Hi Dave,
The simple answer is that when designing our 77-bit message payload we
chose to implement support for a few contests particularly relevant to
the WSJT-X modes.
WSJT and its sister programs were motivated for VHF/UHF weak-signal work
and have had a strong VHF+ influence from the beginning. Hence the
support for NA and EU VHF contests.
We supported an exchange for the ARRL RTTY Roundup because it's a big
event and that has always encouraged QSOs using any digital mode.
The WW-Digi contest is an even bigger event, and its rules were designed
to use the same exchange format as the NA VHF contest.
ARRL Field Day is not a contest, but involves many thousands of NA hams
every year. We were encouraged to include its straightforward exchange
as a possibility, and that has turned out to be a good idea.
As it turns out, supporting EU VHF contests has not been very fruitful.
I believe it's not much used.
I've been a ham for 67 years. To be honest, I had never heard of Winter
Field Day until a year or so ago. As far as I am aware, it attracts no
more than a few hundred entrants. (I could easily be wrong.) Many
State QSO parties attract that many entries, or perhaps more. The
tightly structured source encoding in the WSJT-X modes can't possibly
accommodate all of the special exchanges for such events.
Finally, the WFD rules make it clear that the sponsors have little
interest in modes than can't be helpful for EmComm purposes.
-- 73, Joe, K1JT
On 2/19/2021 10:09 AM, Dave Slotter, W3DJS wrote:
Bill:
I decided to review the mailing list for prior discussions of Winter
Field Day (WFD) before writing this message.
I was wondering why WFD was not supported by WSJT-X and it appears from
a message you apparently wrote on November 20, 2018 that:
the field day class is packed into 3 bits so only eight different
classes are supported. We cannot support three new class letters on
top of the existing six. It could be possible by agreement to use,
say 'a', 'B', and 'C' to represent 'I', 'O', and 'H' since Winter FD
does not use any of the normal FD classes.
Going to the Winter Field Day Rules, page 7, it says:
FT8/FT4 Notes: WFD has always had an Ecomm emphasis, even back when
SPAR sponsored it.. We waited for FT8 2.0, and FT4 hoping they would
be more flexible, but were disappointed that the new release would
NOT do the WFD Exchange as it currently stands. That alone rules out
using FT8/FT4 for WFD. Also, its ability to carry any emergency
message is near nil... try sending "SOS - HMS TITANIC - HIT ICE -
SINKING - 82.566N 34.713W". Almost any other mode can send that (or
the WFD Exchange). Getting a message through bad conditions is
great.. but getting only a grid square and a signal report is hardly
a message of value to Ecomms. /*When FT8 can do the WFD exchange
verbatim, it'll become part of WFD. That has been the consensus of
the WFDA board for some time... We are not anti-FT8. The ARRL did
not change any rules in its contests to allow FT8... FT8 developers
changed what it could send to fit a few ARRL contest exchanges. */
(my emphasis added)
So, have you and Joe given any further consideration to providing for
Winter Field Day Exchanges in WSJT-X? It seems to me, that since WSJT-X
already supports the following contests, then what is the harm /
difficulty of adding one more?
* ARRL Field Day
* RTTY Roundup
* NA VHF Contest
* EU VHF Contest
* WW Digi Contest
I mean, FT4 was added as a new mode specifically to support contesting.
Winter Field Day is certainly treated as a contest by many hams.
Based upon your message from November, 2018, there are only three bits
available. So is there any possibility of using a fourth bit, or are no
more bits available? Based on what you said later in the same message
thread, this doesn't seem like a possibility? Or as you mentioned
before, is it possible to repurpose the existing bits for WFD? Michael
Black, W9MDB, mentioned this very same solution on 11/20/2018
On the flip side, it seems to me that designing the 77? bit protocol
with the above contests, but no WFD seems to me to be a failure of
design (or a failure of imagination), rather than implementation. Or was
it intentional to leave out WFD? I'm really not trying to "poke the
bear" here, but at the very least, I'd like to urge support be added for
WFD, whether it is repurposing the existing bits or (gasp), creating a
78-bit message exchange which of course would not be backward-compatible.
Please advise and 73,
--
Dave Slotter, W3DJS <https://www.qrz.com/db/W3DJS>
_______________________________________________
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
