Search found 33 matches

by vk7yum
27 Feb 2020, 01:55
Forum: Feature suggestions
Topic: Recent QSOs Column Labels
Replies: 2
Views: 523

Recent QSOs Column Labels

Hi Firstly, I would like to say how much I am enjoying Log4OM v2! The more I play - the more I like. And whoever did the manual wants a big pat on the back .. very well done! OK, the problem. On Recent QSO's (F7) ... and edit table layout, I cannot find HRDlog Sent. All the others are there (eQSL, H...
by vk7yum
18 Jan 2020, 20:39
Forum: User support
Topic: Callsign look with WSJT-X
Replies: 56
Views: 1551

Re: Callsign look with WSJT-X

'Morning/Evening All Well I'm not quite sure what I have done, maybe it was the threat of beating the computer to death with a bloody big hammer and setting fire to the remains that did it, but everything is working here :) What have I changed? Absolutely no damn idea. Running Log4OM/Omnirig/WSJT-X ...
by vk7yum
18 Jan 2020, 12:43
Forum: User support
Topic: Callsign look with WSJT-X
Replies: 56
Views: 1551

Re: Callsign look with WSJT-X

Hi Terry <Chunk deleted> Your assumption is correct I assumed that your issue was logging because you referred to the ADIF message which is for logging a QSO not for call insertion of a call into the Log4OM interface. The JTAlert message from port 2333 is not an ADIF format so the messages in the re...
by vk7yum
18 Jan 2020, 12:09
Forum: User support
Topic: Callsign look with WSJT-X
Replies: 56
Views: 1551

Re: Callsign look with WSJT-X

Hi Terry I was caught out with WSJT because at first I had the same as you but suddenly realised that in WSJT the button marked Log does not actually log a QSO it just adds the call to a WSJT list. The reason this caught me was because I had previously used WSJT live so when 73 was sent a box appear...
by vk7yum
18 Jan 2020, 11:55
Forum: User support
Topic: Callsign look with WSJT-X
Replies: 56
Views: 1551

Re: Callsign look with WSJT-X

Hi Phil, Like VK7YUM I have tried everything to get he DX call field from WSJTx making it into Log4OM V2 Callsign field. I can see with David's settings, in the user guide the secondary UDP should be port: 2333 and the UDP Server port: 2237. David's are around the other way. Not quite sure what you ...
by vk7yum
18 Jan 2020, 11:48
Forum: User support
Topic: Callsign look with WSJT-X
Replies: 56
Views: 1551

Re: Callsign look with WSJT-X

Hi all I have tried using different udp ports but that still hasn't worked, tried running everything as administrator - that didn't work; tried running individual programs (WSJT-X/Log4OM/Omnirig) as administrator - that didn't work. And before you ask, yes that was with a reboot between each setting...
by vk7yum
16 Jan 2020, 22:15
Forum: User support
Topic: Callsign look with WSJT-X
Replies: 56
Views: 1551

Re: Callsign look with WSJT-X

Hi Doug,

Just about to leave for work but should be home in a couple of hours - will try your suggestion and get back :)

cheers
David
VK7YUM
by vk7yum
16 Jan 2020, 20:30
Forum: User support
Topic: Callsign look with WSJT-X
Replies: 56
Views: 1551

Re: Callsign look with WSJT-X

Hi Daniele/John Are you receiving new QSO and the issue is only on receiving callsign from JT, or you cannot receive anything from JT? If I type (or double click) a callsign into the WSJT-X DX Call field it does not transfer to the Log4OM v2 window. :( WSJT-X works fine just doesn't transfer to Log4...
by vk7yum
16 Jan 2020, 06:45
Forum: User support
Topic: Callsign look with WSJT-X
Replies: 56
Views: 1551

Callsign look with WSJT-X

Hi I am having a problem with getting callsigns entered in WSJT-X transferring to Log4OM V2. I have read page 134 of the manual and followed it step by step but I cannot get the callsign to go to Log4OM :cry: My settings are settings 1.jpg settings 2.jpg FWIW, logging a call via v2 will show in v1 s...
by vk7yum
28 Jan 2018, 04:52
Forum: User Support
Topic: Log4om 1.31.0.0 database issue
Replies: 37
Views: 7932

Re: Log4om 1.31.0.0 database issue

Hi John I noticed this too. Not sure how many records you have (4348 in my database) and just timed it .... 39 seconds to load .. I don't think my machine is a slug ... Intel i5 3.3Ghz 8 gig RAM Windoze 7 64bit ... and it certainly DIDN'T take this long to load with vers 1.30 Be interesting in what ...