Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and FT8 Contesting

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

Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X Improperly responding to a station not called in TX1

Hi Sam, It seems you must have called CQ before calling HB9FAN, so the "Call 1st" behavior was armed to respond to any caller. Its text turns red when armed. I guess you are saying that your transmission to HB9FAN should have disarmed "Call 1st". Maybe, but that is not how it has worked

[wsjt-devel] FT4 and FT8 Contesting

The debate as to when a QSO is complete will probably go on forever. The simple fact is that there are two parties involved in the QSO and they may disagree on whether the QSO was completed. If you send an RR73 you can log the QSO but if I didn't receive it then I'm not going to. If I don't

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and FT8 Contesting

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

Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X Improperly responding to a station not called in TX1

Hi Reino, I am aware of the first call function when calling CQ, I am not aware of that when I am calling a particular station as that would be a problem if I am calling a rare dx or a grid that I need or a station that I need. In the case where I am calling a particular station, that should be

Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X Improperly responding to a station not called in TX1

Hi Sam, You had Call 1st checked. I have understood that it is intended to give protocol permission/request to response to the first decoded message to you as long as you are not yet in a call. If HB9FAH has answered to you, then he will have been in your call and protocol would have continued

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and FT8 Contesting

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

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 there. Just let wsjt-x automatically add 'QSO incomplete' at Comments. 73 de Uwe, DG2YCB ___ wsjt-devel mailing list

Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X Improperly responding to a station not called in TX1

Edit- Hi Reino, I am aware of the first call function when calling CQ, I am not aware of that when I am calling a particular station as that would be a problem if I am calling a rare dx or a grid that I need or a station that I need. In the case where I am calling a particular station, that

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, and the acknowledgement of receipt by by each. Each station must receive acknowledgement of the other's exchange. If that

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 statement is wrong. You only send RRR or RR73 to CONFIRM receiving the other stations “R” ack, never to indicate no copy. Sending R -10 means you copied the

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and FT8 Contesting

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

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 happy and don't expect any further response from you", while RRR is usually taken to mean "I received you confirmation, but I want to be sure that you

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and FT8 Contesting

Reino, Haha Yes, but no, but yes, but no ... For QSO purposes, I think RRR and RR73 are identical, reception of either means QSO complete, LOG THE QSO. R R R 73 de Paul G3NJV Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From:

Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 and FT8 Contesting

RR73 is not part of the exchange from a contest rules perspective.  However, it is a highly recommended messaging element to help QSO partners best decide if the QSO is complete and loggable.  This is true for CW, SSB, RTTY,  etc as well.73,Ed W0YK Original message From: Jim