Ok, so explain to me why K2GC/P formats properly?

I could certainly understand the issue more if my callsign were longer...
 but with such a short callsign I am not sure why all this 'making it fit'
comes into play.

furthermore,  so how is one supposed to operate?   do I just call cq with
no grid, and the software will out it in the exchange later?

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 9:49 AM Bill Somerville <[email protected] wrote:

> On 11/12/2018 01:41, Mike Maynard wrote:
>
> So I installed v2.0 GA on my 'mobile' setup today.  I no longer have a
> grid square in my standard messages with /M on my callsign.
>
> If I just put in my base callsign the grid square shows up fine.  once I
> change to K2GC/M the grid square drops out.
>
> Tried it on my shack setup too (also 2.0GA) and it does the same thing.
>
> this was a non-issue in 1.9.1   Did I miss something? or is this a bug?
>
>
> --
> Mike
> K2GC
> www.k2gc.net
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> in the new 77-bit payload FT8 and MSK144 messages the handling of
> callsigns has been unified, there are three ways of inserting a callsign
> into a standard form message, either a standard callsign, a complex
> callsign, or a hash code representing the callsign. Complex callsigns
> include compound callsigns, longer callsigns that don't fit the WSJT-X
> standard callsign pattern and those including standard suffixes like /M.
> Note that all of these complex callsigns are now treated uniformly, there
> are no type-1 or type-2 compound callsigns with the 77-bit messages. The
> CQ, QRZ and similar words count as a standard callsign. The message can
> contain two callsigns and some extra information except when one of the
> callsigns is a complex callsign. The extra information can be a
> grid-square, a report, a R-report, RRR, RR73, or 73. So that reports can be
> exchanged with both callsigns printed when a complex callsign is involved,
> one callsign can be represented by a hash code which uses less payload bits
> than the callsign in full, this leaves space for one of a RRR, RR73, 73,
> report, R-report, or a grid, but note that for the last three (reports or
> grid) the complex callsign must be the one sent as a hash.
>
> So, given the above, a CQ message with a complex callsign cannot include a
> grid-square because the only way to do so would be to replace the callsign
> with a hash code and that will not work as hash codes can only be converted
> to callsigns at the receiving end if the callsign has previously been
> decoded and even then there may be two or more callsigns that map to the
> same hash code, the hash codes have a one to many (actually one to few)
> relationship with the callsigns they represent and where two or more
> callsigns of interest map to the same hash code is what is known as a hash
> collision.
>
> The bottom line is that special handling of basic suffixes like /M /P /A
> /1 /2 ... /0 and other specified prefixes that had special encoding in the
> 75-bit message format (type 1 compound callsigns) have been sacrificed to
> allow message space for a uniform approach that works for vastly more
> variations of complex callsigns including those originally covered by
> type-1 special cases.
>
> You can send a message to you QSO partner including your grid square but
> it must be of the following form:
>
> G4WJS <K2GC/M> FN03
>
> this is fine once a QSO has started, you could sign off with it for
> example, because your full call would have been sent earlier in the QSO and
> your QSO partner and anyone listening will have the correct hash code
> mapping to decode the message as shown above. Anyone not having the hash
> code would receive the message above as:
>
> G4WJS <...> FN03
>
> which is not much good to them. In the same way that sending:
>
> CQ <K2GC/M> FN03
>
> would not be any use and in this case we even flag it as a bad message and
> don't allow it to be sent.
>
> Just to complete the picture with complex callsigns, there are a couple of
> special cases for the NA and EU VHF contest modes that allow /R and /P
> respectively since these are necessary for many stations in such contests.
>
> 73
> Bill
> G4WJS.
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Reply via email to