Date   
Re: Downloading an entire log

Bill Pence
 

Wow. Thanks for adding info. I did not think for a moment that the author of the indo would he here.

Hopefully, this will work for Joe.
I upload to lotw, eqsl and load lotw overvto qrz.com.

I think the eqsl.cc download would be best option, if you have used that since lotw stores only some of the qsl data....

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 8:51 PM Gary Hinson <Gary@...> wrote:

Hi Bill.

 

In order to write about them, I tried all of those options … but not for ages, and things sometimes change, so please let me know if these instructions don’t work or if you find a better method.  I’ll happily update my website.

 

I’ve just realized that Club Log also lets us download our logs.  Maybe QRZ and eQSL do too?  So I probably ought to check and mention those.

 

73,

Gary   ZL2iFB  (originall G4iFB)

 

 

From: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...> On Behalf Of Bill Pence
Sent: 11 September 2019 08:31
To: ARRL-LoTW@...
Cc: ARRL-LoTW@groups.io
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] Downloading an entire log

 

I found this, but have never tried it.

 

but I highlighted an important detail in yellow...

Download your whole log from LoTW

If you need to download your entire log from LoTW as an emergency backup*, there are at least five options:

1.   Use LoTW’s QSO reports to find out all you can about the missing QSOs and re-enter them manually into your logging program (tedious and error prone unless you are only missing a few QSOs);

2.   Capture (‘screen-scrape’) the text one-screen-at-a-time from LoTW’s reports: this is also tedious and error prone, and is definitely not recommended;

3.   Use the neat online LoTW log download utility by K1MU, without entering any specific QSO criteria;

4.   Use this LoTW query page directly: it starts a full log download (thanks to G4LMW for the tip);

5.   Use the ‘synchronise log with LoTW’ function in logging programs such as AClog (but not Logger32, unfortunately).

* This is a last resort: LoTW only stores the basic, minimal QSO details. Trust me, it is much better to make your own regular off-line and off-site log backups.  Even if you only do a backup once a year, that at least gives you a fighting chance of retrieving your detailed log to a point within the past year, recovering minimal QSO details from then until now.

 

 

 

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 3:50 PM Joe Stepansky <kq3f@...> wrote:

I may be giving up on my current logging software, as it no longer seems to want to accurately load my current log or any of my backups.

 

But I have my entire log on LOTW. Is there a way to download my entire log as an ADIF? Not just QSOs that have been QSLed, but ALL 133,000+ QSOs dating back to 1983? I realize I’ll probably have to download it in chunks. Thanks for any help!

 

73, Joe KQ3F

Re: LOTW verification Failed

Knud-Erik Kaadner
 

Thank you Dave, I'll do that.

73 OZ6KK
Erik

WAS FT4 confirmation

cwkwfan@...
 

Hello,

I got  2 QSL records  with FT4. which do not show up under my WAS FT4 account.


from my LOTW Account Activity Log

2019-09-13 05:36:03 LOTW_QSO: QSO QSLs a contact: 2019-09-12 19:56:38Z DK1BN NZ4CW 20M FT4
NZ4CW State SC but is not in my WAS FT4 account (SC still blank)


Worked Station
Worked   W6O
DXCC   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (291)
CQ Zone   04
ITU Zone   07
Grid   EM37US
State   Missouri (MO)
County   Pulaski
Date/Time   2019-09-12 16:19:23
Mode   FT4 (DATA)
Band   20M
Frequency   14.08141
QSL   2019-09-13 19:14:19

State MO is not shown in my WAS FT4 Account as confirmed (still blank)
I have uploaded quite a lot of FT4 contacts (44 cfmd states) and they show up correctly in my WAS FT4 account.


73
Walter DK1BN


Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Arth
 

I do not operate Data mode so these contracts can not come from my station sorry for anybody's disappointment.

Regards  Arthur.  G6NRK.

