CWX issue with V 1.9.7?

IZ8XQC

I upgraded to 1.9.7 and I noticed this issue,but not sure if it's a problem related to my Flex or common to others.
With the last version when using CWDX and setting the delay to 0 or little more, the keyer was working as "full breakin" so that you could receive while sending. With the new 1.9.7 it doesn't, it means that while typing on the keyboard tha Flex starts trasmitting without any break between letters.
On the other hands if you set like this and use a paddle or a straight key, the full breakin works properly.
Any suggestion about this matter?
Vy 73, Anto IZ8XQC

K7FU

I also saw this last night. My CQ message in CWX transmits in Non Break-In Mode. Using V1.9.7.
I did a reset of the radio and reset my profiles, typed in a new message and it still does not transmit in qsk using cwx.
Using the paddle to the radio everything works fb.

K7FU

Eric-KE5DTO

Do you have Full Duplex on?

IZ8XQC

Same issue also with FDX turned ON.

Eric-KE5DTO

I got clarification; here's the story:

We changed how CWX works in v1.9.7.  CWX now asserts PTT throughout the entire message.  Depending on the interest level, we may be able to add a QSK option to CWX.

IZ8XQC

I believe the QSK option would be fine even in CWX operating mode as it's helpful to listen while transmitting. Adding it to the CWX leaves the operator free to choose the way he preferres; increasing the delay time, will work as it's working in v. 1.9.7

K7FU

When I send CQ manually it is in qsk, and when I send CQ with CWX I would want it to operate in the same manner as my cw profile. It should work the same as the operators preferences in a normal operation. Full Breakin or Not.

Rick Hadley - W0FG

Agreed. I switch back and forth between CWX and the paddle and would much prefer to be able to break the CWX message with a touch of the key. Full QSK lets me stop in mid-call if the DX station comes back to someone else.

IW7DMH, Enzo

Please restore the previous cwx qsk logic. Anyway this feature could make sense in remote operations when the small network delay keeps out of sync the code.

Eric-KE5DTO

Thanks for the feedback.  Please keep it coming.  I've entered this in our system as issue #4008 for tracking purposes.

John-K3MA

One more for restoring the QSK functionality that was available before.

Tim - W4TME

This feature is tentatively planned for SmartSDR v1.10

Walt - KZ1F

Why was cwx changed?

Tim - W4TME

It was a consequence of some other changes needed to optimize the WinKeyer emulation and based on feedback we received from out alpha team.  Regardless, we plan to add this capability in the next general release of SmartSDR.

Walt - KZ1F

Thanks Tim.

Tim - W4TME

The pleasure was all mine.

Walt - KZ1F

Was that sarcasm?

Tim - W4TME

No, it was a genuine response.

K7FU

Interest level on which side? As a cw operator qsk is a must, both using a key or sending via cwx. It seems to me from my experience with FRS that cw has been lowered down the list of concerns when it comes to fixes..... Just my opinion of course but your reply is what I have come to expect.

Simon Lewis

If i switch to mox then send using cwx after the last character sent a return to rx is forced over riding mox

normal??

EA4GLI

Not sure if it is normal, but why would you want to use MOX when CWX engages PTT when you hit send or any of the CWX Setup keys? Just curious trying to see the use case scenario.

Simon Lewis

EA4GLI

I see.
For me the delay works it just adds the extra delay in between words. So a large delay will be noticeable. 
If you use CWX, what I can see is that all the delays, regardless of putting it at RCA TX1, TX2, TX3 or TX Delay will add that amount of time in between words in CWX.
I have not reason to believe it is not adding the delay before sending RF.

In my 6700 it seems to be doing that OK.

Sergey R5AU

Hi Folks!  

QSK CWX in ver 1.10.16 works fine, however i got surprise from other way around - CWX QSK completely ignore  manual / CAT (PTT port) signal , ex with dedicated PTT port in  N1MM.

Do we have a way around here or it should be addressed to SW improvements ?