I would preface this post by saying I'm
very happy with my Flex 6300 and how it performs. I wouldn't trade
it for any current superhet offering. But, I'm rather disappointed
in the V2.0 release of SSDR. A few years back it was mentioned the
it was up to FRS to make V2.0 worth the cost and keep Flex on the
forefront of SDR – something that would make it like getting a new
radio. I was eagerly anticipating something that would be really
appealing to me. Maybe v.2.1 will do it.
Reading Tim's account of the new features in SSDR v. 2.0 it appears there is nothing for me.
1. SmartLink I would never use as I prefer to operate my ham station from home and when I am away I want to get away from ham radio. The smaller screen implicit in remote operation would not be acceptable for me. Why would I want to operate my ham radio from a sidewalk cafe in Rome?
2. Pop-Out Panels would be of little use to me as the only panadapter I use must be docked. If I need another panadapter (I only get two) they both fit nicely on my 24-inch monitor. My second monitor is filled with add-on software that improve my usability of the flex.
3. Improved Dynamic range for 6300 – This is purported to be included in the V1.11 release and it probably won't make much difference to me anyway.
4. Support for N1MM Spectrum Display – I really don't use N1MM. I tried it and didn't much like it. I'm not a contester and already have a decent logging program.
5. Additional RF Preamp for 6700 – N/A
6. New TURFs – N/A
7. New Flex VSP Driver – I assume will also be in the V1.11 release.
8. SSDR for Maestro – Don't have or want a Maestro
9. SSDR for IOS – Don't have any Apple equipment – something for Android might entice me.
So there's nothing there for me and I'm disappointed in FRS. What would have excited me? Improvements to the basic radio operation - not just remote operation and contesting.
A new “skin” on the operational meters (S-Meter, Power Level, etc) and controls with colors and size that I can read. I find the current implementation poor. I have some add-ons which improve things, but it would be nice to have it integrated.
Improvements in the DSP functions (not that the current ones are bad).
Optional inclusion
of dx spots and/or band limits on the spectral display. CW
Skimmer-type display for CW/Digital modes.
Integration of Digital mode decoding into SSDR
Some other new
whiz-bang operational feature that I haven't thought of but really
turns me on ;-).
Yes, I know, it's not about me and FRS is putting their
design resources where they perceive the most appeal (and upgrade revenue). So having gotten this off my chest I'll just stifle my disappointment, go back into the woodwork, and go enjoy my "obsolete" rig.
Paul
Posted 1 year ago
Hi Paul
Your points make sense from your position at this time. There is no requirement that you must upgrade. V1 will continue to be acceptable for your operations. It will not time out.
There is no rush to make the move. You can always wait until the engineers cook up something that interests you.
73
Your points make sense from your position at this time. There is no requirement that you must upgrade. V1 will continue to be acceptable for your operations. It will not time out.
There is no rush to make the move. You can always wait until the engineers cook up something that interests you.
73
We get excited because FRS tells us great things are to come with v2 but wont give details. So like a kid expecting the brand new Xbox for Christmas but only get an orange and some socks. Are FRS into S+M by any chance?
v2.0?
where is it?
Amazing that people don't like software they haven't even seen yet.
How do you see it before buying it?
Download the v2.0 documentation - it's not a secret, you're just not interested in actually making an effort to find out what is in the release.
Michael's point is exactly the reason that V2.o is a great deal for everyone. If you don't see anything you like, you don't need to buy it. You can put the money toward something that does interest you, like maybe a new mic or a new key, and keep using a great radio just like it is.
Yep. That said, a bunch of those features are huge to me. Good remote operation, for example, is a big deal because I travel for work quite a bit.
Ria - N2RJ, Elmer
Paul, I can understand your frustration. However, remote access has been the #1 requested feature. Besides, 2.0 is just a starting point. To me, cosmetic things like spots in the bandmap aren't really of any use. But that can always be added later, and you don't need to buy a 2.0 license now, you can wait until it has features you like, or 3.0 comes out with features that you like.
You don't have to design the new GUI, but you could enumerate what you'd like to see (this bigger, that smaller/optional, etc).
"I'm A Bit Disappointed in V2.0"
Hard to find the 'idea' in the title you choose - imagine instead if your title were "3 things I was hoping for in V2.0", perhaps a more useful/productive thread would have evolved...
Hard to find the 'idea' in the title you choose - imagine instead if your title were "3 things I was hoping for in V2.0", perhaps a more useful/productive thread would have evolved...
Ken,
You can already remote a Flex 6000 with the old classic GUI front panel. I've been doing it for over 4 years now. Its called RCForb. Works great. No panadapter or waterfall, but it works and it is very dependable.
Norm - W7CK
You can already remote a Flex 6000 with the old classic GUI front panel. I've been doing it for over 4 years now. Its called RCForb. Works great. No panadapter or waterfall, but it works and it is very dependable.
Norm - W7CK
Ria - N2RJ, Elmer
RCFORB requires a computer and in my experience it has been unreliable. You can use a VPN and SmartSDR and that works very well.
True, but I'm not sure what exactly you are responding to, but with RCForb (sponsored by elecraft) you Ned a PC to serve up the radio, SmartSDR/Flex has no such requirement, nor would an IC-7610 with it's integrated RS-BA1 server.
As expected, this offering is not for everyone for sure. but you should understand that smart link is ground breaking stuff, a first in the industry, no small deal.
for me? there is little that I need either in V.2, but I am waiting for 1.11 coming soon with all the under the hood work that was done, I have seen that in action already.
And there is nothing so far that has made my 6500 obsolete, it still will do what it is supposed to do and very well.
for me? there is little that I need either in V.2, but I am waiting for 1.11 coming soon with all the under the hood work that was done, I have seen that in action already.
And there is nothing so far that has made my 6500 obsolete, it still will do what it is supposed to do and very well.
Rubbish. Too many inaccuracies, half truths to bother correcting.
(Edited)
Steve K9ZW, Elmer
Simple enough for those not wanting UPnP is that old port forwarding.
Simple, easy, done deal and for you life is blissfully just fine.
73
Steve
K9ZW
Simple, easy, done deal and for you life is blissfully just fine.
73
Steve
K9ZW
For those who want to know the facts and form their own opinion, here's a good paper, with hard data and no emotions, that quantifies and qualifies the issue. While the paper was written in 2013 with data collected in 2012, not much has changed because:
1) Most consumers never bother updating the firmware of their router, web cam, smart thermostat, etc.
2) Vendors, by and large, are ignoring the problem
1) Most consumers never bother updating the firmware of their router, web cam, smart thermostat, etc.
2) Vendors, by and large, are ignoring the problem
The UPnP protocol suffers from a number of basic security problems, many of which have been highlighted over the last twelve years. Authentication is rarely implemented by device manufacturers, privileged capabilities are often exposed to untrusted networks, and common programming flaws plague common UPnP software implementations. These issues are endemic across UPnP-enabled applications and network devices.
