Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt

2021-05-17 Thread Carey Fisher 
Yeah, let's argue about what constitutes a valid QSO AGAIN! SMDH

On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 8:27 AM Russ  wrote:

> Bill, Larry, Iztok, others;
>
>
>
> The rules for a valid QSO have long been established.  Look up and read
> the "World Above 50 Mc", "What is a contact?", in QST, March/April 1953, by
> Ed Tilton.  Part of it says:
>
>
>
> "First the basic minimum of identification and exchange is a must. You
> call. The other fellow answers. If you positively identify him, and
> establish that he was coming back to you, you send a signal report. (More
> on that later. ) If he gets the signal report, he then sends you one. If
> you get it, you send “ R.’‘ If he gets the single letter, he also sends ‘‘
> R, ‘‘ and the QSO is over, as far as the claim for a contact is concerned.
> There is no obligation to hear or send closing 73, or SK, or confirmation
> of either of these items. You send the SK, of course, as the indication for
> other listeners that you’re through, but you don’t have to exchange SK’s!"
>
>
>
> There is no allowance for anyone to send a report before he has copied his
> own, and the calling station's call sign.
>
>
>
> 73, Russ K2TXB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Bill Somerville 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 11, 2021 10:10 AM
> *To:* wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> *Subject:* Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt
>
>
>
> Russ,
>
>
>
> the only "rules" for QSO validity I have seen specify exchange of full
> callsigns and confirmation of receipt of same, along with exchange of some
> piece of QSO specific information and confirmation of receipt of same. That
> piece of QSO specific might be a signal report but I am pretty sure that is
> not the only option and certainly not obligatory. For example there are
> contests that exchange call and age, others exchange call and power, and so
> on. The long established QSO formats in WSJT-X abide by these guidelines in
> their various forms, particularly for weak signal working such as EME, MS,
> and other scatter modes where the strictly minimum exchange may be critical
> for successful QSOs in the most adverse conditions.
>
>
>
> 73
> Bill
> G4WJS.
>
>
>
> On 11/05/2021 14:36, Russ wrote:
>
> Hello Jim.  Are you saying that the rules for a complete QSO can be different 
> for contests vs non-contest contacts?  How can that be.  I am sure that every 
> active station who works a new grid or new country in a contest, adds that to 
> his station totals, and expects to get a QSL card or LOTW confirmation.  To 
> have a contest where the rules allow contacts that are not valid for 
> non-contest awards makes no sense at all.
>
>
>
> 73, Russ K2TXB
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
>
> From: Jim Brown  
>
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 5:17 PM
>
> To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>
> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt
>
>
>
> Indeed they are good contacts. W0YK is a leading contester, was part of
>
> getting FT4 and FT8 integrated with major RTTY contests.
>
>
>
> You guys are looking at things from the perspective of non-contesters.
>
>
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
>
> On 5/10/2021 7:34 AM, Russ wrote:
>
> Paul Kube wrote:
>
>
>
>  1. Answering a CQ:
>
> CQ WW W0YK DM97  Tx6
>
> W0YK K6PO R DM12   Tx3
>
> K6PO W0YK RR73 Tx4
>
>  2. Tailending a QSO. K6PO has already copied W0YK’s grid. Then:
>
> W1AW W0YK RR73  Tx4
>
> W0YK K6PO R DM12   Tx3
>
> K6PO W0YK RR73 Tx4
>
>  3. Tailending a QSO. K6PO has not yet copied W0YK’s grid. Then:
>
> W1AW W0YK RR73  Tx4
>
> W0YK K6PO DM12   Tx2
>
> K6PO W0YK R DM97   Tx3
>
> W0YK K6PO RR73
>
>
>
> These are NOT contacts!Contact rules specifically state that you must
>
> copy your call sign from your QSO partner before sending a
>
> report.Regardless of the fact that some misguided contest rules may
>
> allow ‘contacts’ in that form, those contacts would not be good for
>
> other awards (DXCC, VUCC, etc).
>
>
>
> Eliminating 73 – a bad idea.If I send 73 and the other guy receives it,
>
> then he knows it was a good contact.If I continue to send my report then
>
> he should know to continue sending RRR.Otherwise he may log a contact
>
> that was incomplete.
>
>
>
> 73, Russ K2TXB
>
>
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>


-- 
Carey Fisher
careyfis...@gmail.com
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt

2021-05-17 Thread Russ 
Bill, Larry, Iztok, others;
 
The rules for a valid QSO have long been established.  Look up and read the 
"World Above 50 Mc", "What is a contact?", in QST, March/April 1953, by Ed 
Tilton.  Part of it says:
 
"First the basic minimum of identification and exchange is a must. You call. 
The other fellow answers. If you positively identify him, and establish that he 
was coming back to you, you send a signal report. (More on that later. ) If he 
gets the signal report, he then sends you one. If you get it, you send “ R.’‘ 
If he gets the single letter, he also sends ‘‘ R, ‘‘ and the QSO is over, as 
far as the claim for a contact is concerned. There is no obligation to hear or 
send closing 73, or SK, or confirmation of either of these items. You send the 
SK, of course, as the indication for other listeners that you’re through, but 
you don’t have to exchange SK’s!"
 
There is no allowance for anyone to send a report before he has copied his own, 
and the calling station's call sign.
 
73, Russ K2TXB
 
 
 
From: Bill Somerville  
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 10:10 AM
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt
 
Russ,
 
the only "rules" for QSO validity I have seen specify exchange of full 
callsigns and confirmation of receipt of same, along with exchange of some 
piece of QSO specific information and confirmation of receipt of same. That 
piece of QSO specific might be a signal report but I am pretty sure that is not 
the only option and certainly not obligatory. For example there are contests 
that exchange call and age, others exchange call and power, and so on. The long 
established QSO formats in WSJT-X abide by these guidelines in their various 
forms, particularly for weak signal working such as EME, MS, and other scatter 
modes where the strictly minimum exchange may be critical for successful QSOs 
in the most adverse conditions.
 
