Hm. That handshaking protocol may, barely, be fast enough for SSB transmit/receive, but I don't see how it's going to work for CW, when you're having to buffer, send, receive, and buffer several bytes of serial message handshaking for each T/R sequence . I think a simpler signalling protocol would work better, one that allows a single byte sent from the transmitter to tell the receiver to switch between standby and receive, and the receiver sending updates for change in frequency and other pertinent data. Other messages could be longer as necessary, with the lengths being inferred by that first byte. The transmitter would always be captain, and the receiver would not send any status updates while in standby, since this indicates that the station is transmitting, and no states should be changed. This would allow fast break-in for CW, and responsive T/R switching in SSB. I realize that you've thought all of this out already, but consider evaluating what actual gain is realized by each added bit of complexity.
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | เปิดใจ "อาจารย์ เบียร์ ฅนตื่นธรรม" นักสนทนาธรรมสายดุดัน!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vqaBI_mnoDk/mqdefault.jpg)
Good work and some nice features.
Hm. That handshaking protocol may, barely, be fast enough for SSB transmit/receive, but I don't see how it's going to work for CW, when you're having to buffer, send, receive, and buffer several bytes of serial message handshaking for each T/R sequence
.
I think a simpler signalling protocol would work better, one that allows a single byte sent from the transmitter to tell the receiver to switch between standby and receive, and the receiver sending updates for change in frequency and other pertinent data. Other messages could be longer as necessary, with the lengths being inferred by that first byte. The transmitter would always be captain, and the receiver would not send any status updates while in standby, since this indicates that the station is transmitting, and no states should be changed. This would allow fast break-in for CW, and responsive T/R switching in SSB.
I realize that you've thought all of this out already, but consider evaluating what actual gain is realized by each added bit of complexity.
You are correct, there is room for optimization in the protocol.
Nice