On 16 Sep 2019 16:58, "cwkwfan via Groups.Arrl.Org" <cwkwfan=googlemail.com@...> wrote:
Hello,

I got  2 QSL records  with FT4. which do not show up under my WAS FT4 account.


from my LOTW Account Activity Log

2019-09-13 05:36:03 LOTW_QSO: QSO QSLs a contact: 2019-09-12 19:56:38Z DK1BN NZ4CW 20M FT4
NZ4CW State SC but is not in my WAS FT4 account (SC still blank)


Worked Station
Worked W6O
DXCC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (291)
CQ Zone 04
ITU Zone 07
Grid EM37US
State Missouri (MO)
County Pulaski
Date/Time 2019-09-12 16:19:23
Mode FT4 (DATA)
Band 20M
Frequency 14.08141
QSL 2019-09-13 19:14:19

State MO is not shown in my WAS FT4 Account as confirmed (still blank)
I have uploaded quite a lot of FT4 contacts (44 cfmd states) and they show up correctly in my WAS FT4 account.


73
Walter DK1BN



Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Steve Phillips
 

I also got some confirmations from W6O - it looks like they confirmed these QSOs with a Mode of “Data” rather than a sub mode of “FT4”.

This issue has been discussed to death on this forum.

The cause is probably a defect in W6O’s logging program or an incorrect mapping in their TQSL configuration.

To correct, W6O will need to make changes on their end and resubmit the confirmations.

Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

cwkwfan@...
 

Hi Steve,

I think you may be correct . W6O did upload it with an incorrect mapping in his TQSL configuration. But I cant see it in QSO  Details . All my confirmed contacts show also FT4(Data).

And I think there is normally no "Mixed Mode" if you operate  FT4. Even if you upload it correctly and the other station  did upload it as "Data "  there should be a correct match for WAS.  I saw there was   already  a thread in the forum discussing  "WAS FT8 vs. FT4 " and the submode problem.

MO is not really rare and I have to work another station.

Thanks for your reply

73
Walter DK1BN 

Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Rick Murphy
 

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:25 PM cwkwfan via Groups.Arrl.Org
<cwkwfan=googlemail.com@...> wrote:

Hi Steve,

I think you may be correct . W6O did upload it with an incorrect mapping in his TQSL configuration.
That's actually quite unlikely.
You can't define a FT4 to DATA mapping if you have a current
configuration file that defines FT4.
If you created one in the past, TQSL will delete it.

The likely cause here is someone following the bad advice to map FT4 to MFSK.

But I cant see it in QSO Details . All my confirmed contacts show also FT4(Data).
This has been covered before (and I've gotten it wrong before as well)
- choose the QSL in your account. It says "FT4(DATA)". That's what YOU
uploaded with.
Click on the "QSL" link at the bottom - the call changes to the
station you worked. What is the mode for that? Probably "DATA (DATA)"

Hope I got this right.

And I think there is normally no "Mixed Mode" if you operate FT4. Even if you upload it correctly and the other station did upload it as "Data " there should be a correct match for WAS. I saw there was already a thread in the forum discussing "WAS FT8 vs. FT4 " and the submode problem.
Yes, but a DATA QSL is not valid for a FT4 WAS award.
73,
-Rick
--
Rick Murphy, CISSP-ISSAP, K1MU/4, Annandale VA USA

Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

cwkwfan@...
 

Hi Rick,

yes it shows on QSO Details if you click on QSL it shows Data(Data). Same story with the QSL record of NZ4CW.  I did not know this . Anyway I think it was not a good idea to make FT4 a submode of MFSK even if it is a submode.

Thanks for your help.

73 Walter

Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Joe Subich, W4TV
 

On 2019-09-17 3:05 AM, cwkwfan via Groups.Arrl.Org wrote:

Anyway I think it was not a good idea to make FT4 a submode of MFSK even if it is a submode.
No, it was not a good idea for certain logging software providers to
ignore the ADIF specifications that they agreed to six years ago.

It is not a good idea for users to continue to use old versions of
logging software that did not support newer (sub)modes.

Properly classifying FT4 as as a form of MFSK only identified broken
or improperly written software.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-09-17 3:05 AM, cwkwfan via Groups.Arrl.Org wrote:
Hi Rick,
yes it shows on *QSO Details* if you click on *QSL* it shows Data(Data). Same story with the QSL record of NZ4CW.  I did not know this . Anyway I think it was not a good idea to make FT4 a submode of MFSK even if it is a submode.
Thanks for your help.
73 Walter

Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Gilbert Baron
 

Keep saying it and maybe some coders will actually listen and then fix. 😊

Outlook Laptop Gil W0MN
Hierro Candente Batir de Repente
44.08226N 92.51265 W en34rb

-----Original Message-----
From: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...> On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 07:29
To: ARRL-LoTW@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation


On 2019-09-17 3:05 AM, cwkwfan via Groups.Arrl.Org wrote:
>
Anyway I think it was not a good idea to make FT4 a submode of MFSK
> even if it is a submode.

