Hi Gene,
> FT8 is WAY MORE sensitive! (~8db)
That number is not right. On the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel,
the 50% decode probability of FT8 occurs at SNR=-20.8 dB and the 50% decode
probability of FT4 occurs at SNR=-17.5 dB. The sensitivity difference is
therefore 3.3 dB.
Everyone who uses WSJT-X for FT8 must have noticed the number of operators who
answer a CQ and then, when the QSO is complete, call CQ on the same frequency.
Are all these operators really stupid or are they being trapped by a weakness
in the user interface design?
73,
Andy, k3wyc
___
Way to much credit has been given to the ability of Operators. Hold TX
should be checked by default and Deep in the menu to turn it off... Then,
upon rebooting it should again default to on. A year ago FT8 was enjoyable
to operate. Not so much anymore. Ron, WV4P
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019, 10:58 AM Andy
Attribute it to inexperienceyou should contact them and help to politely
educate them.
Something like:
Hi there OM,Saw you in a QSO with and after the QSO was complete you
called CQ on the same offset.You should consider working people in split by
choosing a Tx offset that is clear of o
My thoughts are that they do not have Hold TX Freq checked and simply
forget that answering my CQ moved their TX freq too. Or they just don't
care, could be either way.
73 Doug, KV4ZY
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:58 AM Andy Durbin wrote:
> Everyone who uses WSJT-X for FT8 must have noticed the n
On 28/07/2019 16:53, Andy Durbin wrote:
Everyone who uses WSJT-X for FT8 must have noticed the number of
operators who answer a CQ and then, when the QSO is complete, call CQ
on the same frequency. Are all these operators really stupid or are
they being trapped by a weakness in the user inter
On 7/28/19 6:00 PM, Ron WV4P wrote:
Hi Ron, Andy & all,
Way to much credit has been given to the ability of Operators. Hold TX
should be checked by default and Deep in the menu to turn it off...
Then, upon rebooting it should again default to on.
In addition, I recommend to check, from time
Am 28.07.19 um 18:06 schrieb Doug Bates
> My thoughts are that they do not have Hold TX Freq checked and simply
> forget that answering my CQ moved their TX freq too. Or they just don't
> care, could be either way.
>
> 73 Doug, KV4ZY
>
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:58 AM Andy Durbin wrote:
>
Too bad many of them don't run JTAlert or have texting not set to on!
;-) ... or don't have an email on QRZ!
73 Dwight NS9I
On 7/28/2019 11:01 AM, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote:
Attribute it to inexperienceyou should contact them and help to
politely educate them.
Something like:
H
I sometimes just used to forget. I have made a habit to keep the TX freq
now.
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 6:20 PM Claude Frantz
wrote:
> On 7/28/19 6:00 PM, Ron WV4P wrote:
>
> Hi Ron, Andy & all,
>
> > Way to much credit has been given to the ability of Operators. Hold TX
> > should be checked by
Just hold TX.—-
Regards and 73s
VE3FBZ
London Amateur Radio Club
www.larc.ca
> On Jul 28, 2019, at 11:53, Andy Durbin wrote:
>
> Everyone who uses WSJT-X for FT8 must have noticed the number of operators
> who answer a CQ and then, when the QSO is complete, call CQ on the same
> frequen
What threw me for a loop a couple times is that when you transition from
fox/hound mode back to normal mode it will automatically uncheck the hold TX
frequency box for you, even if it was selected before you switched to fox/hound
mode.
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 28, 2019, at 8:53 AM, Andy Durb
On 7/28/2019 8:53 AM, Andy Durbin wrote:
Everyone who uses WSJT-X for FT8 must have noticed the number of
operators who answer a CQ and then, when the QSO is complete, call CQ on
the same frequency. Are all these operators really stupid or are they
being trapped by a weakness in the user inte
There are indeed some bad/naive operators out there who either
don't know or care about the ways amateurs share frequencies, or
don't understand the wsjt-x UI and customs well enough to apply
them to FT8/FT4. However, avoiding interfering with each other
is hard, and a little charity is in orde
Same behaviour when switching mode from MSK144 to FT8. “Hold TX” gets
unchecked when returning to FT8. This caught me too!
73,
Kevin VE7ZD/K7MCQ
> On Jul 28, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
>
> On 7/28/2019 8:53 AM, Andy Durbin wrote:
>> Everyone who uses WSJT-X for FT8 must have notice
On 7/28/2019 11:31 AM, Bill Frantz wrote:
The fixed time slots of FT8/FT4 make it hard to find out if there is
another station on the same frequency as you, even if propagation would
let you hear it. It is one of the worst features of these protocols.
An obvious solution is to not call CQ all
Andy,
I am not sure I understand your issue. If they have "Hold Tx Frequency "
checked, they are on "their" (I use the term very loosely) frequency and
they call CQ after the end of the QSO I don't see what your issue is. If
they don't have that checked, then they probably jumped to the frequenc
I see my transmit frequency being ambushed quite regularly. My solution is to
just stay there. Eventually it should dawn upon them.
Also those that call my station with a signal report on their first
transmission (no full callup and no grid).
I ignore folks like that. If they don't start the co
On 7/28/2019 12:56 PM, Gary Kohtala - K7EK via wsjt-devel wrote:
Also those that call my station with a signal report on their first
transmission (no full callup and no grid).
