I'm kinda disappointed with SmartSDR v.3.

Dan Mitchell

I'm kinda disappointed with SmartSDR v.3. For a major upgrade it's appearance seems the same as v.2. There are not even band edge markers that users have been asking for for years. The release notes are even confusing; note the language in paragraph 1 which implies that defects in v.2 have been carried over to v.3. Corrections and bug fixes in v.2 should have been done in v.2, not disguised as a major release for which we had to pay for. I'm not impressed; I wish I had not shelled out the money for v.3.

James Kennedy-WU5E

Pat N6PAT

Mark WS7M

Dan Trainor

Neil D Friedman N3DF

Ken Hansen

Flex was pretty forthcoming with the new features on SmartSDR V3, I'm not sure why you are disappointed - did you review the description of V3 before purchasing? Is there something in V3 marketing literature that isn't in software? If I read your comment correctly, bugs in V2 have fixes rolled into the new V3 of SmartSDR, and that upsets you? Just as they did with V2, any fixes to problems in previous releases are backported and released as a maint. Update to previous release/release bug occurred in. Understand the backport of those fixes takes place after the new version has been released. SmartSDR V2 fixes included in V3 will be forthcoming. That, anyway, is how I understand the Flex support model, I may be wrong but I don't think so.

Lionel

Douglas Maxwell

A major bug should not pass 2 major releases, a rule like this would help Flex keep it's client base.

Ken Hansen

As I read the original comment, some V2 bugs were fixed in V3, they should (and I expect will be) back ported to V2 software base. It wouldn't make sense to 'transfer' known bugs to the subsequent major release, but it is possible a bug in V2 may not be resolved in V3 (too complex to address given delivery timeline, for example). I expect flex will have st least one more V2 software release, incorporating bug fixes back ported from the V3 code base.

DV

Since the major update for V:3 is the Multiflex and it is described as being specifically for those ham experts who contest, I would like to hear from same as to how Multiflex will be used when the one big flaw seems to be no TX from more than one user at a time. How does one expect to coordinate this problem in the hectic ongoing of a major contest?

Douglas Maxwell

What about a V1 bug that still hasn’t been fixed in V3? Will that get back ported to V1.12 and V2.5? This model doesn’t work.

Dan Trainor

Good question.  For contesters, I would think they would have to have some highly coordinated means to take turns.  And how does that work?

Douglas Maxwell

The rules for multi-single contests state only 1 tx present at any time. Having 2 tx is pointless and expensive.

Douglas Maxwell

In a multi-multi contest 6 flex radios and 6 PGXLs can be used, each with 2 ops per radio/amp (run and s/p ops) sitting in front of 12 maestros/SSDR/Smartlink terminals all as if they have their own radio (1 tx per band in rules). An equivalent non-flex alternative to this setup would be 12 radios and 12 amps with tx inhib measures to ensure no 2 tx on any one band at the same time.

Pat N6PAT

That amount of equipment would probably cost close to $100,000

If winning a contest meant that much you might as well just bribe the judges with $50,000 and save lots of $$$

Douglas Maxwell

However, contesters will not accept bugs in SSDR and will not adopt en masse until these are fixed. If Flex now consolidates it's efforts into bug fixes, this should have knock on stability benefits for the normal user.

WX7Y

Bill -VA3WTB

Patrick

Hind sight is better then fore sight.... that being said, I think that a better course action would have been to offer remote op as a subscription. Broaden the new features introduction for the greater Flex community, and offer major upgrades at a lower cost. The features being introduced do not enhance my radio for since I am not a major user of remote operation. So will pass for now on this major upgrade. My wish list, looks like this. Better performing noise reduction options, add native RTTY, PSK and FT8. Choice of metering styles. Very visual band edge markers. For the remote users, remote reset/reboot capability. Take a look at functions that could be redone fewer mouse strokes. Etc.

Jon_KF2E

Clay N9IO

One of the best commentaries I've read in a while, my sentiments exactly. Another point in my mind just think had Flex not set the bar by exsisting at all NONE of the competition would be producing ANYTHING except the same old status quo read "ANALOG!". No FPGA's, nada you'll never convince me otherwise. The term "Legacy Radio" wouldn't even be on anyone's lips. AGC pumping would still be an issue you just put up with. Give Mr Youngblood and staff some well deserved credit. They ARE true trendsetters.

Pat N6PAT

Flex should start asking the customers what features they want instead of telling us what features they'll provide. Then upgrades will appeal to a greater percentage of existing customers.

Burt Fisher

You upgrade to support Flex? You do realize they are not a charity? 

Burt Fisher

Companies tend to add features they can easily, not what s what is wanted.  Like the useless audio scope in the Icom 7300.

Steve G1XOW

Nothing worth upgrade for as far as my needs go.

Simon Nash

Nothing here for me also, especially when you take into account none of the bugs from the previous version have been fixed.

Chris DL5NAM

KC2QMA_John

KF4HR