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

RE: [Icom] 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 directly,
> with the serial port (1to1) without all the other radios on the CI-V bus
> involved in the data communications.

What is the disadvantage of having non-involved radios monitor a transaction
between a radio and your PC? The non-involved radios can't use the CI-V bus
for other purposes during this time.

> Another suggestion is to have selective radios communicate between
> themselves
> (transceiver mode) while other paired radios communicate among
> themselves at
> the same time, each pair communicating on the same CI-V bus
> together. Today
> if
> I want only two radios in transceive mode together when other Icom radios
> are
> also on the CI-V bus, I need to remove all the other radios off the CI-V
> bus,
> otherwise they will ALL track the radio sending out the transceive
> broadcast.

You can do this today. Run all radios with transceiver mode disabled, and
program your PC to update the appropriate slave radio when a change in its
master's frequence and/or mode is detected. Since all radios are accessible,
you can implement any  multiple master/slave scheme you desire.


	Dave, AA6YQ