73
Bill
G4WJS.
 
On 11/05/2021 14:36, Russ wrote:
Hello Jim.  Are you saying that the rules for a complete QSO can be different 
for contests vs non-contest contacts?  How can that be.  I am sure that every 
active station who works a new grid or new country in a contest, adds that to 
his station totals, and expects to get a QSL card or LOTW confirmation.  To 
have a contest where the rules allow contacts that are not valid for 
non-contest awards makes no sense at all.
 
73, Russ K2TXB
 
-Original Message-
From: Jim Brown  <mailto:k...@audiosystemsgroup.com> 

Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 5:17 PM
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> 
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt
 
Indeed they are good contacts. W0YK is a leading contester, was part of
getting FT4 and FT8 integrated with major RTTY contests.
 
You guys are looking at things from the perspective of non-contesters.
 
73, Jim K9YC
 
On 5/10/2021 7:34 AM, Russ wrote:
Paul Kube wrote:
 
 1. Answering a CQ:
CQ WW W0YK DM97  Tx6
W0YK K6PO R DM12   Tx3
K6PO W0YK RR73 Tx4
 2. Tailending a QSO. K6PO has already copied W0YK’s grid. Then:
W1AW W0YK RR73  Tx4
W0YK K6PO R DM12   Tx3
K6PO W0YK RR73 Tx4
 3. Tailending a QSO. K6PO has not yet copied W0YK’s grid. Then:
W1AW W0YK RR73  Tx4
W0YK K6PO DM12   Tx2
K6PO W0YK R DM97   Tx3
W0YK K6PO RR73
 
These are NOT contacts!Contact rules specifically state that you must
copy your call sign from your QSO partner before sending a
report.Regardless of the fact that some misguided contest rules may
allow ‘contacts’ in that form, those contacts would not be good for
other awards (DXCC, VUCC, etc).
 
Eliminating 73 – a bad idea.If I send 73 and the other guy receives it,
then he knows it was a good contact.If I continue to send my report then
he should know to continue sending RRR.Otherwise he may log a contact
that was incomplete.
 
73, Russ K2TXB
 
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt

2021-05-11 Thread Iztok Saje 

There must be some misunderstanding.

DXpeditions and contesters do not expect to hear their own callsign.

Normal CW contest QSO is:
CQ DX1DX
  ME1ME  (calling him WITHOUT giving his call)
ME1ME 599 (he has to give my call so I know I am accepted)
 599 TU
N1XT 599 next QSO starts with implicit R OK for my QSO

If this is not valid QSO, then 99% of contest CW/SSB QSOs are not valid,
and probably 70% of DXCC challenge QSOs.

Even on normal long QSOs I usually call without giving his call:
CQ CQ CQ HE1HE HE1HE HE1HE + K
 ME1ME ME1ME
ME1ME DE HE1HE = TNX FR CALL DR OC etc 

All these are valid QSOs, as well us all three FT4 QSOs below. Same story, same 
rules.

Best 73, GL
Iztok, S52D








Paul Kube wrote:

 1. Answering a CQ:
CQ WW W0YK DM97  Tx6
W0YK K6PO R DM12   Tx3
K6PO W0YK RR73 Tx4
 2. Tailending a QSO. K6PO has already copied W0YK?s grid. Then:
W1AW W0YK RR73  Tx4
W0YK K6PO R DM12   Tx3
K6PO W0YK RR73 Tx4
 3. Tailending a QSO. K6PO has not yet copied W0YK?s grid. Then:
W1AW W0YK RR73  Tx4
W0YK K6PO DM12   Tx2
K6PO W0YK R DM97   Tx3
W0YK K6PO RR73

These are NOT contacts!Contact rules specifically state that you must
copy your call sign from your QSO partner before sending a
report.Regardless of the fact that some misguided contest rules may
allow ?contacts? in that form, those contacts would not be good for
other awards (DXCC, VUCC, etc).

[http://ts1.sdn.si/mailing/podpis/TS_e-podpis_PZ_katalog_04_2021_250x170.jpg]

Pravni pogoji / Legal disclaimer
Telekom Slovenije, d.d., Ljubljana 


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt

2021-05-11 Thread Larry B. via wsjt-devel 

Hi Russ,

A "legal QSO" requires the exchange, and acknowledgment of your callsigns 
and some identifying piece of information, noting more.  An example: in VHF 
contests it is callsign and grid, no signal report.  The order has no 
consequence.  All of your examples below meet this criterion: both stations 
have acknowledged that they have received the other's callsign and grid.


73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ


-Original Message- 
From: Russ

Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 9:36
To: k...@arrl.net ; 'WSJT software development'
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt

Hello Jim.  Are you saying that the rules for a complete QSO can be 
different for contests vs non-contest contacts?  How can that be.  I am sure 
that every active station who works a new grid or new country in a contest, 
adds that to his station totals, and expects to get a QSL card or LOTW 
confirmation.  To have a contest where the rules allow contacts that are not 
valid for non-contest awards makes no sense at all.


73, Russ K2TXB


-Original Message-
From: Jim Brown 
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 5:17 PM
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt

Indeed they are good contacts. W0YK is a leading contester, was part of
getting FT4 and FT8 integrated with major RTTY contests.

You guys are looking at things from the perspective of non-contesters.