No, it was not a good idea for certain logging software providers to
ignore the ADIF specifications that they agreed to six years ago.

It is not a good idea for users to continue to use old versions of
logging software that did not support newer (sub)modes.

Properly classifying FT4 as as a form of MFSK only identified broken
or improperly written software.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-09-17 3:05 AM, cwkwfan via Groups.Arrl.Org wrote:
Hi Rick,

yes it shows on *QSO Details* if you click on *QSL* it shows Data(Data). Same story with the QSL record of NZ4CW. I did not know this . Anyway I think it was not a good idea to make FT4 a submode of MFSK even if it is a submode.

Thanks for your help.

73 Walter

Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Dave AA6YQ
 

+ AA6YQ comments below

Keep saying it and maybe some coders will actually listen and then fix. ??

+ To my knowledge, all actively-supported logging applications now correctly support <MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT4

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Joe Subich, W4TV
 

There is no mention of support for <SUBMODE:#> nor for a specific fix to
the "FT4 problem" in the HRD change log
<https://development.hamradiodeluxe.com/changelog_page.php?project_id=0>
for either the most recent public release(s) or development list for the
next two interim (developmental) versions.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 2019-09-17 12:56 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
+ AA6YQ comments below
Keep saying it and maybe some coders will actually listen and then fix. ??
+ To my knowledge, all actively-supported logging applications now correctly support <MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT4
73,
Dave, AA6YQ

Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Charlie Young - K0LAF
 

From the last HRD newsletter:  "While we're proceeding with beta testing for this release, I've asked the team to look at the issue related to matching FT4 confirmations from LOTW in HRD Logbook."

It's not clear from this if they intend to include the fix in the 6.7 release or if it will come in a later version.

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 1:04 PM Joe Subich, W4TV <lists@...> wrote:

There is no mention of support for <SUBMODE:#> nor for a specific fix to
the "FT4 problem" in the HRD change log
<https://development.hamradiodeluxe.com/changelog_page.php?project_id=0>
for either the most recent public release(s) or development list for the
next two interim (developmental) versions.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-09-17 12:56 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
> + AA6YQ comments below
>
> Keep saying it and maybe some coders will actually listen and then fix. ??
>
> + To my knowledge, all actively-supported logging applications now correctly support <MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT4
>
>            73,
>
>                    Dave, AA6YQ
>






--
Charlie, KØLAF

Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Phil Cooper
 

It would appear that DX4WIN is not yet supporting the proper FT4 submode, as I have been chasing a few LoTW matches that have returned as DATA or RTTY.
I do not use DX4WIN, so cannot be entirely sure, although the revision history on the website makes no mention of FT4 handling.

As someone who is actively chasing FT4 WAS, it is a pain that these "paid for" programs have not yet fully implemented the correct mapping of FT4 for LoTW, yet almost all of the "free" software has!

73 de Phil GU0SUP

-----Original Message-----
From: ARRL-LoTW@... [mailto:ARRL-LoTW@...] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
Sent: 17 September 2019 19:04
To: ARRL-LoTW@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation


There is no mention of support for <SUBMODE:#> nor for a specific fix to
the "FT4 problem" in the HRD change log
<https://development.hamradiodeluxe.com/changelog_page.php?project_id=0>
for either the most recent public release(s) or development list for the
next two interim (developmental) versions.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-09-17 12:56 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
+ AA6YQ comments below

Keep saying it and maybe some coders will actually listen and then fix. ??

