On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 1:44 PM David Gilbert <xda...@cis-broadband.com> wrote:
> > You're assuming that the algorithms used in WSJT-X would be adaptable to > RTTY to give better performance than what is already out there. > It is certainly true that the algorithms used in WSLT-X for discriminating frequencies could be adapted for RTTY. Why wouldn't they? All they do is discriminate what frequency is being received. I'm not sure that the newest RTTY programs don't already use this same algorithm, but the noise performance of the RTTY programs I've tried so far has been pretty poor, and improving the algorithm used would ameliorate that. I don't think there is any evidence of that being the case, given the > very rigid constraints that every single WSJT-X mode requires. > That has nothing to do with it. At some point in the flow of the both RTTY programs and WSJT-X, a decision is made: was it this frequency or that frequency? There's an algorithm that does this. I suspect that the writers of WSJT-X have used the best algorithm that would run on computers available, This algorithm, used in a RTTY program, would improve the noise performance of decoding. The integration time available for RTTY is much less than modes like FT8, and FT8 uses redundancies and limited code words, but they both need to discriminate between frequencies. The work that WSJT-X does over and above frequency discriminating has nothing to do with RTTY, and it wouldn't be in a RTTY program. > The appeal of RTTY for almost everyone (compared to FT8 or FT4) is its > free form nature. Just go read the current dialog on the CQ-Contesting > reflector to see what I mean. > PSK-31 is much better for free-form communications than RTTY. It has better noise performance and can copy through fades better. I believe most people who operate in RTTY contests don't use a free-form mode anyway. They have the exchange in macros, including the QSO counter, and they never touch the keyboard. If there are many stations on, retyping the same info for every QSO would be a waste of valuable operating time. All the RTTY programs I've tried have macros and some sort of contesting mode. > If you try to turn RTTY into a 2-tone version of FT8 neither user base > will ever use it because it doesn't have the advantages of either mode. > I don't know why people keep saying that. I never suggested a change to RTTY. All I suggested was that improving the software discriminator in a RTTY program might produce a useful improvement in noise performance. And if somebody wrote such a program, it would be useful to integrate it to some extent with WSJT-X to make switching modes easier. > > Secondly, WSJT-X is simply a very bad contest user interface. It was > designed for weak signal DXing and it does a very good job for that, but it > is terrible for contesting. Again, check out the CW-Contesting reflector > (you can just read the archives if you aren't subscribed) to see more > comments on that point ... most of which have been from me. > No one suggested using the WSJT-X UI for a RTTY program. The discriminator and the UI are independent of one another. Someone could create a program with the same discriminator algorithm that WSJT-X uses, and give it a very contest-ready UI. The pace of FT8 contesting is much slower than that of CW or RTTY. It's very leisurely, and optimizing the UI for contesting isn't necessary. WSJT-X does have a number of user conveniences, like automatic logging, so clearly some thought has been put into making it a practical program, as opposed to just a test program for a lab. > > I really don't think you understand what you keep proposing here, > I assure you, I do. I have the academic and teaching credentials that show I do. But that's not the issue here. I suspect you don't understand what I'm proposing, based on your comment above. I'm not proposing a change to RTTY, as you suggested, but an improvement in an algorithm in RTTY receiving programs. Let me restate in clearer terms: It would be nice if someone (not necessarily the WSJT-X developers - there are other programmers in the world, so it wouldn't take time away from the WSJT development) wrote a RTTY program that played well with WSJT-X, SliceMaster, and JTAlert, and used the best frequency discrimination algorithm currently available. That would facilitate switching modes, provide very useful "needed" and "B4" alerts, and improve noise performance over current RTTY programs. Since FT8 and RTTY are often used in the same contests, switching back and forth easily would be useful feature. I'm NOT proposing any changes to RTTY. but it doesn't really matter because there is no way Joe Taylor is going to > mess with it since I'm sure he does. > Joe Taylor is a very good scientist and programmer, but he's not the only programmer in the world. Other people might be interested in this. There is rumored to be a new version of CW Skimmer in the works, one that will integrate well with Flex Radio's SSDR. It will be callable by SliceMaster, the same program that calls WSJT-X on many hams' set-ups. So other people can still provide the ham community with useful software. Clean integration of programs is becoming a more significant goal as more and more functions are computerized. I don't see why this shouldn't be the case with RTTY. > > Dave AB7E > > 73, Frank KF6E
_______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