73, Jim K9YC

On 5/10/2021 7:34 AM, Russ wrote:
> Paul Kube wrote:
>
>  1. Answering a CQ:
> CQ WW W0YK DM97  Tx6
> W0YK K6PO R DM12   Tx3
> K6PO W0YK RR73 Tx4
>  2. Tailending a QSO. K6PO has already copied W0YK’s grid. Then:
> W1AW W0YK RR73  Tx4
> W0YK K6PO R DM12   Tx3
> K6PO W0YK RR73 Tx4
>  3. Tailending a QSO. K6PO has not yet copied W0YK’s grid. Then:
> W1AW W0YK RR73  Tx4
> W0YK K6PO DM12   Tx2
> K6PO W0YK R DM97   Tx3
> W0YK K6PO RR73
>
> These are NOT contacts!Contact rules specifically state that you must
> copy your call sign from your QSO partner before sending a
> report.Regardless of the fact that some misguided contest rules may
> allow ‘contacts’ in that form, those contacts would not be good for
> other awards (DXCC, VUCC, etc).
>
> Eliminating 73 – a bad idea.If I send 73 and the other guy receives it,
> then he knows it was a good contact.If I continue to send my report then
> he should know to continue sending RRR.Otherwise he may log a contact
> that was incomplete.
>
> 73, Russ K2TXB
>
>
>
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel




___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel 




___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt

2021-05-11 Thread Bill Somerville 

Russ,

the only "rules" for QSO validity I have seen specify exchange of full 
callsigns and confirmation of receipt of same, along with exchange of 
some piece of QSO specific information and confirmation of receipt of 
same. That piece of QSO specific might be a signal report but I am 
pretty sure that is not the only option and certainly not obligatory. 
For example there are contests that exchange call and age, others 
exchange call and power, and so on. The long established QSO formats in 
WSJT-X abide by these guidelines in their various forms, particularly 
for weak signal working such as EME, MS, and other scatter modes where 
the strictly minimum exchange may be critical for successful QSOs in the 
most adverse conditions.


73
Bill
G4WJS.

On 11/05/2021 14:36, Russ wrote:

Hello Jim.  Are you saying that the rules for a complete QSO can be different 
for contests vs non-contest contacts?  How can that be.  I am sure that every 
active station who works a new grid or new country in a contest, adds that to 
his station totals, and expects to get a QSL card or LOTW confirmation.  To 
have a contest where the rules allow contacts that are not valid for 
non-contest awards makes no sense at all.

73, Russ K2TXB


-Original Message-
From: Jim Brown
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 5:17 PM
To:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt

Indeed they are good contacts. W0YK is a leading contester, was part of
getting FT4 and FT8 integrated with major RTTY contests.

You guys are looking at things from the perspective of non-contesters.

73, Jim K9YC

On 5/10/2021 7:34 AM, Russ wrote:

Paul Kube wrote:

  1. Answering a CQ:
 CQ WW W0YK DM97  Tx6
 W0YK K6PO R DM12   Tx3
 K6PO W0YK RR73 Tx4
  2. Tailending a QSO. K6PO has already copied W0YK’s grid. Then:
 W1AW W0YK RR73  Tx4
 W0YK K6PO R DM12   Tx3
 K6PO W0YK RR73 Tx4
  3. Tailending a QSO. K6PO has not yet copied W0YK’s grid. Then:
 W1AW W0YK RR73  Tx4
 W0YK K6PO DM12   Tx2
 K6PO W0YK R DM97   Tx3
 W0YK K6PO RR73

These are NOT contacts!Contact rules specifically state that you must
copy your call sign from your QSO partner before sending a
report.Regardless of the fact that some misguided contest rules may
allow ‘contacts’ in that form, those contacts would not be good for
other awards (DXCC, VUCC, etc).

Eliminating 73 – a bad idea.If I send 73 and the other guy receives it,
then he knows it was a good contact.If I continue to send my report then
he should know to continue sending RRR.Otherwise he may log a contact
that was incomplete.

73, Russ K2TXB



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt

2021-05-11 Thread Russ 
Hello Jim.  Are you saying that the rules for a complete QSO can be different 
for contests vs non-contest contacts?  How can that be.  I am sure that every 
active station who works a new grid or new country in a contest, adds that to 
his station totals, and expects to get a QSL card or LOTW confirmation.  To 
have a contest where the rules allow contacts that are not valid for 
non-contest awards makes no sense at all.

73, Russ K2TXB

> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Brown 
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 5:17 PM
> To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt
> 
> Indeed they are good contacts. W0YK is a leading contester, was part of
> getting FT4 and FT8 integrated with major RTTY contests.
> 
> You guys are looking at things from the perspective of non-contesters.
> 
> 73, Jim K9YC
> 
> On 5/10/2021 7:34 AM, Russ wrote:
> > Paul Kube wrote:
> >
> >  1. Answering a CQ:
> > CQ WW W0YK DM97  Tx6
> > W0YK K6PO R DM12   Tx3
> > K6PO W0YK RR73 Tx4
> >  2. Tailending a QSO. K6PO has already copied W0YK’s grid. Then:
> > W1AW W0YK RR73  Tx4
> > W0YK K6PO R DM12   Tx3
> > K6PO W0YK RR73 Tx4
> >  3. Tailending a QSO. K6PO has not yet copied W0YK’s grid. Then:
> > W1AW W0YK RR73  Tx4
> > W0YK K6PO DM12   Tx2
> > K6PO W0YK R DM97   Tx3
> > W0YK K6PO RR73
> >
> > These are NOT contacts!Contact rules specifically state that you must
> > copy your call sign from your QSO partner before sending a
> > report.Regardless of the fact that some misguided contest rules may
> > allow ‘contacts’ in that form, those contacts would not be good for
> > other awards (DXCC, VUCC, etc).
> >
> > Eliminating 73 – a bad idea.If I send 73 and the other guy receives it,
> > then he knows it was a good contact.If I continue to send my report then
> > he should know to continue sending RRR.Otherwise he may log a contact
> > that was incomplete.
> >
> > 73, Russ K2TXB
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > wsjt-devel mailing list
> > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
> >
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt

2021-05-10 Thread Jim Brown 
Indeed they are good contacts. W0YK is a leading contester, was part of 
getting FT4 and FT8 integrated with major RTTY contests.