The statistics in this paper were derived from five and a half months of active scanning. UPnP discovery requests were sent to every routable IPv4 address approximately once a week from June 1 to November 17, 2012. This process identified over 81 million unique IP addresses that responded to a standard UPnP discovery request. Further probes determined that approximately 17 million of these systems also exposed the UPnP Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) service to the world. This level of exposure far exceeded the expectations of the researchers.
This paper quantifies the exposure of UPnP-enabled systems to the internet at large, classifies these systems by vendor, identifies specific products, and describes a number of new vulnerabilities that were identified in common UPnP implementations. Over 1,500 vendors and 6,900 products were identified that are vulnerable to least one of the security flaws outlined in this paper. Over 23 million systems were vulnerable to a single remote code execution flaw that was discovered during the course of this research.
Ria - N2RJ, Elmer
The FBI had admitted it was wrong about UPnP. The problem is not with UPnP itself. Microsoft Patched XP to fix it. This was in 2001.
However, yes, some routers do have a problem with UPnP, as in they don't validate input correctly among other things. But again, this is NOT the fault of the protocol itself, and is definitely not the fault of SmartLink.
But again - if you don't want UPnP, you don't need it. You can manually forward ports.
However, yes, some routers do have a problem with UPnP, as in they don't validate input correctly among other things. But again, this is NOT the fault of the protocol itself, and is definitely not the fault of SmartLink.
But again - if you don't want UPnP, you don't need it. You can manually forward ports.
Hi N2WQ (Varistor)
Why don't you do something useful and start a new post "Disabling UPnP in your router" with screen captures from your own setup, together with the additional port forwarding required for those that seek this.
To lighten things up, I am also a Google Search (medical) expert. Please find my findings on
"There are many other tragic examples of death by water."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-drinking-too-much-water-can-kill/
Why don't you do something useful and start a new post "Disabling UPnP in your router" with screen captures from your own setup, together with the additional port forwarding required for those that seek this.
To lighten things up, I am also a Google Search (medical) expert. Please find my findings on
"There are many other tragic examples of death by water."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-drinking-too-much-water-can-kill/
(Edited)
Currently sitting in my lounge room drinking my coffee and listening to the early morning radio activity using my Iphone.
I have been using a 6700 for over 4 years and would have to say it has been the best investment in amateur radio I have ever made. After owning a Flex 5000, I was more than happy to put-up my money and wait for a signature series radio. I love the sound that comes out of the speakers and continuedly get unsolicited positive comments about my transmit audio.
Personally, I'm thrilled with what ever enhancements I get and whenever they are available. Can't wait to download version 2.0.
I men really, this i like Christmas! I'm pretty stoked to see what version 2 has to offer.
It's also a littlle sad that people who have never used it yet are pre-disappointed.
It's also a littlle sad that people who have never used it yet are pre-disappointed.
Tony,
I'd agree with just about everything you said except that your Flex has been the best "investment" you've made in ham radio. Investments typically yield a profit. If not, you dump the investment and invest in something else. I'd say my 6700 has been the best purchase in ham radio I've made in a long time! Love the rig.
I'd agree with just about everything you said except that your Flex has been the best "investment" you've made in ham radio. Investments typically yield a profit. If not, you dump the investment and invest in something else. I'd say my 6700 has been the best purchase in ham radio I've made in a long time! Love the rig.
Profits aren't necessarily measured in dollars.
Norm - you must be an accountant :). Profit which comes from an investment doesn't need to be a monetary return. The whole experience of owning my 6700 over the past 4 years including the pleasure of using a radio with excellent performance together with the excitement and benefit of new releases has added to my enjoyment of life! Lets call it an investment in myself.
Tony
VK5TT
Tony
VK5TT
(Edited)
Have you ever heard,,I invested time and money? An investment can be anything spent...
I wish there was a more definitive list of, or is this all, the V2 improvements for the 6300. I find the 6300 to be far and away the best RX ever in my shack. That said, I am looking at the 6400, just because I like new toys but am wondering if the improvement over the 6300 justifies the upgrade. Besides what is mentioned above I believe the transmit audio has been made even better.
The wish list looks like the PSDR updates, I feel those are a long way off.
I would like to see a side by side comparison of the 6300 vs the 6400. I know it has front end filters, the 6300 doesn't: it has always been fine without them in my use. The DR improvement in V2 seems like an always good idea but not sure it would make a difference to me. I'll take it though, just because.
Maybe some more data has been posted and I can build my own side by side.
The cost of V2, no issue here. The resale value drop of the 6300, annoying but not enough for me to be unhappy with FRS. There's still going to be some splainin to do here.
I'm trying to build the technical case to discuss with the CFO, as in "why? you just bought the other one six months ago!"
I haven't seen enough technical data. It's probably going to appear over time.
I have no issues with FRS about product development times. What was the old cliche? You can have two of the following three: Fast, good or cheap. But only two.
The wish list looks like the PSDR updates, I feel those are a long way off.
I would like to see a side by side comparison of the 6300 vs the 6400. I know it has front end filters, the 6300 doesn't: it has always been fine without them in my use. The DR improvement in V2 seems like an always good idea but not sure it would make a difference to me. I'll take it though, just because.
Maybe some more data has been posted and I can build my own side by side.
The cost of V2, no issue here. The resale value drop of the 6300, annoying but not enough for me to be unhappy with FRS. There's still going to be some splainin to do here.
I'm trying to build the technical case to discuss with the CFO, as in "why? you just bought the other one six months ago!"
I haven't seen enough technical data. It's probably going to appear over time.
I have no issues with FRS about product development times. What was the old cliche? You can have two of the following three: Fast, good or cheap. But only two.
The 6300 is a terrific radio and SSDR is great in my use. That said, whether I keep the 6300 or not I'll move to V2. Then the 6400 hardware has an allure that will be hard to pass up.
So many decisions and all the choices seem good.
Thanks Tim, I am working on the "business" case......
So many decisions and all the choices seem good.
Thanks Tim, I am working on the "business" case......
Sales department ... that would be me. :) Seriously Lionel, if you want to talk (yes, we answer the phone), I would be glad to throw some facts your way and then you can decide what is important for you. BTW, I love the fact that on the 6600, you can now listen to 20M and 6M on 2 different antennas. For me, that is what I need. (Now, I need to get back to some FT8 stuff).
_large.png)
"you can now listen to 20M and 6M on 2 different antennas. For me, that is what I need."
I did the same with an external diplexor costing just $45....and I only needed that because SSDR has no way to create logical antenna vs band mapping...now that would be a feature worthy of some $$$.
We live in hope yet with no view or commitment of what the future might hold.