I ignore folks like that. If they don't start the contact with a full
set of calls and grid square there will be no jo
Hi All:
I noticed this behavior and try move to another frequency to respect the
original calling CQ station. Maybe set WSJTX to move to a fixed (extreme
end) freq after answering a CQ, say 3000. Just an idea.
73'
Edfel
KP4AJ
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 4:14 PM Jim Brown
wrote:
> On 7/28/2019 1
On 28/07/2019 20:56, Gary Kohtala - K7EK via wsjt-devel wrote:
Also those that call my station with a signal report on their first
transmission (no full callup and no grid).
I ignore folks like that. If they don't start the contact with a full
set of calls and grid square there will be no joy
On 28/07/2019 21:23, Bill Somerville wrote:
... snip
fully supports replying to CQ calls with a *Tx3 message rather than
using the possibly redundant Tx2* message. I don't think it should be
your choice to demand a grid from your QSO partner unless you really
need it, in which case you can ask
Hi,
I agree with Jim K9YC,
On 6m i prefer that when i call CQ a station coming back to me calls me
with report instead of grid. Openings are very short and QSO flows faster.
Also i prefer that those stations call me off freq.
My program it set to call with report always especially on 6m band.
JA's
On 28 Jul 2019 at 11:07, Jim Brown wrote:
> On 7/28/2019 8:53 AM, Andy Durbin wrote:
> > Everyone who uses WSJT-X for FT8 must have noticed the number of
> > operators who answer a CQ and then, when the QSO is complete, call CQ on
> > the same frequency. Are all these operators really stupid o
"IMO, when using FT8, I consider it rude and poor operating practice to
call a station on their frequency, simply because the station is more
likely to be able to decode multiple callers of they're spread out."
That could lead to a long discussion on the impact of the use of the "Call 1st"
option
No user interface design will ever be idiot proof. The supply of idiots far
outstrips the supply of programmers.
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 28, 2019, at 11:53 AM, Andy Durbin wrote:
>
> Everyone who uses WSJT-X for FT8 must have noticed the number of operators
> who answer a CQ and then, when
Is there a reason the "Hold Tx" checkbox isn't checked by default?
This list seems to be discussing this over an over, and instead of
hoping that people might click it, why isn't it just on?
Christoph
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.source
Hi All:
My experience from the Caribbean for example 6M no FT4 QSO so far. Tried
80m and similar experience, although I can hear some stations. No QSO.
For users working the magic bad, at distant locations FT4 is out the scene
unless conditions are excellent. Just my experience, However, will
Why do we have to hold “their” hand.
In the documentation it says
“To avoid QRM from competing callers, it is frequently desirable to answer a CQ
on a different frequency from that of the CQing station. Choose a Tx frequency
that appears to be not in use. The same is true when you tail-end an
Re: Roy Gould 2019-07-27
> It does not seem to me that there is any reason that FT4 and FT8 cannot
> operate together in the same channel. If this is so, then why have separate
> channels for them?
FT8 is quite good at decoding even overlapping signals in parallel.
However, from my experience, w
"That could lead to a long discussion on the impact of the use of the "Call
1st" option and whether it's deletion would encourage better opting practices. "
Of course that should have read "better operating practices".
Andy, k3wyc
___
wsjt-devel mai
Hi Steve,
I didn’t calculate everything - and thank you for doing “my work” for me. ;)
In the real world, we need more empirical data to support my thought = FT8 is
superior for weak signal/DX/“valuable” contacts (and, of course, “value” is
purely subjective). We know is “better” qualitative
Could be a combination of hams wanting to get OTA with the new mode,
playing/fighting with integration/configuration (some radios are easy, many
more are not), and an 87 page manual.
As a software developer for a couple of decades, RTFM isn't done nearly as much
as it needs to, but that's just
Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently determined fool. From a retired
gunsmith, you would not believe some things some fools have tried to do.
Doug Bates, KV4ZY
Sent from my Verizon mobile phone.
330-590-1429
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019, 5:01 PM Jim Nuytens via wsjt-devel <
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge
Steve --
Related to this, and to another recent thread on replying to CQ's on the
caller's frequency:
What is the decoding probability a FT8 (or FT4) signal when being
interfered with by another FT8 (or FT4) signal, as a function of frequency
separation and signal strength difference? Seems clear
On 7/28/19 at 11:47 AM, k...@audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown) wrote:
An obvious solution is to not call CQ all the time, but spend
most of our time listening instead. :) That's always been my
practice on both bands where I use FT8, 160M and 6M. It also
minimizes my QRM to others wanting to he
Are they in the same time slot? If they are on odd and you are on even, no
real harm. FT8 is operated primarily split anyway.
I do know this used to be an issue when lock rx=tx was a thing that people
would work you then transmit in your frequency slot.
73,
Ria
N2RJ
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:58
WSJT-X Developers,
I have been studying the WSJT-X source code to learn how it decodes FT8 signals
to enhance my rather outdated (1980s) understanding of DSP and information
theory. There is one part of the source code that I can’t figure out and I was
hoping that one of the WSJT-X developers
Hmmm . trying to stay out of this one but can’t
Even a few minutes back on 20m minute I just had an op do just as Andy K3WYC
reported .. and then that very same station call CQ...
The solution is as Bill and many others report to set “Hold Tx Freq” ... and to
ensure that this is set as
I agree with Steve.
Like most old time (mature) hobbies the early pioneers are either SKs or
nearing the time when they can no longer operate. We need young blood into the
hobby. Not many, if any will build any more, so we must move a bit into their
sphere.
They are growing up in the “digital”
40 matches
Mail list logo
