Hello Maurice,

On 14 Nov 16 02:17, Maurice Kinal wrote to Nicholas Boel:

 MK> Not really although it does tell me that hpt is not reading it as type
 MK> 2.2.  The datetime stamp is a dead giveaway.

It's quite possible too that once whatever is fixed in order for hpt to read it
as a legitimate packet, that may possibly be fixed as well. That's where the
trial and error comes in. :)

 NB>> I couldn't find any physical capability words

 MK> I am not sure what you mean but I think fields 6 and 7 might be what
 MK> you're thinking about.  I have a bash script I wrote to test the first
 MK> 58 bytes of raw pkt files in an attempt to distinguish the pkt type.
 MK> It seems to work but was based on the document neither of us seems to
 MK> be able to locate on the ftsc site.

I believe those are the fields as well. Looking at FSC-0039 (if I remember
right), it mentioned something about "capability words", or "CW", which I
figured was those two fields.

 MK> I think we can crack it.

Agreed.

 MK> Oh well ... back to the drawing board eh?  I'll fire off a warning
 MK> shot here when I have something worth testing.  I plan to first look
 MK> at the bash pkt determinator and see what I can learn from it before
 MK> hacking headers.

Sounds good. I'm ready when you are.

Regards,
Nick

... "Не знаю. Я здесь только работаю."
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827