Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Complete computer controlled radio for quadriplegic.  (Read 5854 times)
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6092




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: November 24, 2010, 07:10:03 PM »

I would take a long hard look at a new Kenwood TS-590 (if it is in budget) as it is a all new design and but a few months old and supports complete radio control via its built in USB port and can also send and receive audio along with control commands on that same port adding more (and easy to exploit) remote control options.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1751


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #16 on: November 27, 2010, 06:43:01 PM »


Your original claim was these package software setup cannot exploit the features on the radio the way native software can. Now you're changing your claim to only native software can provide a pleasant graphical user interface? Are all the pleasant GUI mechanisms locked away within the radio, inaccessible to all but native software?
 

No not at all, example the control software for my 480 lets me control all manor of operation and even more than I can with radio directly but I have not seen another  "brand" software GUI that supports all these features and then some. So, again the GUI (Graphic User Interface) and the easy with ALL f radios features are available  and the easy with which you can access them is what brings it all together.

There is no question that some transceiver control applications provide more control than others - but this is function of focus, not some proprietary exclusion as you implied in your original "these package software setup cannot exploit the features on the radio the way native software can" claim. An application focused on remote control will undoubtedly provide more control than one focused on station automation. In the remote control scenario, the developer will consume as much screen space as necessary to assure that all radio functionality is remotely accessible in a convenient, easy-to-use manner. In the station automation scenario, the developer will only consume screen space to implement radio functions in support of station automation; replicating functionality already accessible from the radio's front panel would make no sense.

In summary, whether a transceiver control application focused on remote control meets your needs has nothing to do with whether it was developed by the radio manufacturer or by an independent developer; what matters is how competently the application was designed and implemented, and how well it's being supported.

     73,

         Dave, AA6YQ
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6092




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: November 29, 2010, 07:56:42 PM »

To me (and maybe not you) if you cannot control all features with software package then you are not really controlling it proper. Kinda like having a car but not using AC or having a big engine and not going over 25. Why have a nice rig that software does not FULLY exploit?
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1751


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #18 on: November 29, 2010, 11:13:46 PM »

To me (and maybe not you) if you cannot control all features with software package then you are not really controlling it proper. Kinda like having a car but not using AC or having a big engine and not going over 25. Why have a nice rig that software does not FULLY exploit?

That's fine, but there is nothing that limits being able to control all of a transceiver's features to the transceiver control application provided by that transceiver's manufacturer, as you've been repeatedly claiming without substantiation. If you can't cite a concrete example of a feature that a transceiver manufacturer's software can control but independently-developed software could not possibly control, I'll consider your claim retracted.

   73,

         Dave, AA6YQ

Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6092




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: November 30, 2010, 09:31:23 AM »

To me (and maybe not you) if you cannot control all features with software package then you are not really controlling it proper. Kinda like having a car but not using AC or having a big engine and not going over 25. Why have a nice rig that software does not FULLY exploit?

That's fine, but there is nothing that limits being able to control all of a transceiver's features to the transceiver control application provided by that transceiver's manufacturer, as you've been repeatedly claiming without substantiation. If you can't cite a concrete example of a feature that a transceiver manufacturer's software can control but independently-developed software could not possibly control, I'll consider your claim retracted.

   73,

         Dave, AA6YQ


Nothing is retracted. You just do not want to "loose" so to speak but it is not about winning and loosing here. You like to make compromises to use certain products like HRD or Commander that's fine but do not suggest or promote that they fully exploit all radio remote features on all models. People come here for advise and opinions and I respect your even though I disagree, respect mine.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1751


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #20 on: November 30, 2010, 01:56:33 PM »

To me (and maybe not you) if you cannot control all features with software package then you are not really controlling it proper. Kinda like having a car but not using AC or having a big engine and not going over 25. Why have a nice rig that software does not FULLY exploit?

That's fine, but there is nothing that limits being able to control all of a transceiver's features to the transceiver control application provided by that transceiver's manufacturer, as you've been repeatedly claiming without substantiation. If you can't cite a concrete example of a feature that a transceiver manufacturer's software can control but independently-developed software could not possibly control, I'll consider your claim retracted.


Nothing is retracted. You just do not want to "loose" so to speak but it is not about winning and loosing here. You like to make compromises to use certain products like HRD or Commander that's fine but do not suggest or promote that they fully exploit all radio remote features on all models. People come here for advise and opinions and I respect your even though I disagree, respect mine.

Your original claim was "these package software setup cannot exploit the features on the radio the way native software can". There is nothing preventing HRD or Commander from controlling any radio feature that they don't currently control that is controlled by a manufacturer-supplied application. Despite multiple requests, you have yet to provide a counterexample that substantiates your claim that independently-developed transceiver control applications can't exploit every CAT-controllable radio feature. If you knew of such a counterexample, you'd have presented it by now. Clearly, you don't know of one; case closed.
 
Logged
KB1NXE
Member

Posts: 349




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: December 01, 2010, 01:36:19 PM »

W8JX,

 It is important to understand there is a finite command set available on any rig.  Within the software packages identified here (DX Lab Suite and HRD), Both allow you to create buttons, sliders, controls, etc to take advantage of ANY of those commands.  Some are pre-packaged in the application by the author.  These are generally the most common functions and uses of the radio.  So, I guess this is where I do not see your point. 

It is impossible for a given radio to be exploited further than the finite commands available.  If both the free packages mentioned here exploit, or possess the capability to exploit, the entire command set, then how is the 'pay for it' manufacturers software better (I use the pending release of the ICOM software here - not familiar with the Kenwood software)?
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!