-
I guess it's something non-coincident, but I've found at least one case - possibly more - where I cannot find a reason. I do sync from LoTW and get this: While looking at LoTW records I see this: Which is confirmed, but unrecognized by QLog as confirmed. The only thing in common between all those unmatched is being FT4 QSOs. I've had issues before with other software uploading FT4 twice, as MFSK and FT4, but LoTW only confirmed one of them. I'm just curious about what is going on here. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 2 comments 6 replies
-
The unmatched QSL field shows all QSOs that do not match your Log entry. Fields which have to match are: Callsign, mode, band, start time. Unfortunately, what you see is a bug in QLog. You mentioned that all unmatched QSOs are FT4. I found out that QLog does not convert the mode FT4, that is received from WSJTX to the standardized ADIF forms MFSK/FT4. It does not affect the upload to LoTW, because TQSL does the conversion, but it affects other online services. This needs to be fixed. I'll open an Issue report on it. It will be fixed in the next version - the internal database must also be fixed in the next release. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I has matched almost everything from leftover QSO's, but still there are a few that do not match. I haven't had time to check up what's going on with these few, so I will keep this closed until I have looked at them. Thanks much for your quick patches. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
The unmatched QSL field shows all QSOs that do not match your Log entry. Fields which have to match are: Callsign, mode, band, start time.
Unfortunately, what you see is a bug in QLog. You mentioned that all unmatched QSOs are FT4. I found out that QLog does not convert the mode FT4, that is received from WSJTX to the standardized ADIF forms MFSK/FT4. It does not affect the upload to LoTW, because TQSL does the conversion, but it affects other online services. This needs to be fixed.
I'll open an Issue report on it. It will be fixed in the next version - the internal database must also be fixed in the next release.