I bought a Kam XL, but just couldn't comprehend these modes!

Snake Eyes · #1 (**permalink**) 11-17-2007, 02:40 AM

I think I've just come to realize, that for me, I enjoy general ragchewing......

W5LZ · #2 (**permalink**) 11-17-2007, 08:02 AM

'Snake',
Amazing, ain't it? I think you've reached the same place a lot of us have. Then again, it's certainly nice to have the capability to do 'other' things, nothing says you have to do 'them' things all the time though.
- 'Doc

'nuthin says you have to understand a particular mode to enjoy it, if it does what it's supposed to do, and you like the idea. Weird, huh?

Snake Eyes · #3 (**permalink**) 11-17-2007, 11:14 AM

true, and i like the way you present this, Doc.

There are choices for us all.........

moleculo · #4 (**permalink**) 11-20-2007, 10:31 AM

To be perfectly honest, there isn't much you can do with a TNC that you can't do with a cheap Windows computer and some software. About the only things I can think of that you need a TNC for are amtor/pactor ARQ mode and for APRS. Amtor/Pactor is useful for Airmail and BBS's.

W5LZ · #5 (**permalink**) 11-20-2007, 09:01 PM

People's interests almost never stay the same. Some times it's a matter of 'out growing' a particular mode, it just doesn't do all that you want it to be able to do. Or it gets a bit complicated unless you're really dedicated to it. Or, you just get bored with it for whatever reason. So, you try something else. Very common.
Sometimes you find that you like a more personal interaction than some of the digital modes provide, it may just be talking to someone satisfies that urge. I've found that things like amtor/pactor/etc are more of a machine talking to another machine kind of thing that while certainly useful, just doesn't hold my interest. I'm not really needed for it to work, so why hang around and listen to those machines 'talk'? If I needed to pass traffic or data of some type, sure, much more reliable/accurate than doing so by voice. I'm not involved with that anymore so I don't 'do' those modes. But I can if I need/want to! With a reliable (sort of) connection between computer and radio I don't need a TNC (or need to learn that 'language' again!). Most of the required 'gadgets' are built into the newer radios anyway, right? Sort of? Well, kind of anyway.
The 'other side' of that coin is that there are a lot of instances where a TNC and digital modes would come in very handy! The local EOC participated in a recent emergency communications (SIT) test. Most information was passed by voice. Oh man, wasn't that FUN? I think they've sort of decided that a standardized format would be nice, and being able to do all this @#$% with a digital mode would be even nicer. Not quite as many, "Wait a minute, was that____ or ____ you meant?", sort of thingy. Don't misunderstand, they did well, made a terrific 'score'. But there's gotta be an easier way, ain't there? Nothing new, just gotta find out how 'they' used to do this stuff, kind'a deal.
Enough of the 'war' stories...
- 'Doc

SR385 · #6 (**permalink**) 11-23-2007, 02:02 PM

Yeah packet is SO much better for emcomm. Much more efficient than spelling out message handling forms over the air.

I haven't yet set up for packet in the house here yet, but will be doing so pretty soon.

A TNC is very handy to have around for portable ops. Particularly nice if you just want to leave a node up unattended. It's easy to slap together a bb on an old linux box wired to a TNC. If you are all soundcard configured it's easier to forget it's up and interrupt it while using the computer for something else.