Re: [Tlf-devel] Re: Kind of wishlist...

[Pekka T Pussinen]

        Good Morning.

address@hidden (address@hidden) wrote:
> Documentation: you are absolutely right. It is a battle between 
> writing 
> some nice new features the users want and the description of what is
> there already. I think this is an area where the user community could 
> help me a bit (YOU are now an expert in the tlf voice keyer!!!)

        This could be a task where people like I and Rolle, OH6KXL (also a
        subscriber of this list) could help the project - the only problem
        is an eternal battle between work, studying, leisure and sleep.
        (Read: I will not promise anything but if there is an easy way to
        get know of the features without ability to understand code itself,
        it would be nice to write something for average / beginner-level
        users...)

> I like your remark about BSD/Windows. I think there is somebody on this
> list who runs tlf under BSD (pse stand up!!). Unfortunately I don't
> know anything about the other OS, (only that I have to use it for 
> winlink...)

        If I understood that right, also Ossi, OH8HUB, has tried the TLF
        in BSD. If someone wants to have some co-operation about that,
        mail me or Google for e-mail-address...

> Voice keyer:
> 
> tlf has already the ability to use different files per operator.
> You start tlf with 'tlf -fFRANK.cfg' and use different .wav
> files for the function keys (F1=frank1.wav). This can also be on a USB 
> stick

        This is of course possible. We used a script to copy the wav-files
        from the operator specific directory to TLF directory without 
        quitting TLF. There are plenty of people who don't know about
        anything about Linux (ie. parameters etc are a heck too far beyond
        their abilities, talking about quitting and restarting the SW...) 
        but they can work a million++ points in the contest using a blank
        sheet of paper and pencil - for this kind of persons the multi-op
        -functions should be, IMHO, implemented to SW in deeper level.

        I'm trying to kind of say: if operator change will be committed by
        ":operator <call sign>" instead of more confusing shell-based 
        operations, the change for mistakes will be lower, as the ability
        to use the SW. And, for multi-op -purposes, clear, visible settings
        visible in the screen would help to being sure what one is doing
        (for example with voice-keyer files...)

> - I like the idea of the single characters. Do you want them per 
> operator?

        Yes. Everything, IMHO again, relted to voice keyer must be per
        operator-basis. The problems arise when the voice of the operator 
        changes between or even during sing overs.

        If basic voice functionality is kind of exhaustively determinable,
        it would not be impossible to record some example voice memory bank
        to be spreaded for people to understand how, what and where...

        ... which yields to the idea of pile-up -simulator with 15-20 different
        voices, voice alphabets and basic contest frases. If QRM is needed for
        simulator, I could sing.

> - I use Note in the log to flag operator change...

        That, I think, should be enough for most of the contests. Are
        the notes time-stamped as well ?? Some of the contests, AFAIK, need
        time-stamped remark when operator goes for resting period and so on...

> - I will introduce a NOLOG flag for read-only terminals in the network
> they will be able to generate spots, but no logging.

        Great.

        So here's a short reply, in between this hurry in my day care 
        center...

-- 
  Pekka T Pussinen                               pekka.pussinen @! oulu.fi
     OH8HBG                               http://www.ee.oulu.fi/~pussinen/