+ To my knowledge, all actively-supported logging applications now correctly support <MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT4

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

g3ybo
 

Hi Phil

Same with HRD

73

Roger


From: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...> on behalf of Phil Cooper via Groups.Arrl.Org <pcooper=suremail.gg@...>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 10:11:14 PM
To: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...>
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation
 
It would appear that DX4WIN is not yet supporting the proper FT4 submode, as I have been chasing a few LoTW matches that have returned as DATA or RTTY.
I do not use DX4WIN, so cannot be entirely sure, although the revision history on the website makes no mention of FT4 handling.

As someone who is actively chasing FT4 WAS, it is a pain that these "paid for" programs have not yet fully implemented the correct mapping of FT4 for LoTW, yet almost all of the "free" software has!

73 de Phil GU0SUP

-----Original Message-----
From: ARRL-LoTW@... [mailto:ARRL-LoTW@...] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
Sent: 17 September 2019 19:04
To: ARRL-LoTW@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation


There is no mention of support for <SUBMODE:#> nor for a specific fix to
the "FT4 problem" in the HRD change log
<https://development.hamradiodeluxe.com/changelog_page.php?project_id=0>
for either the most recent public release(s) or development list for the
next two interim (developmental) versions.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-09-17 12:56 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
> + AA6YQ comments below
>
> Keep saying it and maybe some coders will actually listen and then fix. ??
>
> + To my knowledge, all actively-supported logging applications now correctly support <MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT4
>
>            73,
>
>                    Dave, AA6YQ
>







Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

DON GAIKINS
 

Are we going to see these ridiculous whining with every release of a new digital mode??? And FT8, FT4 are just the beginning.?? FT4 will not be the last or anywhere near the last.?? Group them all in digital and be done with it!
Don W0VM

On 9/17/2019 4:11 PM, Phil Cooper via Groups.Arrl.Org wrote:
It would appear that DX4WIN is not yet supporting the proper FT4 submode, as I have been chasing a few LoTW matches that have returned as DATA or RTTY.
I do not use DX4WIN, so cannot be entirely sure, although the revision history on the website makes no mention of FT4 handling.

As someone who is actively chasing FT4 WAS, it is a pain that these "paid for" programs have not yet fully implemented the correct mapping of FT4 for LoTW, yet almost all of the "free" software has!

73 de Phil GU0SUP

-----Original Message-----
From: ARRL-LoTW@... [mailto:ARRL-LoTW@...] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
Sent: 17 September 2019 19:04
To: ARRL-LoTW@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation


There is no mention of support for <SUBMODE:#> nor for a specific fix to
the "FT4 problem" in the HRD change log
<https://development.hamradiodeluxe.com/changelog_page.php?project_id=0>
for either the most recent public release(s) or development list for the
next two interim (developmental) versions.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2019-09-17 12:56 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
+ AA6YQ comments below

Keep saying it and maybe some coders will actually listen and then fix. ??

+ To my knowledge, all actively-supported logging applications now correctly support <MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT4

73,

Dave, AA6YQ




Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

roamer
 

Wholehearted agree, Don! 
Dean, K7N


From: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...> on behalf of DON GAIKINS via Groups.Arrl.Org <dgaikins=sbcglobal.net@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 8:29:18 AM
To: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...>
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation
 
Are we going to see these ridiculous whining with every release of a new
digital mode??? And FT8, FT4 are just the beginning.?? FT4 will not be the
last or anywhere near the last.?? Group them all in digital and be done
with it!
Don W0VM


On 9/17/2019 4:11 PM, Phil Cooper via Groups.Arrl.Org wrote:
> It would appear that DX4WIN is not yet supporting the proper FT4 submode, as I have been chasing a few LoTW matches that have returned as DATA or RTTY.
> I do not use DX4WIN, so cannot be entirely sure, although the revision history on the website makes no mention of FT4 handling.
>
> As someone who is actively chasing FT4 WAS, it is a pain that these "paid for" programs have not yet fully implemented the correct mapping of FT4 for LoTW, yet almost all of the "free" software has!
>
> 73 de Phil GU0SUP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ARRL-LoTW@... [mailto:ARRL-LoTW@...] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
> Sent: 17 September 2019 19:04
> To: ARRL-LoTW@...
> Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation
>
>
> There is no mention of support for <SUBMODE:#> nor for a specific fix to
> the "FT4 problem" in the HRD change log
> <https://development.hamradiodeluxe.com/changelog_page.php?project_id=0>
> for either the most recent public release(s) or development list for the
> next two interim (developmental) versions.
>
> 73,
>
>      ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 2019-09-17 12:56 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
>> + AA6YQ comments below
>>
>> Keep saying it and maybe some coders will actually listen and then fix. ??
>>
>> + To my knowledge, all actively-supported logging applications now correctly support <MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT4
>>
>>             73,
>>
>>                     Dave, AA6YQ
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Gilbert Baron
 

I hope we do. You are wrong. The free programs for the most part have done it and it is really a cheat that paid for have not.

