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

Scott Oakland

I have a Flex 6400M and will be setting up Windows 7 as my platform. I will be using an IMac and will be using it in native mode using Bootcamp. I also have MacLoggerDX and will be using that on a 2nd IMac (or the same IMac if it makes it easier and better). My issue is that I will want connections to both computers but the Flex will only be connected to one at a time. My goal is to have MacLoggerDX be connected to the Flex for logging while I have Windows 7 for WSJT-X for FT8. Can anyone recommend the easiest way to accomplish this? I suppose I could have Win 7 going in a Virtual windows and still connect MacLoggerDX, maybe? I hear that I can use UDP packets but that I think that may limit full functionality but am unsure. (Originally I was trying to get the Flex to work with DogParkSDR but I never could get it to transmit and I spent a lot of time with help from others but finally decided to go Win 7.) Thanks for any guidance. de W1AL

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

I too would like to use MLDX as my primary logger with  Windows WSJT-X.

I have been successful in connecting both MLDX and SSDR connected to the Flex Server at the same time.

However, I have not been able to get MLDX to "hear" the ADIF broadcasts from the windows WSJT-X running on Paralleles W10 to the MacLogger DX on Mac OS, both on the same Mac.

MLDX does hear the WSJT-X ADIF broadcasts from the Mac OS version of WSJT-X.

I thought that it should be possible for both the mac and W10 versions of WSJT-X to be heard by  the mac MLDX given that both use the same UDP broadcast setup (ip address and port number) in the setup menu of WSJT-X, mac and W10 and MLDX is set up to listen for the broadcast.

I viewed this as a Parallels / Mac issue because the same ip address/port is being shared between the Mac OS and the Virtual W10 OS on the same Mac.

Any ideas for me to try to get the ip / port to be shared between operating systems on the same mac?

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

Thanks for the reply, Ted

Yes, believe my Parallels network adapter is set up in a bridged configuration.  See attached screenshot.

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

Ted

I checked it the way you show and confirmed I am in bridged mode.

Next, I checked the knowledge base on the Parallels Web site.   https://kb.parallels.com/4948?language=en

Looks like in all configurations, Parallels makes the virtual machine look like a second PC to the LAN.  Ted, do you agree?

So, to make the jump to allow the Windows 10 Virtual machine UDP Broadcast with the log data to be heard by Mac Logger DX on the mac machine, the solution would be the same as if there were two separate PCs on the same network.

I know that the ip address entered for the UDP broadcast listener on MacLogger is "localhost", meaning the host computer.  Is there any way to make two PCs on the same LAN appear as the same "localhost"?

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

Scott, I am not clear on what you want MLDX to do for you with respect to wsjt-x and its helpers. I only have experience with JT-Bridge, which gets input from MLDX by accessing the log database for its display. If you are expecting to get MLDX input to JT-Alert on Windows, I think you may be disappointed. The best place to get advice on that would be the MLDX Google Group (macloggerdx@googlegroups.com). 

As to connecting the Macs together, as long as they are on the same local network, and they have a known IP address, and the application has a way of addressing the other machine, you can get there. wsjt-x can be told to send ADIF broadcasts to a specific IP address and port, using "Secondary UDP Server" setting in "Reporting". You can also send decodes to a UDP server. Presumably if you put the IP address of the MLDX machine in there, it would get that information as if it were on the local machine.

I have not done this, but believe it should work - all you can do is try. Just be sure you have all machines - radio and computers - on the same network (using a switch).

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