You guys are looking at things from the perspective of non-contesters.

73, Jim K9YC

On 5/10/2021 7:34 AM, Russ wrote:

Paul Kube wrote:

 1. Answering a CQ:
CQ WW W0YK DM97  Tx6
W0YK K6PO R DM12   Tx3
K6PO W0YK RR73 Tx4
 2. Tailending a QSO. K6PO has already copied W0YK’s grid. Then:
W1AW W0YK RR73  Tx4
W0YK K6PO R DM12   Tx3
K6PO W0YK RR73 Tx4
 3. Tailending a QSO. K6PO has not yet copied W0YK’s grid. Then:
W1AW W0YK RR73  Tx4
W0YK K6PO DM12   Tx2
K6PO W0YK R DM97   Tx3
W0YK K6PO RR73

These are NOT contacts!Contact rules specifically state that you must 
copy your call sign from your QSO partner before sending a 
report.Regardless of the fact that some misguided contest rules may 
allow ‘contacts’ in that form, those contacts would not be good for 
other awards (DXCC, VUCC, etc).


Eliminating 73 – a bad idea.If I send 73 and the other guy receives it, 
then he knows it was a good contact.If I continue to send my report then 
he should know to continue sending RRR.Otherwise he may log a contact 
that was incomplete.


73, Russ K2TXB



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel





___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt

2021-05-10 Thread KC7QY 
Russ, 
Glad you chimed in. I was thinking the same thing. Contest rules almost always 
require a complete exchange during your QSO (I say almost only because there 
may be some contests that have exceptions).
NIL penalties for Digi modes has been quite high compared to phone or CW. 
Choose your poison, shorten the QSO and experience more NIL penalties or get 
the 73 confirmation with fewer penalties and better QSL confirmations after the 
test. 
Jim KC7QY 

On Monday, May 10, 2021, 08:39:30 AM MDT, Russ  wrote:  
 
 
Paul Kube wrote:
   
   
   
   - Answering a CQ:   
CQ WW W0YK DM97  Tx6   
W0YK K6PO R DM12   Tx3   
K6PO W0YK RR73 Tx4
   - Tailending a QSO. K6PO has already copied W0YK’s grid. Then:   
W1AW W0YK RR73  Tx4   
W0YK K6PO R DM12   Tx3   
K6PO W0YK RR73 Tx4
   
   - Tailending a QSO. K6PO has not yet copied W0YK’s grid. Then:   
W1AW W0YK RR73  Tx4   
W0YK K6PO DM12   Tx2   
K6PO W0YK R DM97   Tx3   
W0YK K6PO RR73

These are NOT contacts!  Contact rules specifically state that you must copy 
your call sign from your QSO partner before sending a report.  Regardless of 
the fact that some misguided contest rules may allow ‘contacts’ in that form, 
those contacts would not be good for other awards (DXCC, VUCC, etc).

Eliminating 73 – a bad idea.  If I send 73 and the other guy receives it, then 
he knows it was a good contact.  If I continue to send my report then he should 
know to continue sending RRR.  Otherwise he may log a contact that was 
incomplete.

73, Russ K2TXB
 ___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
  ___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt

2021-05-10 Thread Russ 
Paul Kube wrote:
a.  Answering a CQ:
CQ WW W0YK DM97  Tx6
W0YK K6PO R DM12   Tx3
K6PO W0YK RR73 Tx4
b.  Tailending a QSO. K6PO has already copied W0YK’s grid. Then:
W1AW W0YK RR73  Tx4
W0YK K6PO R DM12   Tx3
K6PO W0YK RR73 Tx4
c.  Tailending a QSO. K6PO has not yet copied W0YK’s grid. Then:
W1AW W0YK RR73  Tx4
W0YK K6PO DM12   Tx2
K6PO W0YK R DM97   Tx3
W0YK K6PO RR73
These are NOT contacts!  Contact rules specifically state that you must copy 
your call sign from your QSO partner before sending a report.  Regardless of 
the fact that some misguided contest rules may allow ‘contacts’ in that form, 
those contacts would not be good for other awards (DXCC, VUCC, etc).
Eliminating 73 – a bad idea.  If I send 73 and the other guy receives it, then 
he knows it was a good contact.  If I continue to send my report then he should 
know to continue sending RRR.  Otherwise he may log a contact that was 
incomplete.
73, Russ K2TXB 
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt

2021-05-09 Thread Paul Kube 
>
> WSJT-X is open source.  You can make those changes you are suggesting,
> thereby customizing your station operations.


Yes I know that. But:

 However, do not be surprised if you actually loose a lot of
> confirmations... My station.  My logbook.  My rules.


Yes and so my proposal is to make the "short QSO" the default for WWDIGI.
The contest's rules, that everybody in the contest plays by. Contesters
will like the higher QSO rates. Maybe it will catch on more generally,
maybe not.

And I would be happy to implement this as a patch against 2.4.0-rc4 or
whatever version, if I had reason to think it would be accepted.

