[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

RE: Icom CI-V - what is wrong with it!


I can see you point, however this would not be a problem if there is a
single piece of software controlling all radios (such is the case in
Station). In this mode you turn off the transceive mode, and have all
radios send their requests to other radios through the central software.

In a case where there is no central software, then I agree with you
there needs to be an extension to the transceive protocol, in that the
radios should only accept transceive commands from specified radios (or
say subgroups) that the user could set on the radios. Say have on the
radio a transceive group dip switch for Bus 1, Bus 2 etc .. I'm sure 4
would be enough.

Paul, VP9MU

-----Original Message-----
From: Boza, Tom [mailto:tom.boza@intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 1998 3:15 PM
To: "'amsat-bb@amsat.org'" ; "Willmott; Paul" ; icom@qth.net
Subject: RE: Icom CI-V - what is wrong with it!

I would suggest the serial port should have its own default CI-V address
on the bus. This way each radio on the CI-V bus can communicate
with the serial port (1to1) without all the other radios on the CI-V bus

involved in the data communications.

Another suggestion is to have selective radios communicate between
(transceiver mode) while other paired radios communicate among
themselves at

the same time, each pair communicating on the same CI-V bus together.
I want only two radios in transceive mode together when other Icom
also on the CI-V bus, I need to remove all the other radios off the CI-V
otherwise they will ALL track the radio sending out the transceive

I did resolve this by adding a second CI-V bus on a second serial port.
However this is a waist of hardware and serial ports. I placed my
Icom radios (IC-271/IC-471/R-7000) on one CI-V bus/serial port, and my 
IC-756/IC-765 Icom radios on the other CI-V bus/serial port. 


Hi All,

Now that we've taken Yaesu to task over the FT-847, I think it is time 
to take Icom to task over its CI-V system.

Firstly this is the system I use for all my radios at home, I like the 
design of the hardware and the fact that you can control 4 radios off 
the same COM port.

The command set is pretty good, but I'd like to see the following fixed:

1). Ability to read a frequency/mode WITHOUT having to make the band the

active band. i.e. read SUB VFO A when MAIN VFO B is active.

2). The set frequency/repeater offset command sets the frequency both 
when you transmit or receive. This is daft, the set frequency in 
split/repeater mode should only set the RX freq., and leave the TX to be

TX + offset. This is real nasty when doing auto-Doppler for SAREX, as 
soon as you hit the PTT the  computer changes the TX freq. to the RX 
freq., and that puts you miles off frequency. The solution I have to use

is to disable manually the auto-Doppler correction by pressing a button 
on the software before pressing the PTT.

3). The CI-V command set does not allow you to set the CTCSS tones, you 
have to do this from the front panel. This is daft, and both Yaesu and 
Kenwood do allow this via the CAT. So minus points for Icom here.

4). You can't read the S meter(s) with the command set except for a few 
receivers. This is daft.

5). It would be nice if you could ask the radio what model it is. I know

that you can guess by what address it is, but the user can change the 
CI-V address by hand, so you can never be sure. Also TenTec radios also 
use CI-V with addresses the same as Icoms, ... confusion.

Anyway anyone else want to take aim at the CI-V protocol.

Paul Willmott, VP9MU