[pskmail] Re: The hardware modem idea (sri, long rant)

  • From: John Douyere <vk2eta@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: pskmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:53:24 +1000

Hi Jack,

I appreciate your input.

From a purely personal point of view I have serious reservations about
doing hardware development for anything if possible.

When I look at the trend of ever more powerful hardware in ever decreasing
prices I really have difficulties justifying small volume hardware
development. Just looking at the cost of a Nue-Psk (a very well designed
system for its purpose IMHO) versus an Android phone or tablet, the cost
benefits in my opinion put the mass-produced items well in front, even
without considering the additional features of a smart phone.

Yes a hardware solution provides a better control of all variable that are
critical to top performance but I really think that we have ample speed and
link (not system) reliability right now and certainly even more after we
release the new modes.

I agree with you Jack that some people will always want more throughput but
we are not that far from the limit of throughput in a given s/n and
bandwidth in fact.

I agree that Pskmail user friendliness could be improved. I believe we
should have a "Simple" and "Expert" mode where both functions and setting
would be either hidden/at default or visible to the user. Simple mode would
have only email, Ping and Beacon for example but not any of the other
functions and most settings would be to default.

Regarding reliability maybe we need to be more careful with what we call
stable and really have two streams, one stable and one development in
separate sections so that new users are not tempted to use the development
path.

We may also have to have a slower release path for Fldigi too so that new
modem features do not interfere with the reliability of the overall system.

Again personally speaking, I don't see why we should deviate from one of
the key initial objective of Pskmail: to provide an open source and free
solution when all (most?) others are paying and/or require proprietary
hardware. I really feel that is a cornerstone of what Pskmail is.

But still, I have a genuine question I would really like to have an answer
for, and believe me absolutely exempt from ulterior motives: for those of
us who have used/are using Pactor modems and Winlink why would we be
interested in Pskmail? There must be some reason?

All the best,

73, John

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Jack Chomley <radio@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> For a long time I have sat and watched the progression of Pskmail, and I
> have to say that everyone involved with its development do a very dedicated
> job.
> But in my opinion, its development path has seen a major priority to
> provide more and more features, and this comes with a
> price.......increasing complexity :-)
> It also means a constant flow of problem solving work, just look in the
> past at all the posts, where this or that won't work......and it's only on
> maybe some people's PC, or version of O/S.
> This means that it's hard to provide a stable release of Pskmail that
> works reliably.
> I have had numerous tries at making it go, last week I put a stable?
> version on a MacBook Air, but something is not quite right.
> For those who are in the development circle, the resolving of problems is
> not so hard as they are very familiar with the program and it's progress
> along the way.
> For an outsider, trying to climb onboard it becomes a big task to get it
> all up and running.
> IF Pskmail is to get more acceptance, it needs to be easier to set up and
> get running.......
> Whilst people generally look for feature laden software, I never
> have......... I have always gone in search of reliability and simple to
> operate setups.
> If I can have a Pskmail like system that has very narrow bandwidth, the
> speed of PSK31 and the reliability to decode very weak signals with ARQ
> like Pactor that can run on a small hardware box, driven by an iPod Touch,
> Android Phone,,or similar........then my portable, low power budget needs
> are met. Because the hardware box can run as a standalone unattended
> Mailbox, with radio and if required the PDA/phone can be used only to
> read/send mail when needed.
> However, the next person may want screens of swimming pools and movie
> stars software :-)
> No automatic mode changing to up the speed, if a signal level comes
> up.........speed is not critical, reliability is..........
> Yes, I agree that SCS modems are way too expensive and out of reach of
> many people.
> We see many low cost processor platforms now on the market, maybe we need
> to look at some of those to embed the Pskmail modems and Mailbox/Beacon
> functions into..........
> Right now, my weapon of choice is an iPod Touch, driving a PTC-IIex with
> FT-817 or Icom 703.
> A great system using the simple Get Console software for the iPod Touch or
> iPad that works well and has a Mailbox, but no Beacon. The big bugbear
> is.......the cost of the modem and the fact that there are no cheaper
> options for Pactor.
> Yes, I also have the NUE-PSK modem which is a great unit, with a low power
> budget, little bit heavier to carry, with keyboard but does a great job,
> for what it is and is better cost-wise than Pactor and a far simpler system.
> Look, you cannot please all of the people, all of the time :-)
> We all have different ideas on how something should be done........maybe
> the greatest potential lies with John's Android Pskmail ?? Take an Android
> phone with a spare battery, along with a pocket solar charger and radio,
> that will do the job well.
> The fact that Pskmail is free is to be applauded, but maybe it's reached a
> crossroad? Does a software modem platform need to be used, that costs
> money, or a piece of hardware?
> What now, if a change away from FLdigi? Can someone come up with a simple
> software ARQ modem, that does not require lots of processing power? Me
> thinking of the trials and tribulations the WINMOR team had.
> There are many considerations, and a hardware solution is just but one of
> them :-)
> Please understand this just my opinion, just one opinion of many and not
> intended to denigrate anybody, or their ideas.
>
> 73,
>
> Jack VK4JRC
>
>
>

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. pskmail
  3. Archive
  4. 04-2012