Jeff Bouvier wrote:
>
> Steve Merchant wrote:
> >
> > As a former user of the Brand "C" program, I am used to being able to input
> > tenths of a second adjustments to
> > the time interval between auto-CQ's. I think Tree's implementation of the
> > Auto-CQ feature is much more
> > elegant than Ken's, but I'd like to request one further refinement.
> >
> > I often find the one second interval too coarse when the Frequency Rustlers
> > are being hyperactive. I'd like
> > to be able to set the interval at 2.5 seconds rather than 3 or 2, for
> > instance.
> >
> > Would it be possible to add a Control-J feature to select either 1 second
> > or .5 second granularity in the
> > Auto-CQ feature?
> >
> > And, of course, if I'm missing some way to achieve this already, someone
> > please let me know. Lord knows Tree
> > has a long enough enhancement list as it is.
> >
> > I used 5.88 in CQWW -- something in the browser I have to use at my
> > client's screws up .zip files and I
> > haven't had the time/energy to solve it, so I missed using 5.91. By the
> > sounds of the discussion a day or two
> > ago, it's probably as well I didn't.
> >
> > This program just keeps getting better. We're looking forward to using it
> > multi-op in ARRL CW at N6RO.
> >
> > 73, Steve K6AW
>
> Hi Steve,
> Funny you mention that. I was thinking the exact same thing during
> the contest. I would prefer 3.5 seconds. 2.5 is too short. Remember you have
> to use your RIT to tune 200 hz. each side of zero to catch the guys who S&P
> with the RIT on. Many folks call 200 hz. Takes that extra second to find
> them. :-) By the way, I think 4 seconds is too long. Have to keep the
> vulchers from swooping onto the qrg....
> 73, Jeff Bouvier K1AM k1am@ids.net
Hi, Jeff -- I agree -- sometimes you have to adjust for a variety of things --
like K3ZO's bio breaks, hi. But
a .5 sec variable would give me all the granularity I would need -- the tenths
of a second is too fine for
most situations, I think.
73, Steve K6AW
merchant@silcom.com
|