Hi Dave,
the EU VHF Contest Mode is already used in several contests, not
specifically data mode ones. Several EU VHF contests are not mode
specific and allow entrants to boost their scores in quiet periods using
terrestrial digital modes over any path not assisted by third-party
repesters or satellites. That contest mode is applicable to any contest
that uses 6-character grid locators and serial numbers, in that respect
it is far more flexible than the NA Field Day exchanges. EU VHF Contest
Mode is also used on a frequent basis in activity contests (monthly), it
is not a once a Year deal.
The RTTY RU format is also pretty generic, applicable to any contest
using 4-character grid squares, and there is at least one other
International contest using that format of exchanges, i.e. WW DIgi.
I suspect that over a whole Year the Winter FD participation is gong to
look tiny compared with the supported contest modes.
73
Bill
G4WJS.
On 19/02/2021 17:21, Dave Slotter, W3DJS wrote:
Joe:
I took your message as a challenge to look up where the activity is
definitively. From the notes below which I just compiled, it seems
that there is a "low" of *151* logs received by the 2020 FT8 VHF-UHF
EU contest up to a high of *2,349* logs received by the ARRL 2021 RTTY
Roundup. By comparison, the Winter Field Day falls in the middle with
*1,562* participant logs received. Next, WW-Digi, which you said, "The
WW-Digi contest is an even bigger event", was only marginally larger
with 1,690 logs received. And ARRL 2020 Field Day is in a class by
itself with an order of magnitude more entries -- and which messes up
the curve...
image.png
ARRL 2021 January VHF Contest: *1,196* logs received (source:
https://contests.arrl.org/logsreceived.php
<https://contests.arrl.org/logsreceived.php>and selected "2021
ARRL January VHF Contest in menu")
ARRL 2020 June VHF Contest: *Indeterminate* -- no menu item is
available to select
ARRL 2021 RTTY Roundup: *2,349* logs received (source
https://contests.arrl.org/logsreceived.php?cn=rttyru
<https://contests.arrl.org/logsreceived.php?cn=rttyru>)
2020 FT8 VHF-UHF EU Contest: *151* logs received (source:
https://ft8activity.eu/index.php/en/received-log-s/144-mhz-rcvd-logs
<https://ft8activity.eu/index.php/en/received-log-s/144-mhz-rcvd-logs>)
If this is the wrong source, then my apologies. Please direct me
to the correct source.
Winter Field Day: *1,562* logs received (source
https://winterfieldday.com/wfd-2020
<https://winterfieldday.com/wfd-2020> -- select Home, Outdoors and
Indoors to tally the contents of Column "Category" )
2020 WW-Digi: *1,690* logs received (source:
https://ww-digi.com/results/2020-ww-digi_results-article.pdf
<https://ww-digi.com/results/2020-ww-digi_results-article.pdf>)
ARRL 2020 Field Day: almost *19,000* participants reported (source
/QST/ Dec. 2020)
Winter Field Day is all-inclusive of every state, so it is not
comparable to the argument you made about it would not be manageable
to support 50 state QSO parties. WFD and QSO parties are apples and
oranges and are not easily comparable.
Now that I have demonstrated through research that the level of
involvement of Winter Field Day is comparable to the other contests
that WSJT-X already supports, would you please reconsider supporting
WFD with a future release of WSJT-X?
Thank you for your consideration.
--
Dave Slotter, W3DJS <https://www.qrz.com/db/W3DJS>
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 11:17 AM Joe Taylor <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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
<https://www.qrz.com/db/W3DJS>>
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