73, Paul K6PO


On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 5:34 PM Jeff Stillinger via wsjt-devel <
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> WSJT-X is open source.  You can make those changes you are suggesting,
> thereby customizing your station operations.   There is no licensing
> restrictions that would stop you from doing so (see GPL 3).
>
> However, do not be surprised if you actually loose a lot of
> confirmations.   Yes, I am one of those stations that expect the basic
> exchange format as outlined in the User Guide to be completed in order to
> be confirmed.   My station.  My logbook.  My rules.   I will always
> complete any QSO regardless.  I just don't log for confirmation the ones
> that have missing pieces.  I strongly believe this helps maintain the
> integrity of awards.   But...  that is me.   Someone else may feel
> differently.   It's all good in the rf hood.
>
>
>
>
> On 5/6/21 3:28 PM, Martin Davies G0HDB wrote:
>
> The FT4 mode was introduced in WSJT-X version 2.1.0 in 2019; the release
> notes and announcements state that the mode is intended for use in HF
> digital contesting where 'quick-fire' exchanges such as those achieved
> using RTTY are desired.  I'd like to suggest a change that would help
> achieve this aim a bit better; the following applies to v2.1.0 and all
> subsequent versions up to and including v2.3.1 (I haven't yet tried any of
> the RC versions of v2.4.0).
>
> An FT4 (and an FT8!) QSO generally looks something like the following:
>
> CQ K1JT FN20
>   K1JT G0HDB IO82
> G0HDB K1JT -10
>   K1JT G0HDB R-08
> G0HDB K1JT RR73
>   K1JT G0HDB 73
>
> Currently, the logging window only pops open on my screen to prompt me to
> log the QSO when the final (Tx5) '73' message is being sent - this is to
> all extents and purposes superfluous because the QSO has been successfully
> completed when K1JT has sent his RR73 (and I've received it).  My sending
> the superfluous '73' message extends the overall duration of the QSO by
> adding a further Tx period at my end of the sequence so I can't move on to
> trying to start the next QSO.
>
> I'd like to suggest that the logging window is opened when I've *received*
> the other station's RR73 message and that sending the final Tx5 '73'
> message is either removed from the sequence altogether or is made
> optional.  This would help to improve the overall throughput of FT4 QSOs.
>
> The code to open the logging window on receipt of an incoming 'RR73'
> message and to desist from sending the Tx5 '73' message must already exist
> within the app because that's what already happens when I operate as a
> Hound in FT8 Fox & Hounds mode - when I receive the Fox's 'RR73' the
> logging window pops open and my system doesn't send the unnecessary Tx5
> '73' .
>
> I'd actually like to see the logging window open in any mode when I either
> send *or receive* an RRR or RR73 message - in my opinion that would align
> the prompting to log the QSO much more closely with the completion of the
> exchange of the essential information for the QSO and would leave the
> sending of a final '73' as an optional nicety.
>
> --
> 73, Martin G0HDB
>
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
> <#m_6602682828413212526_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing 
> listwsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.nethttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
>
> --
> Jeff Stillinger - KB6IBB
> KB6IBB Laboratories
> Wylie, Texas - United States
>
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt

2021-05-09 Thread Martin Davies G0HDB 
On 7 May 2021 at 11:39, Paul Kube wrote:

> I agree with Martin and others, but let me suggest a slight compromise.
> 
> Instead of changing the default sequence for all FT4 QSO's, change it for
> FT8/FT4 in WWDIGI contest mode only, and advertise the change. This won't
> disrupt anyone's ideas about how general FT QSO's should be done;
> contesters will understand the change, and appreciate it. 2021 WWDIGI is
> August 28-29; should be time enough to implement it.

[Snipped]

Re: the suggestions from Paul, my view is that it would be sensible to change 
the default 
sequence so that logging is prompted on receipt of an incoming RRR or RR73 and 
the 
subsequent sending of the Tx5 73 is eliminated (or made optional - see below) 
should apply 
to all FT4 'Special Operating Activity' contest options, not only to the WWDigi 
contest option.  
However...

Some contests, eg. the RSGB FT4 Contest series, don't use any of the special 
contest QSO 
formats but use the general FT4 QSO format, as I'd indicated in my earlier 
posting.  I can 
understand that, even in such contest scenarios, some people might prefer to 
send a final 
Tx5 73 message after they've received the RRR or RR73 from the other party in 
the QSO, in 
order to provide that other party with an (IMO unnecessary) acknowledgement of 
receipt of 
the RRR or RR73.  This was why I had suggested that sending the Tx5 73 after 
logging a 
QSO on receipt of an incoming RRR/RR73 should be a configuration/settings 
option.  

Making the sending of the Tx5 73 optional after receipt of an incoming RRR/RR73 
would 
enable people such as me to disable the sending, albeit with perhaps an 
attendant increase 
in the risk that the sender of the RRR/RR73 wouldn't log their QSO with me 
because they 
hadn't received a 73 from me (even though they would have been prompted to log 
the QSO 
when they sent the RR73!).  Making the sending of the Tx5 73 optional would 
also make it 
possible for those people who want to send the final 73 to do so, to provide 
their QSO partner 
with confirmation of receipt of the latter's RRR or RR73.

As described in my original proposal on this topic I'd much prefer to see the 
sequence for all 
modes, not only FT4 but also FT8, MSK144, etc etc, amended so that logging is 
prompted 
when an RRR or RR73 is either sent *or received*, with the subsequent sending 
of Tx5 73 
made optional as described above, because IMO it would align the logging prompt 
better with 
the completion of the exchange of the essential information in the QSO.

With regard to the suggestion from Jeff that the WSJT-X app's code is 
open-source and that 
I could customise the code to implement my suggestions - that would be way, way 
beyond 
my programming skills, I'm afraid...  :-)

--
73, Martin G0HDB



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


WPM$XTPI.PM$
Description: Mail message body
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt

2021-05-07 Thread Jeff Stillinger via wsjt-devel 
WSJT-X is open source.  You can make those changes you are suggesting, 
thereby customizing your station operations.   There is no licensing 
restrictions that would stop you from doing so (see GPL 3).


However, do not be surprised if you actually loose a lot of 
confirmations.   Yes, I am one of those stations that expect the basic 
exchange format as outlined in the User Guide to be completed in order 
to be confirmed.   My station.  My logbook.  My rules.   I will always 
complete any QSO regardless.  I just don't log for confirmation the ones 
that have missing pieces.  I strongly believe this helps maintain the 
integrity of awards.   But...  that is me. Someone else may feel 
differently.   It's all good in the rf hood.





On 5/6/21 3:28 PM, Martin Davies G0HDB wrote:
The FT4 mode was introduced in WSJT-X version 2.1.0 in 2019; the 
release notes and announcements state that the mode is intended for 
use in HF digital contesting where 'quick-fire' exchanges such as 
those achieved using RTTY are desired.  I'd like to suggest a change 
that would help achieve this aim a bit better; the following applies 
to v2.1.0 and all subsequent versions up to and including v2.3.1 (I 
haven't yet tried any of the RC versions of v2.4.0).


An FT4 (and an FT8!) QSO generally looks something like the following:

CQ K1JT FN20
  K1JT G0HDB IO82
G0HDB K1JT -10
  K1JT G0HDB R-08
G0HDB K1JT RR73
  K1JT G0HDB 73

Currently, the logging window only pops open on my screen to prompt me 
to log the QSO when the final (Tx5) '73' message is being sent - this 
is to all extents and purposes superfluous because the QSO has been 
successfully completed when K1JT has sent his RR73 (and I've received 
it).  My sending the superfluous '73' message extends the overall 
duration of the QSO by adding a further Tx period at my end of the 
sequence so I can't move on to trying to start the next QSO.


I'd like to suggest that the logging window is opened when I've 
*received* the other station's RR73 message and that sending the final 
Tx5 '73' message is either removed from the sequence altogether or is 
made optional.  This would help to improve the overall throughput of 
FT4 QSOs.


The code to open the logging window on receipt of an incoming 'RR73' 
message and to desist from sending the Tx5 '73' message must already 
exist within the app because that's what already happens when I 
operate as a Hound in FT8 Fox & Hounds mode - when I receive the Fox's 
'RR73' the logging window pops open and my system doesn't send the 
unnecessary Tx5 '73' .


I'd actually like to see the logging window open in any mode when I 
either send *or receive* an RRR or RR73 message - in my opinion that 
would align the prompting to log the QSO much more closely with the 
completion of the exchange of the essential information for the QSO 
and would leave the sending of a final '73' as an optional nicety.


--
73, Martin G0HDB

 
	Virus-free. www.avast.com 
 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel


--
Jeff Stillinger - KB6IBB
KB6IBB Laboratories
Wylie, Texas - United States

___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt

2021-05-07 Thread Paul Kube 
I agree with Martin and others, but let me suggest a slight compromise.

Instead of changing the default sequence for all FT4 QSO's, change it for
FT8/FT4 in WWDIGI contest mode only, and advertise the change. This won't
disrupt anyone's ideas about how general FT QSO's should be done;
contesters will understand the change, and appreciate it. 2021 WWDIGI is
August 28-29; should be time enough to implement it.

In more detail:


   1. Eliminate Tx5, “73”, from the default QSO message sequence. Its use
   should be discouraged in WWDIGI (and in fact in all FT4/FT8 contests). It
   is not needed for the exchange and acknowledgement of required information,
   and – because  its use is not widely understood not to be required --  just
   leads to longer QSO’s on average, and general confusion about whether a QSO
   has been completed which increases NIL’s.

   Since in WWDIGI  the only exchange info is callsigns and grids, the
   default QSO -- exchanging and acknowledging all required information --
   could be as short as 3 transmissions. Examples:
  1. Answering a CQ:
  CQ WW W0YK DM97  Tx6
  W0YK K6PO R DM12   Tx3
  K6PO W0YK RR73 Tx4
  2. Tailending a QSO. K6PO has already copied W0YK’s grid. Then:
  W1AW W0YK RR73  Tx4
  W0YK K6PO R DM12   Tx3
  K6PO W0YK RR73 Tx4
  3. Tailending a QSO. K6PO has not yet copied W0YK’s grid. Then:
  W1AW W0YK RR73  Tx4
  W0YK K6PO DM12   Tx2
  K6PO W0YK R DM97   Tx3
  W0YK K6PO RR73 Tx4

  2. Automatically log the QSO sending *or receiving* Tx4, “RR73”. One
   reason sending Tx5, “73”, is currently in the default QSO sequence for
   WWDIGI is that this triggers automatic logging of the QSO from  WSJT-X. Tx5
   is never sent in examples 1a-1c above, and so one QSO partner would need to
   manually log the QSO in each case (i.e. hit the “Log QSO” button in WSJT-X,
   and in the case of 1b, perhaps also manually enter the copied grid). If
   automatic logging is desired, triggering it on sending *or receiving*
   Tx4 would accomplish that.

   3. Note: in some of the examples above, part of the contest exchange
   (the grid) is not explicitly sent from the first QSO partner (W0YK) to the
   second (K6PO). Some might object to this, but note that it is copied by the
   second QSO partner as part of the first partner’s CQ or other transmission,
   and so this  is as much or more in the spirit of 2-way over-the-air
   communication as commonly used contest techniques like call history files,
   giving your call only once every few QSO’s in a run, etc.


73, Paul K6PO

On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 1:34 PM Martin Davies G0HDB 
wrote:

