 was simply never stable. I also
> don't know if the 0.95 I have is an 'official' release or something
> modified from source by a third party. It has *only* the JT9 modes,
> which makes me wonder. I cannot find any solid information about
> this old version, nor can I find any other old versions which have
> the slow JT9 modes. Even if I could get 0.95 to stay running, QSO
> partners would be limited. I know that others have tried and failed
> with this version.
> As I see it we are in bad shape for long distance QSO modes on LF.
> EbNaut may eventually prove to be a solution for those who can
> afford stations capable of handling it... but not much help for the
> rest of us.
> I guess we are stuck with DFCW. Old school still works but I would
> like some other alternatives.
> 73,
> Paul N1BUG
--
Best regards,
Chris mailto:[email protected]
|
