I've not noticed a lot of communication problems between WL and my
IC-756ProI with the CI-V Transceive setting in the ON position. I just
tried turning CI-V Transceive OFF and the main thing I noticed was a
SIGNIFICANT delay in the time it takes my IC-PW1 amplifier to follow band
changes. In some cases it's several seconds. This is far more troublesome
than any rig polling conflicts I've noticed with the CI-V Transceive set to
ON. I would hate to toast the amp in the heat of battle by jumping on a new
DX spot on a different band to grab a new mult and forgetting to wait
paitiently for the amp to catch up to the rig's QSY. I'm leaving it set to
ON.
73, de AL9A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Ressler" <marc.ressler@verizon.net>
To: <writelog@contesting.com>
Sent: June 08, 2005 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WriteLog] WriteLog Digest, Vol 30, Issue 7
> Clive,
>
> Most of the Icom rigs need to have TRANSCEIVE OFF with WL. The problem is
> that they "babble" so much when it is on that the single wire xmt/rcv data
> line suffers from lots of collisions, and when WL tries to poll the rig,
> the request frequently gets clobbered, making it appear that updates are
> slow to infrequent. I've seen this with a 746, a 756-ProI, and a
756-ProII.
>
>
> MarC, K3NCO
> marc.ressler@verizon.net
> _______________________________________________
> WriteLog mailing list
> WriteLog@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
> WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
>
_______________________________________________
WriteLog mailing list
WriteLog@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
|