> The FT4 mode was introduced in WSJT-X version 2.1.0 in 2019; the release
> notes and announcements state that the mode is intended for use in HF
> digital contesting where 'quick-fire' exchanges such as those achieved
> using RTTY are desired.  I'd like to suggest a change that would help
> achieve this aim a bit better; the following applies to v2.1.0 and all
> subsequent versions up to and including v2.3.1 (I haven't yet tried any of
> the RC versions of v2.4.0).
>
> An FT4 (and an FT8!) QSO generally looks something like the following:
>
> CQ K1JT FN20
>   K1JT G0HDB IO82
> G0HDB K1JT -10
>   K1JT G0HDB R-08
> G0HDB K1JT RR73
>   K1JT G0HDB 73
>
> Currently, the logging window only pops open on my screen to prompt me to
> log the QSO when the final (Tx5) '73' message is being sent - this is to
> all extents and purposes superfluous because the QSO has been successfully
> completed when K1JT has sent his RR73 (and I've received it).  My sending
> the superfluous '73' message extends the overall duration of the QSO by
> adding a further Tx period at my end of the sequence so I can't move on to
> trying to start the next QSO.
>
> I'd like to suggest that the logging window is opened when I've *received*
> the other station's RR73 message and that sending the final Tx5 '73'
> message is either removed from the sequence altogether or is made
> optional.  This would help to improve the overall throughput of FT4 QSOs.
>
> The code to open the logging window on receipt of an incoming 'RR73'
> message and to desist from sending the Tx5 '73' message must already exist
> within the app because that's what already happens when I operate as a
> Hound in FT8 Fox & Hounds mode - when I receive the Fox's 'RR73' the
> logging window pops open and my system doesn't send the unnecessary Tx5
> '73' .
>
> I'd actually like to see the logging window open in any mode when I either
> send *or receive* an RRR or RR73 message - in my opinion that would align
> the prompting to log the QSO much more closely with the completion of the
> exchange of the essential information for the QSO and would leave the
> sending of a final '73' as an optional nicety.
>
>

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt

2021-05-07 Thread Alan 
Indeed one cannot be certain, but the further exchange increases the 
probability of the QSO being complete for both parties.


Alan G0TLK, sent from my mobile device
On 7 May 2021 18:30:43 Bill Frantz  wrote:


On 5/7/21 at 2:54 AM, al...@alangroups.plus.com (Alan) wrote:


The final 73 is a confirmation for some that the QSO is indeed
fully completed.  If omitted there's intrinsic doubt that the
RR has been received.


How can I be sure that the other end received the final 73
message? ?

This question is particularly important in contests since if you
log a QSO and the other station doesn't, you usually actually
lose points from your score.

73 Bill AE6JV

---
Bill Frantz| Concurrency is hard. 12   | Periwinkle
(408)348-7900  | out 10 programmers get it | 150 Rivermead
Rd #235
www.pwpconsult.com | wrong.  - Jeff Frantz | Peterborough,
NH 03458



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt

2021-05-07 Thread Reino Talarmo 
Three points.
1. the other end should resend RR73 in that case, if that operator really
requires 73 for this QSO. If he sends another message e.g. CQ or a message
to another station, then it is highly likely that he logged your QSO or just
gave up.
2. 73 is not a mandatory message at all.
3. not all contests use that rule.
73, Reino OH3mA

-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Bill Frantz [mailto:ae...@arrl.net] 
Lähetetty: 07 May 2021 20:29
Vastaanottaja: WSJT software development 
Aihe: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt

On 5/7/21 at 2:54 AM, al...@alangroups.plus.com (Alan) wrote:

>The final 73 is a confirmation for some that the QSO is indeed fully 
>completed.  If omitted there's intrinsic doubt that the RR has been 
>received.

How can I be sure that the other end received the final 73 message?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Generals%27_Problem>?

This question is particularly important in contests since if you log a QSO
and the other station doesn't, you usually actually lose points from your
score.

73 Bill AE6JV

---
Bill Frantz| Concurrency is hard. 12   | Periwinkle
(408)348-7900  | out 10 programmers get it | 150 Rivermead 
Rd #235
www.pwpconsult.com | wrong.  - Jeff Frantz | Peterborough, 
NH 03458



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt

2021-05-07 Thread Bill Frantz 

On 5/7/21 at 2:54 AM, al...@alangroups.plus.com (Alan) wrote:

The final 73 is a confirmation for some that the QSO is indeed 
fully completed.  If omitted there's intrinsic doubt that the 
RR has been received.


How can I be sure that the other end received the final 73 
message? ?


This question is particularly important in contests since if you 
log a QSO and the other station doesn't, you usually actually 
lose points from your score.


73 Bill AE6JV

---
Bill Frantz| Concurrency is hard. 12   | Periwinkle
(408)348-7900  | out 10 programmers get it | 150 Rivermead 
Rd #235
www.pwpconsult.com | wrong.  - Jeff Frantz | Peterborough, 
NH 03458




___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt

2021-05-07 Thread Alan 

On the face of it looks like a good idea, but...

The final 73 is a confirmation for some that the QSO is indeed fully 
completed.  If omitted there's intrinsic doubt that the RR has been received.


Omission might give a few more QSO's in a session but for contests that's 
irrelevant since it's the individuals score in comparison to other 
participants that counts.


Therefore so long as everyone uses the same protocol surely it doesn't matter?


The existing protocol keeps a little bit of humanity and politeness in the 
proceedings, which in my view at least is just as important as anything else.


Alan G0TLK, sent from my mobile device
On 6 May 2021 23:59:23 David Gillooly  wrote:
Some hams on there end will not log a QSO unless they receive the 
confirmation 73 after their RRR/RR73.


I am not saying its wrong or right just that it's the practice of some hams


Dave, AA6RE

On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 1:34 PM Martin Davies G0HDB  
wrote:


The FT4 mode was introduced in WSJT-X version 2.1.0 in 2019; the release 
notes and announcements state that the mode is intended for use in HF 
digital contesting where 'quick-fire' exchanges such as those achieved 
using RTTY are desired.  I'd like to suggest a change that would help 
achieve this aim a bit better; the following applies to v2.1.0 and all 
subsequent versions up to and including v2.3.1 (I haven't yet tried any of 
the RC versions of v2.4.0).



An FT4 (and an FT8!) QSO generally looks something like the following:


CQ K1JT FN20
 K1JT G0HDB IO82
G0HDB K1JT -10
 K1JT G0HDB R-08
G0HDB K1JT RR73
 K1JT G0HDB 73


Currently, the logging window only pops open on my screen to prompt me to 
log the QSO when the final (Tx5) '73' message is being sent - this is to 
all extents and purposes superfluous because the QSO has been successfully 
completed when K1JT has sent his RR73 (and I've received it).  My sending 
the superfluous '73' message extends the overall duration of the QSO by 
adding a further Tx period at my end of the sequence so I can't move on to 
trying to start the next QSO.



