In my opinion, there are some reasons why FT8/4 users think that the
RR73's and 73's are needed, even though they shouldn't be:
1. WSJT-X decided to implement synchronous transmissions with a 4-frame
transmit sequence. The 4th frame is really needed only for the purpose
of maintaining sync
I agree that much of the problem with NIL's is due to operator error and
confusion, but in my opinion a lot of that can be attributed to the fact
that the contest sponsors have allowed too much crossover between folks
who are actually in the contest and non-contesters who just happened to
be
ant, but it
isn't supported by reality.
Dave AB7E
On 1/17/2020 9:15 AM, Frank Kirschner wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 1:44 PM David Gilbert
mailto:xda...@cis-broadband.com>> wrote:
You're assuming that the algorithms used in WSJT-X would be
adaptable to RTTY to g
2020 7:20 AM, Frank Kirschner wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 11:32 PM David Gilbert
mailto:xda...@cis-broadband.com>> wrote:
What would that be? FT8/FT4 uses a better detection scheme than
RTTY precisely because of the constraints that FT8/FT4 require.
Those constraints are
Dave AB7E
On 1/14/2020 6:18 PM, Frank Kirschner wrote:
I'm not suggesting changing the RTTY FSK standard. I'm suggesting a
better detection scheme for the existing RTTY standard.
73,
Frank
KF6E
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 7:54 PM David Gilbert
mailto:xda...@cis-broadband.com>&
I'm not so sure it would be that easy. All of the WSJT-X modes require
some pretty rigid rules, not the least of which is fixed time frames
closely locked to the same reference. They also require some pretty
narrowly constrained message formats. I really doubt that very many
current RTTY u
I and others reported this same situation after the FT Roundup, although
nothing ever came of it. It seems to happen randomly, and it's always
the received report that doesn't get captured. Fixing it ruins any run
you might have going.
73
Dave AB7E
On 1/4/2020 4:47 PM, John Pelham wro
Yes. I have had this happen may times for no reason that I can
determine, unless it is a processor speed limitation of some sort. I
lost several contacts (and others will be getting NILs) before I
realized what was happening.
Very frustrating.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 12/8/2019 8:02 AM, Saku w
rogative, but, Please, do not
tell me not to use it, nor what features could also make the
experience better. Ron, WV4P
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 12:37, David Gilbert <mailto:xda...@cis-broadband.com>> wrote:
The point is that you said you needed a block to prevent the
impact of
The point is that you said you needed a block to prevent the impact of
an unwanted caller on your receiver. You just made that up.
The program was designed to require you to actually be an operator,
which is why you have to enable each QSO instead of it being fully
robotic. "Call 1st" is m
That's an absolutely terrible idea unless it was purely an option. When
I have several callers I queue up the next one in the messages boxes if
I'm confident the station in QSO is sending me his final 73. I am then
able to answer the next station immediately upon conclusion of the QSO
and I
It's pretty difficult to ignore a LID on CW or SSB, but it's really
easy to do so on FT8. I do it all the time when I'm calling CQ DX and
somebody stateside insists upon calling me over and over again. I
consider it to be one of the beauties of FT8. If I'm actively working
stations he does
I have the same opinion. I almost never use "Call 1st" and I find it
trivial to operate without it no matter how many callers I get.
Even FT8 should be able to handle some degree of operator proficiency.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 12/2/2019 1:00 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
On 12/2/2019 2:54 AM, Martin Da
l. I think the dev
group does a helluva job. Just one last thing, how can anybody bitch
about free software
On Nov 19, 2019 7:25 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
If anyone was seriously concerned about real estate usage in the
WSJT-X
user window there wouldn't be all that wasted spac
If anyone was seriously concerned about real estate usage in the WSJT-X
user window there wouldn't be all that wasted space in the lower left
corner for any of the modes. The Frequency display doesn't need to be
anywhere near that large, DX Call and DX Grid is mostly superfluous, the
size of
bjectivity here. In any case,
I'm done talking about it.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 10/22/2019 2:22 AM, David A. Behar wrote:
See inline responses below. David / K7DB
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 7:57 PM David Gilbert
mailto:xda...@cis-broadband.com>> wrote:
Well, now I'm coming to bel
Well, now I'm coming to believe you're just making a mountain out of an
anthill.
1. First of all, according to a post I saw from K1JT . "since June
15, 1983 FCC does NOT require US amateurs to use a CWID with data
modes." I haven't found the FCC statement that confirms that, but at
le
On 10/20/2019 2:44 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
As best I know, you don't need to ID every contact, and I suspect you
wouldn't even if moving around within a bandwidth as narrow as is
typical for FT8.
Far too much attention to identification is paid by those who don't
operate
assigned call sign on its transmitting channel at the end
of each communication…”
AK2L
*From:*David Gilbert
*Sent:* Sunday, October 20, 2019 14:44
*To:* wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
*Subject:* Re: [wsjt-devel] Suggestion: CW ID callsign
As best I know, you don't need to ID every contac
ctual situation I have encountered involves
using WSJT-X for WSPR (not FT8).
Your thoughts?
David / K7DB
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019, 2:50 PM David Gilbert <mailto:xda...@cis-broadband.com>> wrote:
As best I know, you don't need to ID every contact, and I suspect
you wouldn
As best I know, you don't need to ID every contact, and I suspect you
wouldn't even if moving around within a bandwidth as narrow as is
typical for FT8. So why not simply use the freeform 13-character TX5
message to periodically ID? I've played around with it a bit and it
will even accept a
It's a known bug, but if you close the Settings window by clicking the
OK button at the lower right instead of the x-box in the upper right it
works fine.
73,
Dave Ab7E
On 10/15/2019 8:37 PM, Donn Taylor wrote:
Just updated to the latest WSJTx that supports FT4. When I first
open the p
ld need
some agreed to overlay of the message for each QSO party that maps
these 8 bits. Seems to me that we are deviating from the point of weak
signal work.
Just my thoughts. YMMV.
Thanks. Robert. AD6I.
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019, at 9:27 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
I'll admit I'm not re
I'll admit I'm not really understanding the discussion here so please be
gentle with me, but would having only one large table change the
situation? I think we're only talking about the bits required for
transmission, right?
If WSJT used unique non-descriptive three letter/number combinatio
#x27;full auto' machine points that out.
On 8/18/2019 10:03 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
You're changing your story now. Your previous messages simply said
the software itself was illegal, and when I challenged that your
argued the point and said I was rationalizing.
Just give it up,
ink twice about
having this software available for download.
Your claiming that I don't know what I'm talking about is a
rationalization in itself.
Neil, KN3ILZ
On 8/18/2019 9:52 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
No, the software by itself is not illegal. The software is capable
of una
;t, and added a 'legal
notice' which is worth the paper it's not printed on.
Neil, KN3ILZ
On 8/17/2019 1:54 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
The guy who made that claim didn't know what he was talking about.
Automatic is not the same thing as unattended.
73,
Dave AB7E
The guy who made that claim didn't know what he was talking about.
Automatic is not the same thing as unattended.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 8/17/2019 10:07 AM, Andy Durbin wrote:
"This is illegal software in the US and probably elsewhere, and should
not be used, even with the added line "always at
Apologies again if this has been covered before, but I went back through
the list archive to the beginning of 2019 and didn't see a related post.
Why is so much of the FT8/4 main screen space devoted to the lower half
of the window at the expense of the activity windows? The layout just
see
teinar Fremme
___
E-mail: stei...@fremme.at <mailto:stei...@fremme.at>
Phone: +436649263301
Skype: stfremme
Web: https://1250rt.com
Ham: OE4KSF
On 14 Aug 2019, at 19:46, David Gilbert <mailto:xda...@cis-broadband.com>> wrote:
Greetings Steinar.
It seems to me that both
Greetings Steinar.
It seems to me that both of your issues could be caused by a high local
noise level at your end. Let's look at the second issue first.
WSJT-X doesn't report the absolute signal strength ... it reports the
signal strength relative to a (if I remember correctly) 2.5 KHz
ba
Again, I apologize if this has come up before, but I didn't find it in a
search of the archives.
If I open the "Settings" tab and close it by clicking on the "x" box in
the upper right, I get a blank window when I try to open Settings
again. It works fine if I close via the "Okay" button at
I'm new to this list so I apologize if this has been covered before, but
is there a reason that the colors set up under File/Settings/Color do
not apply to non-CQ QSOs in the Band Activity window? Many of the
stations I call (by tail ending) are not calling CQ and it would be
quite helpful t
33 matches
Mail list logo
