[aprssig] New n-N settings for ui-digi

[Ron Stordahl]

Bruce...actually you were correct and I was wrong.  I am a bit surprised 
but Marco has designed this so that the Sysop commands and the 
Configuration commands for the same function are different, 
inconvenient, but perhaps it was to save precious eprom space.

In any case I am going to try to set up a test digi this evening at home 
and then from my vehicle just outside transmit a whole slew of possible 
routes and see just what works in limiting the transmitted paths to the 
'newly revised new paradigm'.

Ill report my results...I am hopeful!

Ron, N5IN

Bruce W.Martin wrote:

> Ron,
>
> I have not tried to make changes via Remote SysOp. The parameters I 
> posted were from the file I use to program a UIdigi EPROM. Hopefully 
> Tim (N8DEU) will chime in on this. He is the "goto" guy when it comes 
> to UIdigi stuff. The one time I did not goto his web page for UIdigi 
> info it bit me in the behind.
> Tim has apparently tried most of this stuff and will probably 
> experiment with the rest soon.
>
> Bruce, KQ4TV
>
>
> On Apr 6, 2005, at 10:40 AM, Ron Stordahl wrote:
>
>> Bruce et al
>>
>> I did some quick remote sysop access to a nearby UIDIGI site and find 
>> that some of the relevant commands in your list are not valid, at 
>> least with UIDIGI 1.9 Beta 3, which is the lastest release.
>>
>> UIDigicall is too long, the maximum that will be accepted is UIDIGI, 
>> the minimum UID
>> UIDIGICallSubstitution is in error, the maximum that will be accepted 
>> is UIDCSB, the mimimum UIDC
>> UIFloodCall is too long, the maximum that will be accepted is 
>> UIFLOOD, the mimimum is UIF
>> UIFLOODOptions is in error, the maximum that will be accepted is 
>> UIFLDFL, the mimimum is UIFLD
>> UITRraceCall is too long, the maximum that will be accepted is 
>> UITRACE, the minimum is UIT
>> UITRACEOptions is in error, the maximum that will be accepted is 
>> UITRFL, the minimum is UITRF
>>
>> There are lots of other errors, so I am thinking that perhaps you 
>> were not trying to give the actual commands to be used, but rather 
>> more descriptive ones?
>>
>> In any case the list should probably be reworked to correspond to 
>> exactly what a sysop can type in a remote session, or what the UIDIGI 
>> compiler will accept.
>>
>> I am curious if you have actually confirmed by experiment that the 
>> suggested parms (UID, UIDC, UIF, UIFLD, UIT and UITRF) set as you 
>> suggest actually have the desired 'new paradigm' effect?
>>
>> Ron, N5IN
>>
>