Same experience here. Best S+P never ever called anyone!
73 de Uwe, DG2YCB Von: Jon Anhold [mailto:j...@anhold.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Juni 2019 22:11 An: WSJT software development Betreff: Re: [wsjt-devel] Best S+P button For what it's worth, my experience matches David's. Multiple times I tried to "arm" Best S+P and it never called anyone, despite eligible stations calling CQ being decoded. 73 de KM8V On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 2:07 PM David Kaplan via wsjt-devel <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: Thanks Joe, It wasn’t clear to me that eligible CQer meant one I needed. I had mistakenly thought that as a default at the bottom of the list it would call anyone if one I needed wasn’t available. Please ignore my comment about the FT4_protocol file… I’m all set now, and appreciate the clarification. 73, David, WA1OUI On Jun 7, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Joe Taylor <j...@princeton.edu> wrote: David -- On 6/7/2019 10:46, David Kaplan WA1OUI wrote:> If there is no station that will give me a new multiplier/call on band/etc, will it call anyone, or just sit there (or call CQ) as I experienced? I gave you the whole sequence of priorities. If a new multipler has called CQ, it calls that station. Otherwise, if someone not yet worked on this band calls CQ, it calls him. If "Enable Tx" is ON and no needed station has called CQ, you will call CQ. > If this is my problem, you might want to mention something to that effect in > the FT4_Protocol file. I don't know what this means. Mention what, exactly? -- Joe, K1JT > Hi David, > On 6/7/2019 7:36 AM, David Kaplan WA1OUI via wsjt-devel wrote: >> Can anyone tell me how Best S+P is supposed to work, as opposed to how it >> did work for me during the mock ru? Apparently I’m not alone in having it >> work for me the way it did. > We may not have it coded exactly right, but for me Best S+P worked (almost) > as expected and was effective. > You should set up as follows. (Here I am essentially repeating what was > recommended several times in messages about how to participate in the > practice sessions.) > 1. Rename your log file wsjtx_log.adi to something else, so that (as in a > contest) you will start with an empty log. You can restore your normal ADIF > file after the practice session. > 2. Clear your Cabrillo log by selecting *Reset Cabrillo log* from the *File* > menu. > 3. On the Settings | Colors tab, select ONLY the following: "My Call in > message", "New DXCC", "New Call on Band", "CQ in message" and "Transmitted > message" (reading from top to bottom). > The FT4 Protocol pdf includes the following text: > "Clicking [Best S+P] during an Rx cycle arms the program to examine all CQ > messages decoded at the end of the [7.5-second] Rx sequence. The program > will select the best potential QSO partner (from a contesting perspective), > and treat it as if you had double-clicked on that line of decoded text. Here > “best potential QSO partner” means “New Multiplier” (1st priority) or “New > Call on Band” (2nd priority). “New Multiplier” is currently interpreted to > mean “New DXCC”; a more broadly defined multiplier category (for the ARRL > RTTY Roundup rules) will be implemented soon. We may also provide additional > priority rankings, for example “New Grid on Band” (useful for North American > VHF contests), sorting by signal strength, etc." > So... If you want WSJT-X to respond automatically to the best available CQing > station, click "Best S+P" during an Rx cycle. The button's label turns red > to show that the feature is enabled. If any CQs are decoded, the program > will select a CQing station and call it -- even if Tx Enable was not already > active. (You gave the program permission to do so, by enabling Best S+P). > If Best S+P is enabled and Tx enable is turned ON, your next Tx sequence will > call an eligible CQer if one is avaiklable; otherwise you will call CQ. > The one bug I am aware of is that on several occasions when I had enabled > Best S+P the program called a station who had not called CQ. I have not yet > discovered why, and have not yet found a way to reproduce the problem > intentionally. > I am not certain that "best potential QSO partner from a contesting > perspective" is always being done correctly. > -- 73, Joe, K1JT > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
_______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