It does you no good if you have a program that does, it is the other end that is falling down on the job . OTOH those users should not  be expected to learn a new program to fix this. The producers of the programs that are defective should obviously fix them.

 

Outlook Laptop Gil W0MN

Hierro Candente Batir de Repente

44.08226N 92.51265 W en34rb

 

From: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...> On Behalf Of roamer
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 10:33
To: ARRL-LoTW@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation

 

Wholehearted agree, Don! 

Dean, K7N


From: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...> on behalf of DON GAIKINS via Groups.Arrl.Org <dgaikins=sbcglobal.net@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 8:29:18 AM
To: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...>
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation

 

Are we going to see these ridiculous whining with every release of a new
digital mode??? And FT8, FT4 are just the beginning.?? FT4 will not be the
last or anywhere near the last.?? Group them all in digital and be done
with it!
Don W0VM


On 9/17/2019 4:11 PM, Phil Cooper via Groups.Arrl.Org wrote:
> It would appear that DX4WIN is not yet supporting the proper FT4 submode, as I have been chasing a few LoTW matches that have returned as DATA or RTTY.
> I do not use DX4WIN, so cannot be entirely sure, although the revision history on the website makes no mention of FT4 handling.
>
> As someone who is actively chasing FT4 WAS, it is a pain that these "paid for" programs have not yet fully implemented the correct mapping of FT4 for LoTW, yet almost all of the "free" software has!
>
> 73 de Phil GU0SUP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ARRL-LoTW@... [mailto:ARRL-LoTW@...] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
> Sent: 17 September 2019 19:04
> To: ARRL-LoTW@...
> Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation
>
>
> There is no mention of support for <SUBMODE:#> nor for a specific fix to
> the "FT4 problem" in the HRD change log
> <https://development.hamradiodeluxe.com/changelog_page.php?project_id=0>
> for either the most recent public release(s) or development list for the
> next two interim (developmental) versions.
>
> 73,
>
>      ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 2019-09-17 12:56 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
>> + AA6YQ comments below
>>
>> Keep saying it and maybe some coders will actually listen and then fix. ??
>>
>> + To my knowledge, all actively-supported logging applications now correctly support <MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT4
>>
>>             73,
>>
>>                     Dave, AA6YQ
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Wes Attaway (N5WA)
 

I agree, at least for now, these QSOs are all “digital” as far as LOTW totals are concerned.  This goes for RTTY, FT8, FT4 and whatever.

 

I think you should just keep your own totals for all these different modes.

 

 

   -------------------

Wes Attaway (N5WA)

(318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA

Computer/Cellphone Forensics

   -------------------


From: ARRL-LoTW@... [mailto:ARRL-LoTW@...] On Behalf Of roamer
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 10:33 AM
To: ARRL-LoTW@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation

 

Wholehearted agree, Don! 

Dean, K7N


From: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...> on behalf of DON GAIKINS via Groups.Arrl.Org <dgaikins=sbcglobal.net@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 8:29:18 AM
To: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...>
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation

 

Are we going to see these ridiculous whining with every release of a new
digital mode??? And FT8, FT4 are just the beginning.?? FT4 will not be the
last or anywhere near the last.?? Group them all in digital and be done
with it!
Don W0VM


On 9/17/2019 4:11 PM, Phil Cooper via Groups.Arrl.Org wrote:
> It would appear that DX4WIN is not yet supporting the proper FT4 submode, as I have been chasing a few LoTW matches that have returned as DATA or RTTY.
> I do not use DX4WIN, so cannot be entirely sure, although the revision history on the website makes no mention of FT4 handling.
>
> As someone who is actively chasing FT4 WAS, it is a pain that these "paid for" programs have not yet fully implemented the correct mapping of FT4 for LoTW, yet almost all of the "free" software has!
>
> 73 de Phil GU0SUP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ARRL-LoTW@... [mailto:ARRL-LoTW@...] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
> Sent: 17 September 2019 19:04
> To: ARRL-LoTW@...
> Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation
>
>
> There is no mention of support for <SUBMODE:#> nor for a specific fix to
> the "FT4 problem" in the HRD change log
> <https://development.hamradiodeluxe.com/changelog_page.php?project_id=0>
> for either the most recent public release(s) or development list for the
> next two interim (developmental) versions.
>
> 73,
>
>      ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 2019-09-17 12:56 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
>> + AA6YQ comments below
>>
>> Keep saying it and maybe some coders will actually listen and then fix. ??
>>
>> + To my knowledge, all actively-supported logging applications now correctly support <MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT4
>>
>>             73,
>>
>>                     Dave, AA6YQ
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Re: WAS FT4 confirmation

Phil Cooper
 

Hi all,

 

Wes, yes, I agree that this is true, but IF you wish to chase WAS on FT4, it is a problem.

Out of the many FT4 contacts I have made, a good percentage of US stations have uploaded as DATA, MFSK, or RTTY, and so my WAS FT4 totals are suffering.

 

The issue is that (as was mentioned elsewhere) that the paid-for programs have not yet got into gear with FT4, whilst most - if not all - free programs have been updated to handle the new mode correctly.

 

73 de Phil GU0SUP

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: "Wes Attaway (N5WA)" <wesattaway@...>
Sent: Wednesday, 18 September, 2019 18:19
To: ARRL-LoTW@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation

I agree, at least for now, these QSOs are all “digital” as far as LOTW totals are concerned.  This goes for RTTY, FT8, FT4 and whatever.

 

I think you should just keep your own totals for all these different modes.

 

 

   -------------------

Wes Attaway (N5WA)

(318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA

Computer/Cellphone Forensics

   -------------------


From: ARRL-LoTW@... [mailto:ARRL-LoTW@...] On Behalf Of roamer
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 10:33 AM
To: ARRL-LoTW@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation

 

Wholehearted agree, Don! 

Dean, K7N


From: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...> on behalf of DON GAIKINS via Groups.Arrl.Org <dgaikins=sbcglobal.net@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 8:29:18 AM
To: ARRL-LoTW@... <ARRL-LoTW@...>
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation

 

Are we going to see these ridiculous whining with every release of a new
digital mode??? And FT8, FT4 are just the beginning.?? FT4 will not be the
last or anywhere near the last.?? Group them all in digital and be done
with it!
Don W0VM


On 9/17/2019 4:11 PM, Phil Cooper via Groups.Arrl.Org wrote:
> It would appear that DX4WIN is not yet supporting the proper FT4 submode, as I have been chasing a few LoTW matches that have returned as DATA or RTTY.
> I do not use DX4WIN, so cannot be entirely sure, although the revision history on the website makes no mention of FT4 handling.
>
> As someone who is actively chasing FT4 WAS, it is a pain that these "paid for" programs have not yet fully implemented the correct mapping of FT4 for LoTW, yet almost all of the "free" software has!
>
> 73 de Phil GU0SUP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ARRL-LoTW@... [mailto:ARRL-LoTW@...] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
> Sent: 17 September 2019 19:04
> To: ARRL-LoTW@...
> Subject: Re: [ARRL-LoTW] WAS FT4 confirmation
>
>
> There is no mention of support for <SUBMODE:#> nor for a specific fix to
> the "FT4 problem" in the HRD change log
> <https://development.hamradiodeluxe.com/changelog_page.php?project_id=0>
> for either the most recent public release(s) or development list for the
> next two interim (developmental) versions.
>
> 73,
>
>      ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 2019-09-17 12:56 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
>> + AA6YQ comments below
>>
>> Keep saying it and maybe some coders will actually listen and then fix. ??
>>
>> + To my knowledge, all actively-supported logging applications now correctly support <MODE:4>MFSK<SUBMODE:3>FT4
>>
>>             73,
>>
>>                     Dave, AA6YQ
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>