Flex 6400M and Windows WSJT-X & connectivity to Mac

Scott Oakland

Ted VE3TRQ

There is nothing stopping you from having a Windows computer connected to the 6400M with SSDR or just CAT/DAX, and at the same time having MLDX on a Mac talking to the Flex - they will not interfere with each other. Your only lack of features in this scenario will be use of the wsjt-x helpers such as jt-alert, etc.. You could probably have them talk to the MLDX instance, but being on different computers will make it harder. The helper app for wsjt-x usually needs to run on the same computer with wsjt-x. And you won’t be able to use the Mac wsjt-x helper app if you have been using that.

Alan

Ted VE3TRQ

Alan, are you using "Bridged" networking for the Parallels to Mac connection? You need that for broadcast traffic to get through.

Alan

Ted VE3TRQ

You are in the wrong place, Alan. Start your Parallels instance of your Windows O/S, then go to Devices/Network and choose "Bridged Network", as follows:



This happens to be my Win7 VM.

Alan

Scott Oakland

I'm no sure what your description would look like Ted. Where would the network cable from the radio go, to Win 7 (on a Mac) or the 2nd Mac (native OS-X)? I'm thinking the network cable from the radio would plug into the Mac so that MacLoggerDX would connect properly. Then how would WSJT-X (on Windows) connect to MacLogger...via UDP, IP address, or how?

Scott Oakland

Yes I used to use JT Bridge but it was for spots and MacLoggerDX does that nicely...so probably can forego that aspect.

Ted VE3TRQ

Alan, “localhost” is private to the network stack running on the local machine, and is IP address “127.0.0.1” - it is not sent out the network interface, so localhost is a non-starter for getting content out of the machine. What you really want the app to do is send it to the broadcast address, not localhost. You probably cannot force that by using the broadcast IP address (255.255.255.255, or all one’s for the host part of your network address, e.g. In my case, 192.168.133.255) to send to a UDP port, but go ahead and try. Multicast might work, but that is beyond any discussion we can have here. You also can always set up a static address for the Parallels instance, and use that as the destination address for the UDP port. I have not looked into the ability of logging and digital programs (or their helpers) to communicate off the local computer, but I can only assume (I know, I know :-) that it should be possible.

Ted VE3TRQ

Scott, I am assuming that if you have multiple computers, you will have a switch. All your network devices would be plugged into the same switch, thereby allowing everything to communicate to everything. If you do not have a switch (or a wireless router effectively providing a switch), I would seriously consider the low cost of getting one. D-Link provides inexpensive 4- and 8-port switches that work quite well.

Scott Oakland

Perhaps in my case it would be just as  well to run Windows (7) in native mode on one Mac...then connect it to a 2nd Mac (somehow) via the IP address. That way the speed issue of the VMs is eliminated. How does that sound? I am not concerned about lack of the helper app. I just want to be as speedy and efficient as I can.

Scott Oakland

When you refer to switch, do you mean one that will allow the flex to communicate to two computers at the same time. So the switch is open to both paths? I ordered an RJ-45 switcher with the intent of switching from one to the other but you are talking something that connects all so they all communicate? I tried a Y-adapter and it didn't work.

Ted VE3TRQ

Ted VE3TRQ

Not a "switcher" - a network switch which will bridge all traffic from your devices together. Most WiFi routers will have a number of RJ-45 jacks on the back, and provide a small four-(or more) port switch. You do not want a "router" which requires configuration to send traffic back and forth.

Perhaps we should take this off-line - my email address is good on QRZ.

Scott Oakland

They are all on the same Wifi network. Is that good enough?

Scott Oakland

OK will do thanks

Ted VE3TRQ

Just an aside here - NetGear actually produces a better switch, I think.

Ted VE3TRQ

If everything is on the same WiFi network it should work, EXCEPT you can't get your 6400M on that WiFi network directly. And if you do get a way to connect that 6400M thru WiFi, make sure it is 5 GHz, not 2.4 - unless you have no contention locally. 2.4 GHz WiFi tends to be horribly congested because there are only three clear channels in NA.

Putting the 6400M on your WiFi network thru one of your computers is possible, but not without its challenges.

Scott Oakland

Ok I emailed you LOL