Page 1 of 1
2 callsigns and LoTW upload
Posted: 29 Apr 2021, 14:19
by F6EXV
Hi
I am using V2.13.0, with 2 different callsigns. Both are configured to automatic upload upon quitting the program.
If and when I switch callsigns within one Log4OM session, only the current one is uploaded.
Shouldn't both be uploaded upon exiting ?
Or am I missing something in the config ?
Re: 2 callsigns and LoTW upload
Posted: 29 Apr 2021, 16:14
by DF5WW
Active call will be uploaded after close. So they have different TQSL certificates. For uploading
the second call you have to activate this setup and then close Log4OM again. The "problem" is TQSL
and it´s different certificates. Think Lele can´t do anything in that case.

Re: 2 callsigns and LoTW upload
Posted: 29 Apr 2021, 16:25
by F6EXV
Hello Juergen
Aren't both certificates somewhere in Log4OM ?
When exiting, couldn't the program upload one callsign, change call and upload ?
Re: 2 callsigns and LoTW upload
Posted: 29 Apr 2021, 17:25
by G4POP
No the certs ate in Tqsl program
Re: 2 callsigns and LoTW upload
Posted: 30 Apr 2021, 18:39
by F6EXV
Hi Terry
But Log4OM has access to them.
My idea is, when several callsigns are used (several starts with 2), exiting the program would upload the current log QSOs, and check the other database(s) for QSOs to upload, if any.
That is automate the process on exit.
Re: 2 callsigns and LoTW upload
Posted: 30 Apr 2021, 21:58
by G4POP
F6EXV wrote: 30 Apr 2021, 18:39
Hi Terry
But Log4OM has access to them.
My idea is, when several callsigns are used (several starts with 2), exiting the program would upload the current log QSOs, and check the other database(s) for QSOs to upload, if any.
That is automate the process on exit.
It could access both certs but Log4OM does not do that and there is no provision for you to set Log4OM up to function like that.
What you are suggesting is an 'idea' for a future feature to be implemented not a current function.
Re: 2 callsigns and LoTW upload
Posted: 01 May 2021, 07:20
by F6EXV
Terry
You are right. I was initially inquiring if this could be achieved under present config.
Since it is not, then it becomes a suggestion for a future version.