Ria - N2RJ, Elmer
BTW, I love the fact that on the 6600, you can now listen to 20M and 6M on 2 different antennas.I love this feature on my 6700. :)
I wish I could afford the 6700. :)
I was hoping v2.0 was going to address the 6700's 2M craziness (auto band changes). And was really hoping v2.0 was going to have the ability to link two slices for satellite work.
A few years ago I experienced a direct lightning strike at my qth which resulted in extensive electrical damage throughout my home. I now disconnect my equipment whenever I leave my residence, so I won't be using SmartLink.
Even though we've waited a long time for v2.0, odds are additional fixes and features will be coming. It's good to remember the current version of PowerSDR didn't happen overnight.
A few years ago I experienced a direct lightning strike at my qth which resulted in extensive electrical damage throughout my home. I now disconnect my equipment whenever I leave my residence, so I won't be using SmartLink.
Even though we've waited a long time for v2.0, odds are additional fixes and features will be coming. It's good to remember the current version of PowerSDR didn't happen overnight.
Hopefully v2.0 will automatically resolve Windows port conflict issues. That's my biggest headache right now.
Tim - W4TME, Customer Experience Manager
It does. there is a new FlexVSP driver that corrects the issue.
Excellent Tim, thanks!
Paul,
I have to agree about the non-excitement level of V2 but if I knew what was coming in the next one or two V2.X I might feel differently.
My real issue is there is no detail on what is coming in the next releases past the standard V2.0. I was an IT manager at a major insurance company for 26 years and we published our future releases for at least the next quarter in advance. Sure we changed the content and that was reflected in the future release documentation as soon as it was known. We also had a complete list of all future enhancement and problems that all could view.
I love my 6500 a lot and it's a keeper. What I don't like is not knowing "The Plan" moving forward. It makes me feel like FRS is running by the seat of their pants chasing problems and every once in a while throwing in an enhancement.
Also we always met our due dates. We did whatever it took to meet them. We really didn't have a choice but we also never gave a date we knew we couldn't make. Like I have said before on here we stuck to the "under promise over deliver" way of doing business.
Just my opinions and thoughts.
Harold
I have to agree about the non-excitement level of V2 but if I knew what was coming in the next one or two V2.X I might feel differently.
My real issue is there is no detail on what is coming in the next releases past the standard V2.0. I was an IT manager at a major insurance company for 26 years and we published our future releases for at least the next quarter in advance. Sure we changed the content and that was reflected in the future release documentation as soon as it was known. We also had a complete list of all future enhancement and problems that all could view.
I love my 6500 a lot and it's a keeper. What I don't like is not knowing "The Plan" moving forward. It makes me feel like FRS is running by the seat of their pants chasing problems and every once in a while throwing in an enhancement.
Also we always met our due dates. We did whatever it took to meet them. We really didn't have a choice but we also never gave a date we knew we couldn't make. Like I have said before on here we stuck to the "under promise over deliver" way of doing business.
Just my opinions and thoughts.
Harold
I also spent close to 25 years in a small 7 person company that did many "impossible" things with software and systems we created, many were one-off's which makes it a little easier since nothing was "production" and dealt with those issues.
We were almost always ahead of schedule. We had some rare cases of being late but it was usually a couple weeks.
And no... we didn't overly inflate our delivery estimates because with one-off type systems you usually don't get paid until you deliver. So we had a lot of pressure to deliver on time and in budget.
I will admit also to some very long weekend's "getting it done" sometimes for weeks in a row.
We were almost always ahead of schedule. We had some rare cases of being late but it was usually a couple weeks.
And no... we didn't overly inflate our delivery estimates because with one-off type systems you usually don't get paid until you deliver. So we had a lot of pressure to deliver on time and in budget.
I will admit also to some very long weekend's "getting it done" sometimes for weeks in a row.
Peter K1PGV, Elmer
Are we seriously debating whether software projects can be delivered on a predefined schedule... on a ham radio community board? Take this discussion to Slashdot and see where it gets you. :-)
It's a silly debate, because the only real answer is "it depends." Sure, you can deliver stuff on time. ALMOST all the time. IF that's the most important parameter of the project. I can't begin to list the number of project milestones I've delivered on time or early, but cut a feature or two... or made something "provisional" or "preview" (code for "implemented and sort of works, but not really").
In terms of the roadmap: The way software usually works these days, is you don't define the features of releases far in advance, never mind announce them. We don't announce the features in any releases other then the "next" scheduled one at my company. Beyond that, we have ideas and intentions, but no firm plans. The world is just moving too fast to allow you do do long term roadmap planning. Because, just when you announce your roadmap for a year out, you'll unfailingly discover some "must have" feature and you're stuck. Either you don't do it and stick to your roadmap, or you trash the roadmap and add the feature. Either way, you annoy somebody. So... no roadmaps.
Peter
K1PGV
It's a silly debate, because the only real answer is "it depends." Sure, you can deliver stuff on time. ALMOST all the time. IF that's the most important parameter of the project. I can't begin to list the number of project milestones I've delivered on time or early, but cut a feature or two... or made something "provisional" or "preview" (code for "implemented and sort of works, but not really").
In terms of the roadmap: The way software usually works these days, is you don't define the features of releases far in advance, never mind announce them. We don't announce the features in any releases other then the "next" scheduled one at my company. Beyond that, we have ideas and intentions, but no firm plans. The world is just moving too fast to allow you do do long term roadmap planning. Because, just when you announce your roadmap for a year out, you'll unfailingly discover some "must have" feature and you're stuck. Either you don't do it and stick to your roadmap, or you trash the roadmap and add the feature. Either way, you annoy somebody. So... no roadmaps.
Peter
K1PGV
Peter K1PGV, Elmer
Are we seriously debating whether software projects can be delivered on a predefined schedule... on a ham radio community board? Take this discussion to Slashdot and see where it gets you. :-)
It's a silly debate, because the only real answer is "it depends." Sure, you can deliver stuff on time. ALMOST all the time. IF that's the most important parameter of the project. I can't begin to list the number of project milestones I've delivered on time or early, but cut a feature or two... or made something "provisional" or "preview" (code for "implemented and sort of works, but not really").
In terms of the roadmap: The way software usually works these days, is you don't define the features of releases far in advance, never mind announce them. We don't announce the features in any releases other then the "next" scheduled one at my company. Beyond that, we have ideas and intentions, but no firm plans. The world is just moving too fast to allow you do do long term roadmap planning. Because, just when you announce your roadmap for a year out, you'll unfailingly discover some "must have" feature and you're stuck. Either you don't do it and stick to your roadmap, or you trash the roadmap and add the feature. Either way, you annoy somebody. So... no roadmaps.
Peter
K1PGV
It's a silly debate, because the only real answer is "it depends." Sure, you can deliver stuff on time. ALMOST all the time. IF that's the most important parameter of the project. I can't begin to list the number of project milestones I've delivered on time or early, but cut a feature or two... or made something "provisional" or "preview" (code for "implemented and sort of works, but not really").
In terms of the roadmap: The way software usually works these days, is you don't define the features of releases far in advance, never mind announce them. We don't announce the features in any releases other then the "next" scheduled one at my company. Beyond that, we have ideas and intentions, but no firm plans. The world is just moving too fast to allow you do do long term roadmap planning. Because, just when you announce your roadmap for a year out, you'll unfailingly discover some "must have" feature and you're stuck. Either you don't do it and stick to your roadmap, or you trash the roadmap and add the feature. Either way, you annoy somebody. So... no roadmaps.
Peter
K1PGV
Mike - VE3CKO, Elmer
The reason a "plan" isn't published has been beat to death here many times. Competitive reasons, and for the same reasons we have not been told aliens live among us, some here can't handle the truth. OK, aliens bad example but some do panic when their feature didn't make the cut in the next release, some make wild accusations that false promises were made and trolls come out from under their bridges and the flaming wars begin again.
I must say, I find the idea that meeting some arbitrary schedule is the most important thing, and that working isn't of much consequence is stunning to me.
I'd love to hear the rationale for putting out a product with known issues.
I'd love to hear the rationale for putting out a product with known issues.
You echo my feelings exactly Paul. So far I don't really see anything worth my investment in 2. I really enjoy my 6300 with which I have won a number of contests (phone only) and worked some DX from the west coast that few others accomplished. I don't Maestro and I am not about to leave my 6300 connected to an antenna when I travel. Some new GUI features or enhanced (simplified) digital mode stuff would be interesting to me and of course improved basic performance. If FRS fixes the Windows port mess THAT would be well worth the investment but I have not seen that mentioned. (Yea I know - its MS windows!). I guess I will wait to see if there is something for me in the next upgrade. It's not like the 6300 isn't the best radio I have ever owed!
Mike, I am sorry for upsetting your sensibilities but the VSP driver was stated by Tim to be a v2.0 upgrade "feature". No matter how I squint I cannot find a way to view a long standing defect resolution to be considered as a new feature. A welcome and long awaited bug fix yes, a new feature nope.
You also want to look at the subtle engineering differences between symptom and cause because they ain't the same! My understanding from the VSP driver supplier (it gets used on many other non-Flex apps) is that the root cause is that the driver is not terminating correctly at shutdown, thus the VSP ports are left in a limbo state. W10 does not know nor expect to handle that exceptional and erroneous condition.
You also want to look at the subtle engineering differences between symptom and cause because they ain't the same! My understanding from the VSP driver supplier (it gets used on many other non-Flex apps) is that the root cause is that the driver is not terminating correctly at shutdown, thus the VSP ports are left in a limbo state. W10 does not know nor expect to handle that exceptional and erroneous condition.
The port problems have been and will continue to be a problem in Windows. Let's put on our big-boy or big-girl pants (your preference) and work around it like tech savvy folks we claim to be.
In a previous post Tim has ID the culprit to 3RD party portion of VSP that is now fixed. The interested stugent can search for the aforementioned post whereas the appliance op can continue beating the bushes.
In a previous post Tim has ID the culprit to 3RD party portion of VSP that is now fixed. The interested stugent can search for the aforementioned post whereas the appliance op can continue beating the bushes.
(Edited)
Why haven't you disposed of a radio and avoided a company that you obviously hate with a passion, Steve?
Life is too short to use products that stress you out. If you get something else that fits your needs in a way that Flex obviously doesn't, you'll be much happier.
Life is too short to use products that stress you out. If you get something else that fits your needs in a way that Flex obviously doesn't, you'll be much happier.
Steve you missed the mark,,again,,you must know they are not charging for the VSP fix. It is just a maintenance update. Just so you know. And if you don't buy V.2 it would be fixed in the up coming 1.11 for general users.
(Edited)
Ria - N2RJ, Elmer
but the VSP driver was stated by Tim to be a v2.0 upgrade "feature".No, it was not. It was listed in the improvements for 2.0 but since it corrects an existing defect it will be in the 1.x maintenance release.
I think what a lot of people are frustrated about is not knowing what's next. Up to this point we have had a roadmap of new features. It ended with WAN remote and 2.0. I would guess that software development post 2.0 will focus on integration of the new amp and then the new radios. Maybe there will be some new features and bug fixes along the way but what they are is a mystery.
If people had some clue what else was coming with the 2.X line of updates they might be more excited about the upgrade. I've been trying to read the tea leaves but haven't gotten a clear picture of what's next. In fact I have no clue where we are going from here.
Jon...kf2e
If people had some clue what else was coming with the 2.X line of updates they might be more excited about the upgrade. I've been trying to read the tea leaves but haven't gotten a clear picture of what's next. In fact I have no clue where we are going from here.
Jon...kf2e
Ken - NM9P, Elmer
Bill, you are correct. V.2.0 laid the foundation for a lot of other work that will be done. Building many of the desired features, like GUI enhancements, multi-client ability to run SSDR and Maestro or IOD devices concurrently, DSP enhancements, and others required laying this foundation first.
We already have heard enough people complaining and expressing disappointment at how long V.2.0 took to release. Can you imagine the furor if FRS had waited to release it until many of these other things were added first?
First lay the new foundation, install the plumbing and wiring, build the solid first floor, then finish the rooms and add the trim.
It would not have made sense to delay V.2.0 in order to trim out V.1.10.16, when the things done for V.2.0 will enhance the trim work for V.1.10.
V.2.0 is just the foundation, plumbing, wiring, etc.
There will be additional releases in V.2.X.X that should add additional rooms, and fit & trim. But you can't trim the windows until they are installed.
We already have heard enough people complaining and expressing disappointment at how long V.2.0 took to release. Can you imagine the furor if FRS had waited to release it until many of these other things were added first?
First lay the new foundation, install the plumbing and wiring, build the solid first floor, then finish the rooms and add the trim.
It would not have made sense to delay V.2.0 in order to trim out V.1.10.16, when the things done for V.2.0 will enhance the trim work for V.1.10.
V.2.0 is just the foundation, plumbing, wiring, etc.
There will be additional releases in V.2.X.X that should add additional rooms, and fit & trim. But you can't trim the windows until they are installed.
Ria - N2RJ, Elmer
I agree, Bill. Elsewhere the flex haters are endless. I can't really understand what they're upset about. However I have seen people saying that "the era of $3000 and $6000 radios is over" because of the IC7300. How come? Just because Ford made a model T, it doesn't mean that there can't be high end cars. The IC7300 is the model T of the SDR world. Low priced, great value, mass produced and plain jane for the masses. I still recommend that rig to people who set a budget below $1500. They wouldn't buy a $3000 flex.
