Re: [wsjt-devel] Question FT8

[Bruce Bohannon via wsjt-devel]

Gary, you very correct. I'm with you on that. Slow down. Enjoy the 
program for what it is.


Bruce WA1YZN

On 10/4/2021 16:50, Gary McDuffie via wsjt-devel wrote:



On Oct 4, 2021, at 13:09, Andrew Neumeier via wsjt-devel 
 wrote:

This is a different situation than working strong signals on HF, where I rarely 
operate FT8, so my experience is different.  So, when another station sends 73, 
and my station does not automatically respond, I'll just have to do that 
manually.

And this is the problem, Andy…. All of these modes were started on VHF.  After 
FT8 had been on the air a short time, some people decided to try it out on HF.  
By the way, there wasn’t a bunch of whining about too many sequences on HF wen 
it started.  People were happy to run it as it was, and it worked quite well.  
The more people got into it, the more there started to be this strange desire 
to make things go faster.  Contests, etc., just made it worse.  I would guess 
that the majority of the people on these modes now don’t know a thing about 
using them on six or two meters.  All you hear now is faster, faster, FASTER!  
Good grief!  As I posted months ago, why not just get the phone out and see how 
fast you can call your ham buddies and log contacts.  What’s happened to ham 
radio?  What is the hurry?

I know - unpopular opinion right now, but I know I’m not the only one.

Gary - AG0N

___
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] Question FT8

[Gary McDuffie via wsjt-devel]

> On Oct 4, 2021, at 13:09, Andrew Neumeier via wsjt-devel 
>  wrote:
> 
> This is a different situation than working strong signals on HF, where I 
> rarely operate FT8, so my experience is different.  So, when another station 
> sends 73, and my station does not automatically respond, I'll just have to do 
> that manually.  

And this is the problem, Andy…. All of these modes were started on VHF.  After 
FT8 had been on the air a short time, some people decided to try it out on HF.  
By the way, there wasn’t a bunch of whining about too many sequences on HF wen 
it started.  People were happy to run it as it was, and it worked quite well.  
The more people got into it, the more there started to be this strange desire 
to make things go faster.  Contests, etc., just made it worse.  I would guess 
that the majority of the people on these modes now don’t know a thing about 
using them on six or two meters.  All you hear now is faster, faster, FASTER!  
Good grief!  As I posted months ago, why not just get the phone out and see how 
fast you can call your ham buddies and log contacts.  What’s happened to ham 
radio?  What is the hurry?

I know - unpopular opinion right now, but I know I’m not the only one.

Gary - AG0N

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

Re: [wsjt-devel] Question, FT8

[Gary McDuffie via wsjt-devel]

> On Oct 4, 2021, at 07:18, Neil Zampella via wsjt-devel 
>  wrote:
> 
> When you send RR73, when the Tx Enable turns off, the operator has the OPTION 
> to click it back on, select the Tx5 message, and have it go out.
> 
> See ... already implemented.  Just takes TWO clicks.

Yep, takes probably a half a sequence to figure out those steps and get it 
done.  By then, it won’t decode and you have to wait until the next cycle.  
Ridiculous waste of time.  Just default it to send.  It takes ONE click to kill 
it if it isn’t needed!

Gary - AG0N

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

Re: [wsjt-devel] Question, FT8

[Bill Frantz via wsjt-devel]

On 10/3/21 at 10:50 PM, wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net (Alex 
via wsjt-devel) wrote:


Even though I had let go of this rule, I think I will reinstate 
it again. No 73, no QSO. I really don't care if that means my 
log will be a few Q's short. The world is already rude enough 
as it is. We can take a few moments to be courteous.


You must realize that no number of messages can ensure that both 
ends are ready to log the QSO. It is an example of the Two 
Generals' Problem*. For DXing, if you received the necessary 
exchange data (usually a call sign and a signal report), then 
log the QSO and LotW work it out. For contesting where, if one 
side logs the QSO and the other does not, the side making the 
log entry loses points agreement is more important. Examination 
of logs by contest organizers shows many more cases where points 
are lost due to mismatching log entries in FTx contests than in 
CW, voice, or RTTY contests. So, in contests log the entry when 
the contest rules say you should.


73 Bill AE6JV

* The Two Generals' Problem (from 
)

In computing, the Two Generals' Problem is a thought experiment 
meant to illustrate the pitfalls and design challenges of 
attempting to coordinate an action by communicating over an 
unreliable link. In the experiment, two generals are only able 
to communicate with one another by sending a messenger through 
enemy territory. The experiment asks how they might reach an 
agreement on the time to launch an attack, while knowing that 
any messenger they send could be captured.


t is related to the more general Byzantine Generals Problem and 
appears often in introductory classes about computer networking 
(particularly with regard to the Transmission Control Protocol, 
where it shows that TCP can't guarantee state consistency 
between endpoints and why this is the case), though it applies 
to any type of two-party communication where failures of 
communication are possible. A key concept in epistemic logic, 
this problem highlights the importance of common knowledge. Some 
authors also refer to this as the Two Generals' Paradox, the Two 
Armies Problem, or the Coordinated Attack Problem.[1][2] The Two 
Generals' Problem was the first computer communication problem 
to be proved to be unsolvable. An important consequence of this 
proof is that generalizations like the Byzantine Generals 
problem are also unsolvable in the face of arbitrary 
communication failures, thus providing a base of realistic 
expectations for any distributed consistency protocols.


--
Bill Frantz| There are now so many exceptions to the
408-348-7900   | Fourth Amendment that it operates only by
www.pwpconsult.com | accident.  -  William Hugh Murray



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

[wsjt-devel] Question FT8

[Andrew Neumeier via wsjt-devel]

Since I started this discussion, and have now read all the comments, some 
clarification is probably in order.  

Most of my operating is on vhf, and the majority of that on 2M.  So, I am often 
dealing with very weak signals, many can't be heard, many of those at the edge 
of the capability of FT8 to decode.  So, I see RR73 rarely used.  So, when a 
station I am in contact with sends 73, I know he has received my RRR, and by 
sending 73 I have in turn acknowledged his receipt of that message.  Often, if 
I don't send 73, the other station will send 73 again, looking for my response. 
 So in a qso like this, stations are rarely making contacts in rapid 
succession.  It's the kind of environment where I may see a disturbance on the 
waterfall and start turning my beam to investigate and try to peak the signal.  
Often I'm dealing with qsb peaks until the signal is strong enough to decode.  
A qso like this can take some time and I've seen them last for 5 minutes, maybe 
more.  This is a different situation than working strong signals on HF, where I 
rarely operate FT8, so my experience is different.  So, when another station 
sends 73, and my station does not automatically respond, I'll just have to do 
that manually.  

So, I was just asking about this, about the cutoff of my transmit after I 
received a 73.  I wanted only to be sure the software was behaving correctly, 
I'm not asking for a new feature to accommodate me or seeking a discussion 
about operating etiquette. 

Thanks to all who responded to my question.  


73,Andy, ka2uqw
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Question, FT8

[Sam W2JDB via wsjt-devel]

Actually, if you are the originator of the RR73 message, the only messages that 
you should be expecting is either a 73 confirming your RR73 (part of auto seq) 
completing the QSO, or a retransmission of the SNR message (also part of auto 
seq), in which case you should retransmit the RR73 message by re-enabling TX 
with TX4 containing the said RR73. If you receive neither, while you may still 
log the QSO, you really don't know if the other party logged the QSO on their 
end. 
73,
Sam W2JDB


-Original Message-
From: Alex via wsjt-devel 
To: WSJT software development 
Cc: Alex 
Sent: Mon, Oct 4, 2021 12:39 pm
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Question, FT8

Yes, that was exactly my point. Thanks for setting me straight. How could I 
have been so stupid to miss that.

73,
--Alex KR1STOn Oct 4, 2021, at 9:33 AM, Neil Zampella via wsjt-devel 
 wrote:
 It's currently optional ...  
 
 When you send RR73, when the Tx Enable turns off, the operator has the OPTION 
to click it back on, select the Tx5 message, and have it go out.
 
 See ... already implemented.  Just takes TWO clicks.
 
 Neil, KN3ILZ
  On 10/4/2021 7:21 AM, Alex wrote:
  
 Hi Jim,
 
  Hence the suggestion to make it optional. 
 
  Perhaps there should be a penalty for not being courteous on the bands. I can 
live with that.
 
  I always had to laugh when I read the discussions on the RTTY lists after a 
contest. It's full of complaints about operators sending a character too many 
here and there. 
 
  We're in a bad place if sending a 73, which is done in almost every other 
mode (including RTTY contests back when I participated), is too much to ask for.
 
  One can hardly argue that fully automatic operations (including logging) is a 
bad thing if sending a 73 is too much to ask for.
 
  73,
  --Alex KR1ST On Oct 4, 2021, at 2:43 AM, Jim Brown via wsjt-devel 
 wrote: 
 On 10/3/2021 7:50 PM, Alex via wsjt-devel wrote:

 No 73, no QSO. I really don't care if that means my log will be a few Q's 
short. The world is already rude enough as it is. We can take a few moments to 
be courteous.
Not when there's short band opening for DX, and not in a contest. :)When the 
other station sends RRR or RR73 and I immediately call CQ, heshould know that I 
copied it. If I didn't, I'd send R-10 again. And ifyou re-send R-10, I know you 
didn't get my RRR or RR73, so I re-send it.This stuff is LOOONG established 
practice on the HF bands, especiallyfor contesting and DX pileups. Indeed, the 
most discourteous thing wecan do with working a contest (or in a DX opening) is 
to make thecontact take longer to complete -- it slows the other station 
down!Contest rules penalize you if a QSO in your log is not in the 
otherstation's log, and it's often the loss of ANOTHER QSO. Failing 
tounderstand these issues has driven RTTY contesters crazy when FT8 andFT4 were 
added to RTTY Roundup, and when those same RTTY contestersworked to set up a 
pure digital contest.73, Jim K9YCwsjt-devel mailing 
listwsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.nethttps://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] Question, FT8

[Alex via wsjt-devel]

Yes, that was exactly my point. Thanks for setting me straight. How could I 
have been so stupid to miss that.

73,
--Alex KR1ST

On Oct 4, 2021, 9:33 AM, at 9:33 AM, Neil Zampella via wsjt-devel 
 wrote:
>It's currently optional ...
>
>When you send RR73, when the Tx Enable turns off, the operator has the
>OPTION to click it back on, select the Tx5 message, and have it go out.
>
>See ... already implemented.  Just takes TWO clicks.
>
>Neil, KN3ILZ
>
>On 10/4/2021 7:21 AM, Alex wrote:
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Hence the suggestion to make it optional.
>>
>> Perhaps there should be a penalty for not being courteous on the
>> bands. I can live with that.
>>
>> I always had to laugh when I read the discussions on the RTTY lists
>> after a contest. It's full of complaints about operators sending a
>> character too many here and there.
>>
>> We're in a bad place if sending a 73, which is done in almost every
>> other mode (including RTTY contests back when I participated), is too
>> much to ask for.
>>
>> One can hardly argue that fully automatic operations (including
>> logging) is a bad thing if sending a 73 is too much to ask for.
>>
>> 73,
>> --Alex KR1ST
>> On Oct 4, 2021, at 2:43 AM, Jim Brown via wsjt-devel
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> On 10/3/2021 7:50 PM, Alex via wsjt-devel wrote:
>>
>> No 73, no QSO. I really don't care if that means my log will
>> be a few Q's short. The world is already rude enough as it
>is.
>> We can take a few moments to be courteous.
>>
>>
>> Not when there's short band opening for DX, and not in a contest.
>:)
>> When the other station sends RRR or RR73 and I immediately call
>CQ, he
>> should know that I copied it. If I didn't, I'd send R-10 again.
>And if
>> you re-send R-10, I know you didn't get my RRR or RR73, so I
>re-send it.
>> This stuff is LOOONG established practice on the HF bands,
>especially
>> for contesting and DX pileups. Indeed, the most discourteous
>thing we
>> can do with working a contest (or in a DX opening) is to make the
>> contact take longer to complete -- it slows the other station
>down!
>>
>> Contest rules penalize you if a QSO in your log is not in the
>other
>> station's log, and it's often the loss of ANOTHER QSO. Failing to
>> understand these issues has driven RTTY contesters crazy when FT8
>and
>> FT4 were added to RTTY Roundup, and when those same RTTY
>contesters
>> worked to set up a pure digital contest.
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>> 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] Question, FT8

[Neil Zampella via wsjt-devel]

It's currently optional ...

When you send RR73, when the Tx Enable turns off, the operator has the
OPTION to click it back on, select the Tx5 message, and have it go out.

See ... already implemented.  Just takes TWO clicks.

Neil, KN3ILZ

On 10/4/2021 7:21 AM, Alex wrote:

Hi Jim,

Hence the suggestion to make it optional.

Perhaps there should be a penalty for not being courteous on the
bands. I can live with that.

I always had to laugh when I read the discussions on the RTTY lists
after a contest. It's full of complaints about operators sending a
character too many here and there.

We're in a bad place if sending a 73, which is done in almost every
other mode (including RTTY contests back when I participated), is too
much to ask for.

One can hardly argue that fully automatic operations (including
logging) is a bad thing if sending a 73 is too much to ask for.

73,
--Alex KR1ST
On Oct 4, 2021, at 2:43 AM, Jim Brown via wsjt-devel
mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>> wrote:

On 10/3/2021 7:50 PM, Alex via wsjt-devel wrote:

No 73, no QSO. I really don't care if that means my log will
be a few Q's short. The world is already rude enough as it is.
We can take a few moments to be courteous.


Not when there's short band opening for DX, and not in a contest. :)
When the other station sends RRR or RR73 and I immediately call CQ, he
should know that I copied it. If I didn't, I'd send R-10 again. And if
you re-send R-10, I know you didn't get my RRR or RR73, so I re-send it.
This stuff is LOOONG established practice on the HF bands, especially
for contesting and DX pileups. Indeed, the most discourteous thing we
can do with working a contest (or in a DX opening) is to make the
contact take longer to complete -- it slows the other station down!

Contest rules penalize you if a QSO in your log is not in the other
station's log, and it's often the loss of ANOTHER QSO. Failing to
understand these issues has driven RTTY contesters crazy when FT8 and
FT4 were added to RTTY Roundup, and when those same RTTY contesters
worked to set up a pure digital contest.

73, Jim K9YC






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] Question, FT8

[Alex via wsjt-devel]

Hi Jim,

Hence the suggestion to make it optional.

Perhaps there should be a penalty for not being courteous on the bands. I can 
live with that.

I always had to laugh when I read the discussions on the RTTY lists after a 
contest. It's full of complaints about operators sending a character too many 
here and there.

We're in a bad place if sending a 73, which is done in almost every other mode 
(including RTTY contests back when I participated), is too much to ask for.

One can hardly argue that fully automatic operations (including logging) is a 
bad thing if sending a 73 is too much to ask for.

73,
--Alex KR1ST

On Oct 4, 2021, 2:43 AM, at 2:43 AM, Jim Brown via wsjt-devel 
 wrote:
>On 10/3/2021 7:50 PM, Alex via wsjt-devel wrote:
>> No 73, no QSO. I really don't care if that means my log will be a few
>
>> Q's short. The world is already rude enough as it is. We can take a
>few
>> moments to be courteous.
>
>Not when there's short band opening for DX, and not in a contest. :)
>When the other station sends RRR or RR73 and I immediately call CQ, he
>should know that I copied it. If I didn't, I'd send R-10 again. And if
>you re-send R-10, I know you didn't get my RRR or RR73, so I re-send
>it.
>This stuff is LOOONG established practice on the HF bands, especially
>for contesting and DX pileups. Indeed, the most discourteous thing we
>can do with working a contest (or in a DX opening) is to make the 
>contact take longer to complete -- it slows the other station down!
>
>Contest rules penalize you if a QSO in your log is not in the other
>station's log, and it's often the loss of ANOTHER QSO. Failing to
>understand these issues has driven RTTY contesters crazy when FT8 and
>FT4 were added to RTTY Roundup, and when those same RTTY contesters
>worked to set up a pure digital contest.
>
>73, Jim K9YC
>
>
>
>
>___
>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] Question, FT8

[Claude Frantz via wsjt-devel]

On 10/4/21 1:17 AM, Allan Downie via wsjt-devel wrote:

Hi Allen, Bill & all,

Technically the return 73 is not 
required for a valid QSO, however it is the polite thing to do. At the 
very least if confirms to your operating partner that all was received. 
I would like to at least see it as an operator option.


I support this request.

Best wishes,
Claude


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

Re: [wsjt-devel] Question, FT8

[Jim Brown via wsjt-devel]

On 10/3/2021 7:50 PM, Alex via wsjt-devel wrote:
No 73, no QSO. I really don't care if that means my log will be a few 
Q's short. The world is already rude enough as it is. We can take a few 
moments to be courteous.


Not when there's short band opening for DX, and not in a contest. :) 
When the other station sends RRR or RR73 and I immediately call CQ, he 
should know that I copied it. If I didn't, I'd send R-10 again. And if 
you re-send R-10, I know you didn't get my RRR or RR73, so I re-send it. 
This stuff is LOOONG established practice on the HF bands, especially 
for contesting and DX pileups. Indeed, the most discourteous thing we 
can do with working a contest (or in a DX opening) is to make the 
contact take longer to complete -- it slows the other station down!


Contest rules penalize you if a QSO in your log is not in the other 
station's log, and it's often the loss of ANOTHER QSO. Failing to 
understand these issues has driven RTTY contesters crazy when FT8 and 
FT4 were added to RTTY Roundup, and when those same RTTY contesters 
worked to set up a pure digital contest.


73, Jim K9YC




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

Re: [wsjt-devel] Question, FT8

[Alex via wsjt-devel]

Hi Andy,

It would be nice if the software would allow the operator determine if the 73 
message should always be part of the automatic exchange. In almost any other 
mode you can make that choice.

A few folks called me a few times during the 2m and 222 sprints even though I 
thought we already completed the QSO, but they weren't sure apparently when I 
inquired afterwards. I know, I know, there are conventions, gentlemen 
agreements, rules, and what not, that all establish what a valid QSO should be, 
but it really should be left up to the operator's preference I think. It's OK 
to be a little flexible. You get to pick colors, so why not if you want to send 
a courtesy 73?

Even though I had let go of this rule, I think I will reinstate it again. No 
73, no QSO. I really don't care if that means my log will be a few Q's short. 
The world is already rude enough as it is. We can take a few moments to be 
courteous.

73,
--Alex KR1ST

On Oct 3, 2021, 10:10 PM, at 10:10 PM, Andrew Neumeier via wsjt-devel 
 wrote:
> Thanks to all who responded to my question.
>I suspected that this would be the answer.  I've found that often a
>station not receiving the 73 from me in return, then sends 73 again
>sometimes until I respond in kind with a 73.  And I generally don't use
>RR73. 
>
>It's not a bug and by design. 
>
>Thanks and 73,Andy, ka2uqw
>
>
>On Sunday, October 3, 2021, 07:21:29 PM EDT, Allan Downie via
>wsjt-devel  wrote:
>
>Hi Andy...Yes it happens all the time..BY DESIGN, apparently. I find it
>most frustrating and bordering on rude. Technically the return 73 is
>not required for a valid QSO, however it is the polite thing to do. At
>the very least if confirms to your operating partner that all was
>received. I would like to at least see it as an operator option.
>
> Allan - VK4QG
>
> On 3/10/2021 12:05 am, Andrew Neumeier via wsjt-devel wrote:
>
>
> Hello to the group,
>I am using WSJTx, version 2.5, using the version for Ubuntu 20.04. 
>When operating FT8 and in contact with a station, once that station
>sends 73 my transmit becomes disabled, so my station does not send 73
>unless I manually send it.  I am using auto sequence.  So, the question
>is, should my station progress automatically to send 73?  I have seen
>this happen a number of times, but not sure if it is happening all the
>time.  So, I just thought I would ask.
>  73, Andy, ka2uqw
>   
>
>
>  ___
>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] Question, FT8

[Adrian via wsjt-devel]

Yes double click TX4 to alternate RRR/RR73 . Hover mouse pointer over 
TX4 to get popup directions.



vk4tux

On 4/10/21 12:37 pm, Marco Calistri wrote:
For me RRR is optional, if I remember correctly I need to double click 
some specific button, it is indicated by hovering the mouse on the 
right one.


So far at the end of the qso my WSJTX sends RR73, I didn't understand 
how it could default to RRR for somebody.


73's PY1ZRJ

Scarica Outlook per Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>


*Da:* Adrian via wsjt-devel 
*Inviato:* domenica 3 ottobre 2021, 20:37
*A:* WSJT software development
*Cc:* Adrian
*Oggetto:* Re: [wsjt-devel] Question, FT8

Use RR73 instead of RRR and there is no issue, with one side saying RR 
with 73, and the other then 73.


It is all there, I do not see the issue.


vk4tux

On 4/10/21 9:17 am, Allan Downie via wsjt-devel wrote:
Hi Andy...Yes it happens all the time..BY DESIGN, apparently. I find 
it most frustrating and bordering on rude. Technically the return 73 
is not required for a valid QSO, however it is the polite thing to 
do. At the very least if confirms to your operating partner that all 
was received. I would like to at least see it as an operator option.


Allan - VK4QG

On 3/10/2021 12:05 am, Andrew Neumeier via wsjt-devel wrote:

Hello to the group,

I am using WSJTx, version 2.5, using the version for Ubuntu 20.04.  
When operating FT8 and in contact with a station, once that station 
sends 73 my transmit becomes disabled, so my station does not send 
73 unless I manually send it.  I am using auto sequence.  So, the 
question is, should my station progress automatically to send 73?  I 
have seen this happen a number of times, but not sure if it is 
happening all the time.  So, I just thought I would ask.


73,
Andy, ka2uqw




___
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] Question, FT8

[Marco Calistri via wsjt-devel]

For me RRR is optional, if I remember correctly I need to double click some 
specific button, it is indicated by hovering the mouse on the right one.

So far at the end of the qso my WSJTX sends RR73, I didn't understand how it 
could default to RRR for somebody.

73's PY1ZRJ

Scarica Outlook per Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>


Da: Adrian via wsjt-devel 
Inviato: domenica 3 ottobre 2021, 20:37
A: WSJT software development
Cc: Adrian
Oggetto: Re: [wsjt-devel] Question, FT8


Use RR73 instead of RRR and there is no issue, with one side saying RR with 73, 
and the other then 73.

It is all there, I do not see the issue.


vk4tux

On 4/10/21 9:17 am, Allan Downie via wsjt-devel wrote:
Hi Andy...Yes it happens all the time..BY DESIGN, apparently. I find it most 
frustrating and bordering on rude. Technically the return 73 is not required 
for a valid QSO, however it is the polite thing to do. At the very least if 
confirms to your operating partner that all was received. I would like to at 
least see it as an operator option.

Allan - VK4QG

On 3/10/2021 12:05 am, Andrew Neumeier via wsjt-devel wrote:
Hello to the group,

I am using WSJTx, version 2.5, using the version for Ubuntu 20.04.  When 
operating FT8 and in contact with a station, once that station sends 73 my 
transmit becomes disabled, so my station does not send 73 unless I manually 
send it.  I am using auto sequence.  So, the question is, should my station 
progress automatically to send 73?  I have seen this happen a number of times, 
but not sure if it is happening all the time.  So, I just thought I would ask.

73,
Andy, ka2uqw






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






___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net<mailto: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] Question, FT8

[Adrian via wsjt-devel]

If you really want to send a 73, you can, you select the call , enable 
TX and select TX5.


Manual sends like this are doable, after the auto sequencing has finished.


vk4tux

On 4/10/21 12:08 pm, Andrew Neumeier via wsjt-devel wrote:

Thanks to all who responded to my question.

I suspected that this would be the answer.  I've found that often a 
station not receiving the 73 from me in return, then sends 73 again 
sometimes until I respond in kind with a 73.  And I generally don't 
use RR73.


It's not a bug and by design.

Thanks and 73,
Andy, ka2uqw



On Sunday, October 3, 2021, 07:21:29 PM EDT, Allan Downie via 
wsjt-devel  wrote:



Hi Andy...Yes it happens all the time..BY DESIGN, apparently. I find 
it most frustrating and bordering on rude. Technically the return 73 
is not required for a valid QSO, however it is the polite thing to do. 
At the very least if confirms to your operating partner that all was 
received. I would like to at least see it as an operator option.


Allan - VK4QG

On 3/10/2021 12:05 am, Andrew Neumeier via wsjt-devel wrote:
Hello to the group,

I am using WSJTx, version 2.5, using the version for Ubuntu 20.04.  
When operating FT8 and in contact with a station, once that station 
sends 73 my transmit becomes disabled, so my station does not send 73 
unless I manually send it.  I am using auto sequence.  So, the 
question is, should my station progress automatically to send 73?  I 
have seen this happen a number of times, but not sure if it is 
happening all the time.  So, I just thought I would ask.


73,
Andy, ka2uqw




___
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] Question, FT8

[Andrew Neumeier via wsjt-devel]

 Thanks to all who responded to my question.
I suspected that this would be the answer.  I've found that often a station not 
receiving the 73 from me in return, then sends 73 again sometimes until I 
respond in kind with a 73.  And I generally don't use RR73.  

It's not a bug and by design.  

Thanks and 73,Andy, ka2uqw


On Sunday, October 3, 2021, 07:21:29 PM EDT, Allan Downie via wsjt-devel 
 wrote:  
 
  Hi Andy...Yes it happens all the time..BY DESIGN, apparently. I find it most 
frustrating and bordering on rude. Technically the return 73 is not required 
for a valid QSO, however it is the polite thing to do. At the very least if 
confirms to your operating partner that all was received. I would like to at 
least see it as an operator option.
 
 Allan - VK4QG
 
 On 3/10/2021 12:05 am, Andrew Neumeier via wsjt-devel wrote:
  
 
 Hello to the group, 
  I am using WSJTx, version 2.5, using the version for Ubuntu 20.04.  When 
operating FT8 and in contact with a station, once that station sends 73 my 
transmit becomes disabled, so my station does not send 73 unless I manually 
send it.  I am using auto sequence.  So, the question is, should my station 
progress automatically to send 73?  I have seen this happen a number of times, 
but not sure if it is happening all the time.  So, I just thought I would ask. 
  73, Andy, ka2uqw 
    
   
  
  ___
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] Question, FT8

[Jim Shorney via wsjt-devel]

The S9OK DXpedition ops guide specifically states "Once you decode the message 
‘ S9OK ... RR73' (also called the TX4 message) from us, you should 
log the QSO."

73

-Jim
NU0C


On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 19:33:27 -0400
Gene Marsh via wsjt-devel  wrote:

> Allen and Andy,
> 
> Yes, it is not required.  However, many stations (especially fox and hound)  
> MUST receive a 73 to acknowledge a contact for a card. 
> 
> 73 de W8NET Miles “Gene” Marsh 
> 
> > On Oct 3, 2021, at 7:20 PM, Allan Downie via wsjt-devel 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> >  Hi Andy...Yes it happens all the time..BY DESIGN, apparently. I find it 
> > most frustrating and bordering on rude. Technically the return 73 is not 
> > required for a valid QSO, however it is the polite thing to do. At the very 
> > least if confirms to your operating partner that all was received. I would 
> > like to at least see it as an operator option.
> > 
> > Allan - VK4QG
> > 
> > On 3/10/2021 12:05 am, Andrew Neumeier via wsjt-devel wrote:  
> >> Hello to the group,
> >> 
> >> I am using WSJTx, version 2.5, using the version for Ubuntu 20.04.  When 
> >> operating FT8 and in contact with a station, once that station sends 73 my 
> >> transmit becomes disabled, so my station does not send 73 unless I 
> >> manually send it.  I am using auto sequence.  So, the question is, should 
> >> my station progress automatically to send 73?  I have seen this happen a 
> >> number of times, but not sure if it is happening all the time.  So, I just 
> >> thought I would ask.
> >> 
> >> 73,
> >> Andy, ka2uqw
> >> 
> >>   
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> ___
> >> 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] Question, FT8

[Gene Marsh via wsjt-devel]

Allen and Andy,

Yes, it is not required.  However, many stations (especially fox and hound)  
MUST receive a 73 to acknowledge a contact for a card. 

73 de W8NET Miles “Gene” Marsh 

> On Oct 3, 2021, at 7:20 PM, Allan Downie via wsjt-devel 
>  wrote:
> 
>  Hi Andy...Yes it happens all the time..BY DESIGN, apparently. I find it 
> most frustrating and bordering on rude. Technically the return 73 is not 
> required for a valid QSO, however it is the polite thing to do. At the very 
> least if confirms to your operating partner that all was received. I would 
> like to at least see it as an operator option.
> 
> Allan - VK4QG
> 
> On 3/10/2021 12:05 am, Andrew Neumeier via wsjt-devel wrote:
>> Hello to the group,
>> 
>> I am using WSJTx, version 2.5, using the version for Ubuntu 20.04.  When 
>> operating FT8 and in contact with a station, once that station sends 73 my 
>> transmit becomes disabled, so my station does not send 73 unless I manually 
>> send it.  I am using auto sequence.  So, the question is, should my station 
>> progress automatically to send 73?  I have seen this happen a number of 
>> times, but not sure if it is happening all the time.  So, I just thought I 
>> would ask.
>> 
>> 73,
>> Andy, ka2uqw
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] Question, FT8

[Adrian via wsjt-devel]

Use RR73 instead of RRR and there is no issue, with one side saying RR 
with 73, and the other then 73.


It is all there, I do not see the issue.


vk4tux

On 4/10/21 9:17 am, Allan Downie via wsjt-devel wrote:
Hi Andy...Yes it happens all the time..BY DESIGN, apparently. I find 
it most frustrating and bordering on rude. Technically the return 73 
is not required for a valid QSO, however it is the polite thing to do. 
At the very least if confirms to your operating partner that all was 
received. I would like to at least see it as an operator option.


Allan - VK4QG

On 3/10/2021 12:05 am, Andrew Neumeier via wsjt-devel wrote:

Hello to the group,

I am using WSJTx, version 2.5, using the version for Ubuntu 20.04.  
When operating FT8 and in contact with a station, once that station 
sends 73 my transmit becomes disabled, so my station does not send 73 
unless I manually send it.  I am using auto sequence.  So, the 
question is, should my station progress automatically to send 73?  I 
have seen this happen a number of times, but not sure if it is 
happening all the time.  So, I just thought I would ask.


73,
Andy, ka2uqw




___
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] Question, FT8

[Allan Downie via wsjt-devel]

Hi Andy...Yes it happens all the time..BY DESIGN, apparently. I find it 
most frustrating and bordering on rude. Technically the return 73 is not 
required for a valid QSO, however it is the polite thing to do. At the 
very least if confirms to your operating partner that all was received. 
I would like to at least see it as an operator option.


Allan - VK4QG

On 3/10/2021 12:05 am, Andrew Neumeier via wsjt-devel wrote:

Hello to the group,

I am using WSJTx, version 2.5, using the version for Ubuntu 20.04.  
When operating FT8 and in contact with a station, once that station 
sends 73 my transmit becomes disabled, so my station does not send 73 
unless I manually send it.  I am using auto sequence.  So, the 
question is, should my station progress automatically to send 73?  I 
have seen this happen a number of times, but not sure if it is 
happening all the time.  So, I just thought I would ask.


73,
Andy, ka2uqw




___
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] Question, FT8

[Andrew Neumeier via wsjt-devel]

Hello to the group,
I am using WSJTx, version 2.5, using the version for Ubuntu 20.04.  When 
operating FT8 and in contact with a station, once that station sends 73 my 
transmit becomes disabled, so my station does not send 73 unless I manually 
send it.  I am using auto sequence.  So, the question is, should my station 
progress automatically to send 73?  I have seen this happen a number of times, 
but not sure if it is happening all the time.  So, I just thought I would ask.
73,Andy, ka2uqw
  
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel