CWX issue with V 1.9.7?

  • 3
  • Question
  • Updated 2 years ago
  • Answered
  • (Edited)
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
Photo of IZ8XQC

IZ8XQC

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 3 years ago

  • 3
Photo of K7FU

K7FU

  • 36 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
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
(Edited)
Photo of Eric - KE5DTO

Eric - KE5DTO, Official Rep

  • 897 Posts
  • 342 Reply Likes
Do you have Full Duplex on?
Photo of IZ8XQC

IZ8XQC

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Same issue also with FDX turned ON.
Photo of Eric - KE5DTO

Eric - KE5DTO, Official Rep

  • 897 Posts
  • 342 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of K7FU

K7FU

  • 36 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of IZ8XQC

IZ8XQC

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
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
Photo of K7FU

K7FU

  • 36 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Rick Hadley - W0FG

Rick Hadley - W0FG

  • 601 Posts
  • 130 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of IW7DMH, Enzo

IW7DMH, Enzo

  • 356 Posts
  • 87 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Eric - KE5DTO

Eric - KE5DTO, Official Rep

  • 897 Posts
  • 342 Reply Likes
Official Response
Thanks for the feedback.  Please keep it coming.  I've entered this in our system as issue #4008 for tracking purposes.
Photo of John-K3MA

John-K3MA

  • 102 Posts
  • 29 Reply Likes
One more for restoring the QSK functionality that was available before.
Photo of Tim - W4TME

Tim - W4TME, Customer Experience Manager

  • 9188 Posts
  • 3550 Reply Likes
This feature is tentatively planned for SmartSDR v1.10
Photo of Walt - KZ1F

Walt - KZ1F

  • 3040 Posts
  • 645 Reply Likes
Why was cwx changed?
Photo of Tim - W4TME

Tim - W4TME, Customer Experience Manager

  • 9188 Posts
  • 3550 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Walt - KZ1F

Walt - KZ1F

  • 3040 Posts
  • 645 Reply Likes
Thanks Tim.
Photo of Tim - W4TME

Tim - W4TME, Customer Experience Manager

  • 9188 Posts
  • 3550 Reply Likes
The pleasure was all mine.
Photo of Walt - KZ1F

Walt - KZ1F

  • 3040 Posts
  • 645 Reply Likes
Was that sarcasm?
Photo of Tim - W4TME

Tim - W4TME, Customer Experience Manager

  • 9188 Posts
  • 3550 Reply Likes
No, it was a genuine response.
Photo of Simon Lewis

Simon Lewis

  • 495 Posts
  • 118 Reply Likes
If i switch to mox then send using cwx after the last character sent a return to rx is forced over riding mox

normal??
Photo of EA4GLI - 8P9EH - Salvador

EA4GLI - 8P9EH - Salvador

  • 1782 Posts
  • 547 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Simon Lewis

Simon Lewis

  • 495 Posts
  • 118 Reply Likes
because right now I have no trust in TX Delays/PTT delay in CW :(

So I used MOX to put the radio into send manually - then use CWX to send my uwave beacon message

And then thats how I found it

If TX delay worked or I can see the delay I'll be happy

I am super nervous using CW now for transverters as I can't afford to blow a transverter because delays are not working - it means a major delay while I get parts from EU and repair it

:(
  
Photo of EA4GLI - 8P9EH - Salvador

EA4GLI - 8P9EH - Salvador

  • 1782 Posts
  • 547 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of Sergey, R5AU

Sergey, R5AU

  • 860 Posts
  • 117 Reply Likes
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 ?
(Edited)