(Edited)
IMHO dropping radio prices is good news for the ham community as it lowers the entry cost for the hobby. Unfortunately it is bad news for the vendors and the weaker ones will vanish.
I also believe the end of $6,000 radios. Seems $3500 is the new high end range.
I also believe the end of $6,000 radios. Seems $3500 is the new high end range.
The free market will pretty much determine the price of radios. Entry level hams usually buy either used or inexpensive radios, like the Yaesu FT-450., and then upgrade as they find their niche in the hobby. I advise new hams to put their money into their antenna, tuner, and power supply before they spend a lot on a high-end radio.
Hams who can afford them are still buying high-end radios like the $12,000+ IC-7851 and others. If they didn't, manufacturers wouldn't be building them.
The really nice thing about Flex is that it allows someone to get into SDR at a reasonable price and then upgrade as their capabilities and interests change.
Hams who can afford them are still buying high-end radios like the $12,000+ IC-7851 and others. If they didn't, manufacturers wouldn't be building them.
The really nice thing about Flex is that it allows someone to get into SDR at a reasonable price and then upgrade as their capabilities and interests change.
Ria - N2RJ, Elmer
Yep. I actually had someone tell me that the $20,000 Hilberling PT-8000a is a marvellous radio. I can't see myself owning one but I can understand why some would want to.
Personally, being licensed 20 years in ham radio and DXing and contesting as my focus I don't see myself using a cheap, entry level transceiver anymore. I will want the best even if it costs a little more.
We should also be careful about the race to the bottom - you don't find "good" tools in the home stores anymore. You have to buy them from the guy with the truck, and they're usually sold to pros who would buy them. The reason for this is that cheap sells, even if it is inferior quality.
Ria
Personally, being licensed 20 years in ham radio and DXing and contesting as my focus I don't see myself using a cheap, entry level transceiver anymore. I will want the best even if it costs a little more.
We should also be careful about the race to the bottom - you don't find "good" tools in the home stores anymore. You have to buy them from the guy with the truck, and they're usually sold to pros who would buy them. The reason for this is that cheap sells, even if it is inferior quality.
Ria
(Edited)
I think what a lot of folks don't consider is that sometimes even Flex doesn't know what's going into a release - that's because some of this stuff hasn't even been invented yet. There may be a desire to come up with a slick new feature for an upcoming release, but it may take longer than expected to develop it. If an announcement is made in anticipation and things don't go exactly as expected, the result is a lot of people complaining because it wasn't ready when "promised".
Personally, I kind of like the idea of opening Pandora's box. I've seen some really neat features come out since the early days of PowerSDR. Some were expected and others were a total surprise. And there were, of course, corrections. Bugs are to be expected in software this complex. This is especially true working in the Windows environment where Microsoft goes in their own direction and expects developers to follow and keep up.
Personally, I kind of like the idea of opening Pandora's box. I've seen some really neat features come out since the early days of PowerSDR. Some were expected and others were a total surprise. And there were, of course, corrections. Bugs are to be expected in software this complex. This is especially true working in the Windows environment where Microsoft goes in their own direction and expects developers to follow and keep up.
Mike - VE3CKO, Elmer
Michael, I think the key point is perspective. Where you perceive remote as a headline grabbing and the majority are being overlooked, Flex goes by the numbers and remote was the #1 feature request, you may not like it but them are the facts and you can't alter the facts to fit your perspective. Remote was not at all on the top of my list, I will use it.
As per "why so many on this post feeling neglected" again, perspective. I can guarantee you there are multiple times more people who are satisfied that do not post, than there are those who feel neglected. You can safely assume not all users have joined this community and of the ones who do use this community, there are those who have issues and looking for a solution and those who want to help. So naturally you are going to see more issue oriented posts, that is the purpose of this community.
As per "why so many on this post feeling neglected" again, perspective. I can guarantee you there are multiple times more people who are satisfied that do not post, than there are those who feel neglected. You can safely assume not all users have joined this community and of the ones who do use this community, there are those who have issues and looking for a solution and those who want to help. So naturally you are going to see more issue oriented posts, that is the purpose of this community.
Ria - N2RJ, Elmer
I don't see "a large groundswell" of unhappy users. I see a few very loud, repeatedly complaining ones. The booth at Dayton had a lot of interest. The two events at Dayton were very well attended. I really didn't see other radio mfgs get so much traffic, not even Icom with its 7610. In fact the first thing people told me about that radio when they saw it is that they can't believe you need to buy the knob accessory to tune the 2nd vfo without digging in menus (Maestro and M series has this as standard).
I know for a fact that remote was high at the top of everyone's list - because I set it up for them before smartlink was announced. The same day I put the script up, my mailbox was inundated.
I also find it hard to believe that most people will sell their radios because they can't change the color scheme or get DX spots in the panadapter (something no other radio mfg I know of offers either, except maybe Anan with open source PowerSDR).
I have no idea what features are so important for loud complaints every few threads from the same 4 or 5 people. Maybe someone can enlighten me? I DX, I contest, I ragchew, I do digital modes. I operate locally and remote. No idea WHAT I can't do.
Besides, this is 2.0. A .0 product is the very beginning. You don't have to buy now, you can always buy later when the feature set is to your liking.
I know for a fact that remote was high at the top of everyone's list - because I set it up for them before smartlink was announced. The same day I put the script up, my mailbox was inundated.
I also find it hard to believe that most people will sell their radios because they can't change the color scheme or get DX spots in the panadapter (something no other radio mfg I know of offers either, except maybe Anan with open source PowerSDR).
I have no idea what features are so important for loud complaints every few threads from the same 4 or 5 people. Maybe someone can enlighten me? I DX, I contest, I ragchew, I do digital modes. I operate locally and remote. No idea WHAT I can't do.
Besides, this is 2.0. A .0 product is the very beginning. You don't have to buy now, you can always buy later when the feature set is to your liking.
I complain a lot on here. Even so, I still let go of my $200 and got the v2 upgrade.
While there isn't much in v2.o that I'm interested in, I'm still looking forward to the 2.x updates that will occur over the next year so so. I only wish there was a way to tell if there is anything planned in any of the v2.x releases that will be "for me". I'm not a contester.
Ria mentioned a while back that Remote Operation was the number one asked for feature for SmartSDR. How did you know this? What's #2, 3, 4, 5 etc. I've never seen a list of feature list sorted by the number of user requests! It would be great to see that. It would be great to have just a hint of what's to come. I agree with several others that mentioned they would like to see some sort of roadmap again. I would love that as well, but I understand if Flex does not do this.
While there isn't much in v2.o that I'm interested in, I'm still looking forward to the 2.x updates that will occur over the next year so so. I only wish there was a way to tell if there is anything planned in any of the v2.x releases that will be "for me". I'm not a contester.
Ria mentioned a while back that Remote Operation was the number one asked for feature for SmartSDR. How did you know this? What's #2, 3, 4, 5 etc. I've never seen a list of feature list sorted by the number of user requests! It would be great to see that. It would be great to have just a hint of what's to come. I agree with several others that mentioned they would like to see some sort of roadmap again. I would love that as well, but I understand if Flex does not do this.
Norm – the reality is that a small subset of the user group that make a lot of noise about missing deadlines and features they want but didn’t get, have effectively closed the benefit of being able to know what Flexradio is working on in future releases. Its been said several times that future developments and timelines is a fluid situation due to the nature of developing and commercialising technical products. I haven’t heard anything from Icom, Kenwood or Yeasu regarding future developments in all my years of owning their products.
Flexradio was never under any obligation to provide this information, which we should have all considered a privilege.
Tony
(Edited)
Hi Norm,
Actually you can see the list of ideas submitted. You can list them by the number of user votes to see how they rank. In the lower right on the community is a section that defaults to showing "problems." But you can change it to show the idea list. I have it set up and saved to display that way. See the snapshot below.
BTW, "WAN Remote" does not come up on the list that I could find. There are 1,000+ ideas so maybe it's down there somewhere but not near the top. FRS announced WAN remote way back in the early days. It is a feature that is likely good for business and everyone benefits in that way. WAN Remote is popular but I haven't seen any quantitative data comparing it with the other enhancements that are ranked by user votes. I think it was something they committed to and a feature that the 6xxx "thin client" architecture would support better than others using a "thick client" architecture so it would be a competitive advantage.
If you would like to see the details on an idea, you can click on it, add a comment, and add your vote.
When you CLICK the REFINE button you can select what you want to see. Here is how I have it set up so I always see the idea list displayed.
Regards, Al / NN4ZZ
al (at) nn4zz (dot) com
SSDR / DAX / CAT/ 6700 - V 1.10.16
Win10
Actually you can see the list of ideas submitted. You can list them by the number of user votes to see how they rank. In the lower right on the community is a section that defaults to showing "problems." But you can change it to show the idea list. I have it set up and saved to display that way. See the snapshot below.
BTW, "WAN Remote" does not come up on the list that I could find. There are 1,000+ ideas so maybe it's down there somewhere but not near the top. FRS announced WAN remote way back in the early days. It is a feature that is likely good for business and everyone benefits in that way. WAN Remote is popular but I haven't seen any quantitative data comparing it with the other enhancements that are ranked by user votes. I think it was something they committed to and a feature that the 6xxx "thin client" architecture would support better than others using a "thick client" architecture so it would be a competitive advantage.
If you would like to see the details on an idea, you can click on it, add a comment, and add your vote.
When you CLICK the REFINE button you can select what you want to see. Here is how I have it set up so I always see the idea list displayed.
Regards, Al / NN4ZZ
al (at) nn4zz (dot) com
SSDR / DAX / CAT/ 6700 - V 1.10.16
Win10
I too have to agree with Paul and particularly support the upgrades in the GUI he presents. For the last year or more, I have been using the free program Softether to connect by VPN to my Iowa station from 1600 miles away with excellent results. I also use SmartSDR for IOS while connecting my I-Pad and I-Phone. Both are excellent when VPN is used. So, what benefit is 2.0 to me or any of the many others who have already connected their Flex remote systems? I don't need a 40 dB pre-amp on 20 meters, my 6700 and 11 element log have plenty of guts without another crutch. I do not see the utility of un-docking panadapters, don't use N1MM. A fix in the CAT system that doesn't close the ports... isn't that what should have been fixed in version 1.9? I don't think I should have to pay for typical support of an existing flaw in my system.
So, this release of 2.0 is not for me, but I'll likely jump aboard anyway, hoping that a future 2.0+ version will rectify my concerns. Now, it is possible that we haven't heard some of the other "advances" the 2.0 software will provide and there may be things I would consider valuable. But from what I have heard are the "highlights", and from some of the comments I have seen on this board, there are a number of us that are pretty unhappy with this first venture into "paid" support.
Of course this is friendly criticism, I love my Flex 6700, and I think Flex is a great company, but I hate sun spots. Can't do too much about the spots, but as I user I think I have a right to be critical once in a while. Okay guys, flames on.
So, this release of 2.0 is not for me, but I'll likely jump aboard anyway, hoping that a future 2.0+ version will rectify my concerns. Now, it is possible that we haven't heard some of the other "advances" the 2.0 software will provide and there may be things I would consider valuable. But from what I have heard are the "highlights", and from some of the comments I have seen on this board, there are a number of us that are pretty unhappy with this first venture into "paid" support.
Of course this is friendly criticism, I love my Flex 6700, and I think Flex is a great company, but I hate sun spots. Can't do too much about the spots, but as I user I think I have a right to be critical once in a while. Okay guys, flames on.
(Edited)
Ria - N2RJ, Elmer
thats for macos, how about something for win10. I pointed out the macos dax ref in my orig comment.
Ria - N2RJ, Elmer
I use the regular DAX. Seems to work fine. I've been on FT8 all weekend on 6.
I also understand Paul's and others wholly justified frustration and identify with it. But I'm going to keep watching. There's gotta be a pony in there somewhere...
Doug,
But, I *like* sunspots. More of them make better propagation. Once in a while
a solar flare will upset things; they can be nasty.
Please accept my poor attempt at a flame.
Ned, K1NJ
But, I *like* sunspots. More of them make better propagation. Once in a while
a solar flare will upset things; they can be nasty.
Please accept my poor attempt at a flame.
Ned, K1NJ
To be frank, I don't understand the mentality of Flex community posters who want to discuss how disappointed they are with a set of new features. Don't buy the update, then. Wait until there's a feature you want. Ask if they can consider prioritizing features that matter to you. Be a passionate champion for what you want to see. Speaking as an engineer with a base of customers to please, though, I can guarantee that individual customers giving the "tut tut" on a forum has never made the development team feel urged to accommodate.
Ria - N2RJ, Elmer
Maestro is a classic case of "you can't please everyone." A lot of people were skeptical of flex because it didn't have knobs (FlexControl is nice but it's not a "real radio" with knobs). So they went out and developed the Maestro. It's also a tool for contesters to keep SmartSDR OFF the main screen and onto a small screen that is out of the way. I have a Maestro but I don't use it much, except for contesting where I can keep N1MM+ on the main screen. Talk to contesters, they will tell you that focus is their biggest weapon. Once you're focused and not distracted you make rate.
"Focus" in contesting is windows focus (active window), not human focus. That is, you don't want any other window to grab the focus (i.e., to become the active window) and you end up typing in something else but N1MM. A simple example is the ability to use RIT while typing on the keyboard. Or switch filter bandwidth. Or any other SSDR control while using N1MM (or any other logger).