I'd like to suggest that the logging window is opened when I've *received* 
the other station's RR73 message and that sending the final Tx5 '73' 
message is either removed from the sequence altogether or is made optional. 
 This would help to improve the overall throughput of FT4 QSOs.



The code to open the logging window on receipt of an incoming 'RR73' 
message and to desist from sending the Tx5 '73' message must already exist 
within the app because that's what already happens when I operate as a 
Hound in FT8 Fox & Hounds mode - when I receive the Fox's 'RR73' the 
logging window pops open and my system doesn't send the unnecessary Tx5 '73' .



I'd actually like to see the logging window open in any mode when I either 
send *or receive* an RRR or RR73 message - in my opinion that would align 
the prompting to log the QSO much more closely with the completion of the 
exchange of the essential information for the QSO and would leave the 
sending of a final '73' as an optional nicety.



--
73, Martin G0HDB


Virus-free. www.avast.com


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt

2021-05-06 Thread David Gillooly 
Some hams on there end will not log a QSO unless they receive the
confirmation 73 after their RRR/RR73.

I am not saying its wrong or right just that it's the practice of some hams

Dave, AA6RE

On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 1:34 PM Martin Davies G0HDB 
wrote:

> The FT4 mode was introduced in WSJT-X version 2.1.0 in 2019; the release
> notes and announcements state that the mode is intended for use in HF
> digital contesting where 'quick-fire' exchanges such as those achieved
> using RTTY are desired.  I'd like to suggest a change that would help
> achieve this aim a bit better; the following applies to v2.1.0 and all
> subsequent versions up to and including v2.3.1 (I haven't yet tried any of
> the RC versions of v2.4.0).
>
> An FT4 (and an FT8!) QSO generally looks something like the following:
>
> CQ K1JT FN20
>   K1JT G0HDB IO82
> G0HDB K1JT -10
>   K1JT G0HDB R-08
> G0HDB K1JT RR73
>   K1JT G0HDB 73
>
> Currently, the logging window only pops open on my screen to prompt me to
> log the QSO when the final (Tx5) '73' message is being sent - this is to
> all extents and purposes superfluous because the QSO has been successfully
> completed when K1JT has sent his RR73 (and I've received it).  My sending
> the superfluous '73' message extends the overall duration of the QSO by
> adding a further Tx period at my end of the sequence so I can't move on to
> trying to start the next QSO.
>
> I'd like to suggest that the logging window is opened when I've *received*
> the other station's RR73 message and that sending the final Tx5 '73'
> message is either removed from the sequence altogether or is made
> optional.  This would help to improve the overall throughput of FT4 QSOs.
>
> The code to open the logging window on receipt of an incoming 'RR73'
> message and to desist from sending the Tx5 '73' message must already exist
> within the app because that's what already happens when I operate as a
> Hound in FT8 Fox & Hounds mode - when I receive the Fox's 'RR73' the
> logging window pops open and my system doesn't send the unnecessary Tx5
> '73' .
>
> I'd actually like to see the logging window open in any mode when I either
> send *or receive* an RRR or RR73 message - in my opinion that would align
> the prompting to log the QSO much more closely with the completion of the
> exchange of the essential information for the QSO and would leave the
> sending of a final '73' as an optional nicety.
>
> --
> 73, Martin G0HDB
>
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
> <#m_3674534888006593587_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

[wsjt-devel] FT4 logging prompt

2021-05-06 Thread Martin Davies G0HDB 
The FT4 mode was introduced in WSJT-X version 2.1.0 in 2019; the release notes 
and 
announcements state that the mode is intended for use in HF digital contesting 
where 
'quick-fire' exchanges such as those achieved using RTTY are desired.  I'd like 
to suggest a 
change that would help achieve this aim a bit better; the following applies to 
v2.1.0 and all 
subsequent versions up to and including v2.3.1 (I haven't yet tried any of the 
RC versions of 
v2.4.0).

An FT4 (and an FT8!) QSO generally looks something like the following:

CQ K1JT FN20
K1JT G0HDB IO82
G0HDB K1JT -10
K1JT G0HDB R-08
G0HDB K1JT RR73
K1JT G0HDB 73

Currently, the logging window only pops open on my screen to prompt me to log 
the QSO 
when the final (Tx5) '73' message is being sent - this is to all extents and 
purposes 
superfluous because the QSO has been successfully completed when K1JT has sent 
his 
RR73 (and I've received it).  My sending the superfluous '73' message extends 
the overall 
duration of the QSO by adding a further Tx period at my end of the sequence so 
I can't move 
on to trying to start the next QSO.

I'd like to suggest that the logging window is opened when I've *received* the 
other station's 
RR73 message and that sending the final Tx5 '73' message is either removed from 
the 
sequence altogether or is made optional.  This would help to improve the 
overall throughput 
of FT4 QSOs.

The code to open the logging window on receipt of an incoming 'RR73' message 
and to 
desist from sending the Tx5 '73' message must already exist within the app 
because that's 
what already happens when I operate as a Hound in FT8 Fox & Hounds mode - when 
I 
receive the Fox's 'RR73' the logging window pops open and my system doesn't 
send the 
unnecessary Tx5 '73' .

I'd actually like to see the logging window open in any mode when I either send 
*or receive* 
an RRR or RR73 message - in my opinion that would align the prompting to log 
the QSO 
much more closely with the completion of the exchange of the essential 
information for the 
QSO and would leave the sending of a final '73' as an optional nicety.

--
73, Martin G0HDB



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel