Fri, 28 Feb 2020 11:39:49 -0700
David Gilbert kirjoitti:
> 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:
Was one DX, who said, "do not send me locator, only
report. If you see R-report you're in the log"
Simple
2YCB
*Von:*DG2YCB, Uwe [mailto:dg2...@gmx.de]
*Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 27. Februar 2020 17:19
*An:* 'WSJT software development'
*Betreff:* Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and FT8 Contesting
IMO wsjt-x should auto-log all incomplete QSOs when at least one
successful exchange of the two callsigns was th
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
Kludt [mailto:johnnykl...@gmail.com]
Sent: 28. helmikuuta 2020 19:13
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and FT8 Contesting
Claude,
As was said early in this thread, open to many interpretations. When
contesting on CW or phone once the exchange has been sent both
Claude,
As was said early in this thread, open to many interpretations. When
contesting on CW or phone once the exchange has been sent both ways, the
fact that the initiating station calls CQ or goes onto another station is
taken as evidence that the QSO is complete. There is no exchange of
"QSL
On 2/27/20 10:13 PM, Reino Talarmo wrote:
Hi Reino & all,
I agree your comment on RRR or RR73 being confirmation of reception "R" ack.
There is a minor difference though RR73 is "I am fully happy and don't
expect any further response from you", while RRR is usually taken to mean "I
received you
On 2/28/20 3:26 PM, DG2YCB, Uwe wrote:
Maybe a small correction to my proposal: IMO wsjt-x should auto-log all
incomplete QSOs when all necessary data have been exchanged between the two
callsigns. Necessary data means exchange of the callsigns, and during contests
the reports and Exch (but n
view a QSO
which is mandatory to be logged took place even after one single exchange of
signals between two stations.
73 de Uwe, DG2YCB
Von: DG2YCB, Uwe [mailto:dg2...@gmx.de]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. Februar 2020 17:19
An: 'WSJT software development'
Betreff: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT
Brown
Date: 2/27/20 12:25 (GMT-08:00) To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject:
Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and FT8 Contesting On 2/27/2020 7:56 AM, Ron WV4P wrote:>
RR73 is not part of the exchange.Wrong. The definition of a QSO is the exchange
of callsign and one piece of info by each party,
_
From: Reino Talarmo
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 9:13:08 PM
To: 'WSJT software development'
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and FT8 Contesting
Hi Paul
I agree your comment on RRR or RR73 being confirmation of reception ”R” ack.
There is a minor difference though RR73 is “I am fully
@hotmail.com]
Sent: 27. helmikuuta 2020 22:46
To: k...@arrl.net; WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and FT8 Contesting
"..And when one QSO partner repeats either R-10 or RRR or RR73, it is
his indication that he didn't copy the ack,"
Surely that
On 2/27/2020 12:45 PM, Paul Randall wrote:
I think the WSJT message exchange protocol is based on decades old
moonbounce and MS procedures where 73 is simply a luxury that often
isn’t affordable.
Exactly right.
73, Jim K9YC
___
wsjt-devel mailing
uxury that often isn’t affordable.
Best regards Paul
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: Jim Brown
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 8:25:10 PM
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel]
On 2/27/2020 7:56 AM, Ron WV4P wrote:
RR73 is not part of the exchange.
Wrong. The definition of a QSO is the exchange of callsign and one piece
of info by each party, and the acknowledgement of receipt by by each.
Each station must receive acknowledgement of the other's exchange. If
that "i
IMO wsjt-x should auto-log all incomplete QSOs when at least one successful
exchange of the two callsigns was there. Just let wsjt-x automatically add 'QSO
incomplete' at Comments.
73 de Uwe, DG2YCB
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourc
RR73 is not part of the exchange. There is no requirement to TX or RX it.
Not logging because of not receiving it IS the problem. You have the
Callsign and the exchange in a mode with Forward Error Correction. You have
everything required. Log it. Ron WV4P
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 9:38 AM Andy Durbi
Andy, if you don't receive RR73 you should resent your report. It is a clear
message that my RR73 was lost and I need to send a new one. I may even send
RRR and you should response to that. By receiving my RR73 you should know
that I am happy with this QSO and you should log it as well, hi.
Best L
On 2/27/20 7:55 AM, Iztok Saje wrote:
Hi Iztok,
Asking people to upload ALL.TXT instead of cabrillo LOG was
discussed as well, maybe even real time. It is not yet time.
In my opinion, the uploading OP of the log should make the necessary
verifications before uploading. A little utility progra
rom called
station is heard,
like CQ or calling somebody else.
Best 73, mni DX
Iztok, S52D
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 16:29:13 -0500
From: Matt Power
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and FT8 Contesting
Message-ID: <202002262129.01qltdcq004...@outgoing.mit.edu>
6 Feb 2020 12:04:40 -0700
From: David Gilbert
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and FT8 Contesting
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
I agree that much of the problem with NIL's is due to operator error and
confusion, but in m
> Log a QSO when you send RR73 if you are reasonably confident it will be
> copied.
I'm also active in FT4/FT8 contesting (https://ww-digi.com/scores.htm
etc.), and have worked on design of a different (not yet active)
FT4/FT8 contest for a different major sponsor. I feel that this
guideline shou
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
22 matches
Mail list logo
