[Elecraft] K3 firmware 2 years on and still much to do

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> The band switching, VFO management, mode switching and many 
> aspects of its front panel design needs a rework. Most of the 
> contest operators that I know seem to own a FT2000, they will 
> all acknowledge that its no  K3, however they all feel the 
> same as I do about the K3 and its ergonomics.

Having used the FT-1000D, Mark V, and FT-2000 series of radios 
for nearly 20 years before moving the K3, the "front panel 
design" and "ergonomics" issues are completely bogus.  There 
are other transceivers with user interfaces very similar to 
the K3 - including some from Yaesu - and, while different than 
the FT-990/1000/2000/9000 the K3 User interface is no less usable. 

Anyone who makes the size/user interface argument is simply 
making an excuse for not learning a new user interface based 
prejudice.  Any contester or DXer who uses one of the popular 
contest or day to day logging packages with "point and shoot" 
features is insulated from the transceiver's user interface 
to such an extent that the differences among user interfaces 
is largely irrelevant anyway. 

73, 

   ... Joe, W4TV 
 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net 
> [mailto:elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of juergen piezo
> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 6:42 AM
> To: Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 firmware 2 years on and still much to do
> 
> 
> K3 firmware 2 years on and still much to do?
> 
> I  still dont own a K3. I just cant bring myself to  buy the 
> K3 because 
> of its front panel layout and its operation. Although I would 
> very much like its receiver performance. 
> 
>  I have used one at a contest station and all that I can
> say is that I would not buy one until a new front panel layout is 
> designed. 
> 
> The band switching, VFO management, mode switching and many 
> aspects of its front panel design needs a rework. Most of the 
> contest operators that I know seem to own a FT2000, they will 
> all acknowledge that its no  K3, however they all feel the 
> same as I do about the K3 and its ergonomics. Most of us are 
> just not portable operators, so dont need small size 12 volt radios.
> 
> There are many good radios that  would be a good front panel 
> design model for the K3a. The FT950, FT920, Icom 737series, 
> TS850 etc all have a very workable ergonomic front panel 
> layouts that are easy to use. The FT950 is so well layed out 
> and very attractive and it would be  a good one to copy for a 
> new K3 front panel.
> 
> If the K3 is so modular, why would it be so hard not to  
> offer a bigger box with a new front panel? There are many off 
> the shelf 19 inch rack 
> boxes that could be used with a new front panel styling. 
> 
> I would suggest that a new K3 panel  with built in P3, power 
> supply and 200 watt PA stage would be a big hit.  Everyone 
> seems to be so over the moon with the K3's small size, I must 
> be a freak with alien genes to not like the radios front 
> panel  layout and operational ergonomics.
> 
> The firmware feature list or lack of progress I can live 
> with. However a awkward  panel layout and poor ergomics thats 
> carved in rock I cant really live  with.  When I used the K3 
> all that I ever used was the band switch, volume and RIT 
> control.... thats all, just like a Mil-spec radio.  It was  
> very hard to do otherwise, so I probably missed a lot of the 
> K3's potential. 
> 
> I too live in hope that a new K4 is coming! I could even live 
> with a K3 junior with one receiver and a new front panel design.
> 
> John
> 
> --- On Sat, 9/19/09, Dave G4AON <elecraft at astromag.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > From: Dave G4AON <elecraft at astromag.co.uk>
> > Subject: [Elecraft] K3 firmware 2 years on and still much to do
> > To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> > Date: Saturday, September 19, 2009, 1:58 AM
> > Unfortunately the K3 firmware seems
> > to have wandered off track a bit,
> > two years ago when the K3 started rolling out the following were on 
> > the "to do" list and formed part of the specification:
> > 
> > 0.5 ppm TCXO calibration
> > Synchronous AM
> > 
> > These might not be the most important issues in the world, but were
> > included in the original specification and are in the Oct
> > 24th 2007 "B1
> > manual". Currently the K3 fails to meet specification!
> > 
> > Can we have some indication of their position on the
> > firmware roadmap?
> > 
> > 73 Dave, G4AON
> > K3/100 #80
> >