locked Callsign window #1 actions and display contradictions


Jim Cary
 

Still trying to recover from a computer crash and the need to rebuilt WSJT-X and JT Alert.  Painful and slow!  At least two issues still remaining.

1. When I double click on a call in the Callsign #1 window the call does not appear in the first or second line of WSJT-X where the call of the station you are wanting to work goes and the Enable TX light does not go to red.

2. Significant differences are occurring between both programs as to whether or not a country or grid, or state are needed.  I believe JT alert takes its information from the alert settings in JT alert.  Is it possible that WSJT takes its information from the WSJT ADIF log?  Since this log got wiped out with the crash and is starting from scratch, that might explain the discrepancies.

Jim
W2SM


 

Does anyone know the answer to this?


Joe Subich, W4TV
 

1. When I double click on a call in the Callsign #1
Do you have all three UDP boxes checked in WSJTX -> Settings ->
Reporting?

Is it possible that WSJT takes its information from the WSJT ADIF
log?
That is *exactly* where WSJTX gets its B4 information. Try exporting
all the "WSJT mode" QSOs from your logging program as ADIF then
*replacing* the WSJTX ADIF log with that exported file (and restarting
WSJTX).

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2021-07-13 4:05 PM, Jim Cary wrote:
Still trying to recover from a computer crash and the need to rebuilt WSJT-X and JT Alert.  Painful and slow!  At least two issues still remaining.
1. When I double click on a call in the Callsign #1 window the call does not appear in the first or second line of WSJT-X where the call of the station you are wanting to work goes and the Enable TX light does not go to red.
2. Significant differences are occurring between both programs as to whether or not a country or grid, or state are needed.  I believe JT alert takes its information from the alert settings in JT alert.  Is it possible that WSJT takes its information from the WSJT ADIF log?  Since this log got wiped out with the crash and is starting from scratch, that might explain the discrepancies.
Jim
W2SM
Does anyone know the answer to this?


HamApps Support (VK3AMA)
 

On 14/07/2021 6:05 am, Jim Cary wrote:

1. When I double click on a call in the Callsign #1 window the call does not appear in the first or second line of WSJT-X where the call of the station you are wanting to work goes and the Enable TX light does not go to red.

2. Significant differences are occurring between both programs as to whether or not a country or grid, or state are needed.  I believe JT alert takes its information from the alert settings in JT alert.  Is it possible that WSJT takes its information from the WSJT ADIF log?  Since this log got wiped out with the crash and is starting from scratch, that might explain the discrepancies.

Jim
W2SM

  1. WSJT-X not responding to a JTAlert Callsign click event is typically caused by an incomplete setup of WSJT-X. Specifically, the "Accept UDP requests" option is not enabled under the "UDP Server" section of the "Reporting" tab of the WSJT-X Settings.

  2. WSJT-X uses its wsjtx_log.adi file which is now empty. JTAlert uses its internal Alerts database which is populated with data taken from your Logger during the "Rebuild Alert Database" operation. I suggest you do an adif export of your logger and replace the empty wsjtx_log.adi file with that export.

de Laurie VK3AMA


Jim Cary
 

Laurie,

Can the adif export include all QSOs and modes, or just digital ones compatible with WSJT-X?

Jim


HamApps Support (VK3AMA)
 

On 14/07/2021 6:39 am, Jim Cary wrote:
Can the adif export include all QSOs and modes, or just digital ones compatible with WSJT-X?

Jim

You should be able to do all modes. Any modes that WSJT-X is not concerned with in respect to its reporting will be ignored along with adif fields that are not need. BUT, there is increased overhead in parsing the adif file, the more lines it contains the more time it will take WSJT-X to read/reread the file. The increased reading time is likely to be minimal and go unnoticed unless you're file contains hundreds of thousand of entries, in which case I would recommend only exporting a subset of your QSOs.

de Laurie VK3AMA


g4wjs
 

On 13/07/2021 22:09, HamApps Support (VK3AMA) wrote:
On 14/07/2021 6:39 am, Jim Cary wrote:
Can the adif export include all QSOs and modes, or just digital ones compatible with WSJT-X?

Jim

You should be able to do all modes. Any modes that WSJT-X is not concerned with in respect to its reporting will be ignored along with adif fields that are not need. BUT, there is increased overhead in parsing the adif file, the more lines it contains the more time it will take WSJT-X to read/reread the file. The increased reading time is likely to be minimal and go unnoticed unless you're file contains hundreds of thousand of entries, in which case I would recommend only exporting a subset of your QSOs.

de Laurie VK3AMA

Hi Jim, and Laurie,

I would recommend that you do not worry about the size of your exported ADIF file, even on a relatively slow PC it will be processed fast and that is done in the background without interrupting normal WSJT-X operation.

Whether you export all QSOs or just digital mode ones from your main station log is your choice, the non-digital mode QSOs can be made use of if the "Settings->Colors->By Mode" option is not checked. In that case prior QSOs in any mode will be considered when determining if something new is to be highlighted. Of course WSJT-X will have no knowledge of new QSOs made outside of WSJT-X, so if you are using a full export then you will need to repeat that process periodically to keep the information on QSOs made outside of WSJT-X up to date.

73
Bill
G4WJS.


--
73
Bill
G4WJS.


Jim Cary
 

Laurie and Bill

These tips did the job.  Thanks ever so much.

Question - have you given any thought to the idea of enabling "TX Enable" on WSJT-X when clicking on a call in the call box that shows a "73"?  Just like it works on a "CQ".  I think that would be a  nice enhancement if technically feasible.

73 and tnx for all the good work.

Jim