I remember, a while ago from some of the complainers here that said the Maestro would never work over Lan. And some were saying Flex would never get WAN to work. Be careful what we post.
Ria - N2RJ, Elmer
Rudy, all of that falls under the distraction factor. It was a learning curve for me to do a full contest with SmartSDR, even though I have the Flexcontrol. Time wasted means my rate drops, rate drops means someone is getting ahead of me. No good. I did do WW CW 2016 with a borrowed Maestro, now I have my own. I'll definitely be using it this upcoming season.
If you give some folks $200 they would complain because it wasn't $400 and you didn't pay the tax on the gift. It's just human nature for some to find a reason to complain. I'm happy and everyone should know that ALPHA testers also paid for their upgrade to 2.0 after spending hundreds of hours loading and testing 17 different versions. And a shout out to Ria for her efforts on the communities behalf.
I'm still looking for the list of new features being added to the next Icom, Yaesu or Kenwood line! That way, FRS can get a jump start on implementing them 1st. There is some competitive advantage to not publishing a list.
I can sympathize with Paul in that we all bought into the Flex hype about getting a new radio with each release. We'll maybe for some of us but not all. So, it is your choice to buy or not. It just so happens this release caters to a specific group or two. Maybe a more balanced release that appeals to all would result in more paid upgrades and satisfied customers. WIN-WIN
I can sympathize with Paul in that we all bought into the Flex hype about getting a new radio with each release. We'll maybe for some of us but not all. So, it is your choice to buy or not. It just so happens this release caters to a specific group or two. Maybe a more balanced release that appeals to all would result in more paid upgrades and satisfied customers. WIN-WIN
The only new feature added to an icom in some time has been sdr and it overloads. The 7610 is supposed to have a control that prevents this pesky problem, but it seems to be a band aid that does not address the core issue.
Flex's line of sdr along w/ anan truly goes into uncharted territory. For a traditional rig, sure you could customize with sharper cw filters, ssb filters but that was about it. With Flex or anan software updates could cover a wide range of options.
I have never owned a business or ran one, but I think flex should sell their rigs with a baseline software suite and owners can customize their rigs with software add ons at an additional cost. Not everyone wants a car with four wheel drive or 700hp.
Finally, there was a time when remoting my flex was about as appealing as breasts on a pig, but now the ability to remote is a key want for me and I would pay extra for that upgrade if it was available from flex as a stand alone feature. To others, it is not important and I can see why they see no value in the option, but the ability to remote has been a long time want from core flex users and FRS has kept their promise to provide it.
Flex's line of sdr along w/ anan truly goes into uncharted territory. For a traditional rig, sure you could customize with sharper cw filters, ssb filters but that was about it. With Flex or anan software updates could cover a wide range of options.
I have never owned a business or ran one, but I think flex should sell their rigs with a baseline software suite and owners can customize their rigs with software add ons at an additional cost. Not everyone wants a car with four wheel drive or 700hp.
Finally, there was a time when remoting my flex was about as appealing as breasts on a pig, but now the ability to remote is a key want for me and I would pay extra for that upgrade if it was available from flex as a stand alone feature. To others, it is not important and I can see why they see no value in the option, but the ability to remote has been a long time want from core flex users and FRS has kept their promise to provide it.
(Edited)
Eventually Flex will come to realise that continually disappointing the large majority of users means reduced dollars and/or switching to other brands. Lets hope they can stay in business by only serving the very top 1% of the pyramid.
Rick, that's probably because they're perfected before being launched onto the market and their fortunate owners don't need or expect a continual drip feed of upgrades (notwithstanding recalls of course ;) . Maybe Flex could lean toward a similar aproach ? I seems to me that many of the gripes voiced here, stem from some users feeling a little like unpaid guinea pigs. Cheers.
Rick, switch to what? Even if I was overly disgruntled with Flex what would I buy? I have been buying top of the line radios for years and I don't see anything on the horizon that will replace my flex.
My 6500 although lacking in some of the features I would like is by far my favorite radio. I will be even happier when my 6600m arrives even though snap out windows is the only software feature that I will be able to take advantage of. Now having a second SCU is a different story.
Some of Flex Radio's issues are growing pains. 5 years ago Flex was some odd computer radio and now in my eyes they have pushed Kenwood out of the big 3 group. More growing pains to follow. More improvements to follow.
My 6500 although lacking in some of the features I would like is by far my favorite radio. I will be even happier when my 6600m arrives even though snap out windows is the only software feature that I will be able to take advantage of. Now having a second SCU is a different story.
Some of Flex Radio's issues are growing pains. 5 years ago Flex was some odd computer radio and now in my eyes they have pushed Kenwood out of the big 3 group. More growing pains to follow. More improvements to follow.
rick, so are you saying the takeaway for the other 99% of users now is "screw you" for not having more cash for new toys like the 6600M and PGXL?
btw: prestige brands like Bentley got to that position by never releasing half-baked products over nearly 100 years. Their customers are exceptionally demanding and discerning buyers that would instantly take a car back to the dealer simply because the walnut dash had the smallest almost invisible imperfection. The dealer then replaces it without cost or hassle simply to preserve brand loyalty. If Flex get to that status with ssdr and the maestro designed-in flaws they'll have something to crow about.
(Edited)
"Lets hope they can stay in business by only serving the very top 1% of the pyramid"
Flexradio only satisfying 1% of its consumers just doesn't hold water, so any justification based on this probably doesn't serve any purpose.
Overtime my Apple IPhone has crashed a few times, batteries have gone flat unexpectedly and not started properly, but I still consider the product of merchantable quality that provides me value. I believe even pacemakers fail occasionally (ouch).
Most of the amateur radios I have owned over the past 35 years have had a glitch here and there. We want it cheaper and we want it faster. Can we afford or wait for the perfect product?
Every organisation has time-to-market pressures. I for one appreciated that Gerald held back version 2.0, even after pressure by the user group, until it met their minimum quality level.
One or 2 more sleeps, so lets be happy..
Flexradio only satisfying 1% of its consumers just doesn't hold water, so any justification based on this probably doesn't serve any purpose.
Overtime my Apple IPhone has crashed a few times, batteries have gone flat unexpectedly and not started properly, but I still consider the product of merchantable quality that provides me value. I believe even pacemakers fail occasionally (ouch).
Most of the amateur radios I have owned over the past 35 years have had a glitch here and there. We want it cheaper and we want it faster. Can we afford or wait for the perfect product?
Every organisation has time-to-market pressures. I for one appreciated that Gerald held back version 2.0, even after pressure by the user group, until it met their minimum quality level.
One or 2 more sleeps, so lets be happy..
Michael, if you believe that "btw", I have only two words. Lucas Electrics.
Ken - NM9P, Elmer
I am happy with the Flex as-is, but in 3 years of owning a 6000 series, Flex has made few upgrades that help my operating style.
I have come to the conclusion that I am a minority rag chewer in the Flex Contesting and Remote operator crowd. I am glad Flex is listening and providing what the bulk of users want. That's fantastic.
But I am hoping the introduction of M radios will draw in more of "my kind" LOL. I have to admit I like gadgets. Things like integrating spots, band plans on the panafall and easier implementation for 3rd party hardware panels (like power genius) are all things I would like to see.
I have come to the conclusion that I am a minority rag chewer in the Flex Contesting and Remote operator crowd. I am glad Flex is listening and providing what the bulk of users want. That's fantastic.
But I am hoping the introduction of M radios will draw in more of "my kind" LOL. I have to admit I like gadgets. Things like integrating spots, band plans on the panafall and easier implementation for 3rd party hardware panels (like power genius) are all things I would like to see.
I also don't fit the contester, competitive dxer, or remote user crowd BUT I still like my 6300 immensely. And if Flex NEVER adds another interface feature OR another functionality feature it won't change an iota how I feel about the rig OR Flex Radio. Anything added, I see as icing on the cake.
However, I am one of the relatively small group who likes to write C# (and C++) code. So, I add many of my own features exactly the way I want them. The biggest feature that convinced me to go with the 6000 series was the c# API that was available.
At the end of the day - Flex (like most other relatively small companies) has to use it's finite resources to please the majority of their customers as best they can and some folks will be less happier than others.
However, I am one of the relatively small group who likes to write C# (and C++) code. So, I add many of my own features exactly the way I want them. The biggest feature that convinced me to go with the 6000 series was the c# API that was available.
At the end of the day - Flex (like most other relatively small companies) has to use it's finite resources to please the majority of their customers as best they can and some folks will be less happier than others.
Mike - VE3CKO, Elmer
I would love to see a more flexible GUI, colors/font size etc. at almost 60 I must use a magnifying glass to use the Maestro. Saying that, I totally understand a vast majority of users wanted what is now SmartLink. A huge milestone for Flex and they will reap the rewards with tons of new sales with lots of new first time Flex users.
In my little world these four features below are today what is important to me:
In my little world these four features below are today what is important to me:
- editable GUI in both SmartSDR and Maestro
- Antenna Genius control from Maestro
- Memory control by a knob (turn a knob to select from stored memory)
- adjustable/resizable Clock on Maestro
Ken - NM9P, Elmer
Mike.
I have a simple way of switching between three different antennas without being in the shack. It is a workaround, yes, but it works until I can afford and implement a more elegant solution.
I can put my main tower lead on ANT1 and my vertical on ANT2.
I have an Ameritron ACS4 remote switch on the main tower lead in order to switch between my Log Periodic, OCF Dipole, and Inverted L antennas. I have the RCS4 set so that I leave it on the position for the Log Periodic, and the Dipole is on position 4. When the power supply for the remote antenna switch is removed, it defaults to position 4 (the Dipole). Now I have a NEO WiFI power switch (about $25) to control the power supply for the ACS4. So now, I can switch between the Log Periodic and Dipole Antenna with a simple utility on my iPhone or iPad. There are Android apps too. So I can select any of three TX/RX antennas either via SSDR for Windows or IOS, or by using my iPhone app.
The next project likely be a USB 8-port relay adapter that I will be able to control via the 6500's USB port which will take the place of the ACS4 control head and allow me to link any of the 4 antennas to the desired bands from within SSDR. Alternately, I may come up with a simple driver for one of those $10 Raspberry Pi's that will do the same thing over WiFi.
Longer term, I hope to replace the ACS4 with an Antenna Genius 2x8 switch and use 2 feedlines to the tower. But that is a more expensive solution for another day - after I upgrade my 6500 to a 6600, etc.
I have a simple way of switching between three different antennas without being in the shack. It is a workaround, yes, but it works until I can afford and implement a more elegant solution.
I can put my main tower lead on ANT1 and my vertical on ANT2.
I have an Ameritron ACS4 remote switch on the main tower lead in order to switch between my Log Periodic, OCF Dipole, and Inverted L antennas. I have the RCS4 set so that I leave it on the position for the Log Periodic, and the Dipole is on position 4. When the power supply for the remote antenna switch is removed, it defaults to position 4 (the Dipole). Now I have a NEO WiFI power switch (about $25) to control the power supply for the ACS4. So now, I can switch between the Log Periodic and Dipole Antenna with a simple utility on my iPhone or iPad. There are Android apps too. So I can select any of three TX/RX antennas either via SSDR for Windows or IOS, or by using my iPhone app.
The next project likely be a USB 8-port relay adapter that I will be able to control via the 6500's USB port which will take the place of the ACS4 control head and allow me to link any of the 4 antennas to the desired bands from within SSDR. Alternately, I may come up with a simple driver for one of those $10 Raspberry Pi's that will do the same thing over WiFi.
Longer term, I hope to replace the ACS4 with an Antenna Genius 2x8 switch and use 2 feedlines to the tower. But that is a more expensive solution for another day - after I upgrade my 6500 to a 6600, etc.
Mike - VE3CKO, Elmer
Thanks Ken. I have a new unopened RCS4 that I keep forgetting to put up for sale. Switching bands automatically is covered already with Antenna Genius (AG). You can even assign a frequency range to select a specific antenna, make up your own bands, that's handy. That works fine but if I want to switch antennas on a band for example 40m where I have a few antenna options I can't do that from the Maestro. I could easily login via Team Viewer, cell phone to desktop to gain control of AG but practically to do that through the night when I periodically wake up and tune to another band and search for QSO to put me to sleep again, too much work, ha, ha. Actually 4o3a is suppose to release an android app to do just that but my understanding is they are awaiting some code Flex has to introduce first.
Ken, you've been reading my mind! I've been thinking on how to do just what you described for a while. I think a TS-520 interface or even a Collins radios' interface would look neat on a tablet. The guy that started the Android app used some elements that automated knobs and switches in his app. I wrote to him and he gave me a link to a website that explains how to do that using Photoshop.
I drive a truck for a living. But, enjoy programming as a hobby. But, lately, I have not had much of a chance to write any code. But, I do plan to try exactly what you are talking about. I have a couple of Android based tablets that would be fun to get going like that.
Imagine, being able to choose a classic radio interface from a drop down menu and remotely connecting to your Flex. That would be fun!
james
WD5GWY
I drive a truck for a living. But, enjoy programming as a hobby. But, lately, I have not had much of a chance to write any code. But, I do plan to try exactly what you are talking about. I have a couple of Android based tablets that would be fun to get going like that.
Imagine, being able to choose a classic radio interface from a drop down menu and remotely connecting to your Flex. That would be fun!
james
WD5GWY
