I could be wrong, but I thought Joe’s analysis showed that the Winter FD exchange would not fit into the 77 bit package that FT8/4 used. Perhaps if WFD changed its exchange to fit the already available rules, it would work well.
73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ From: Dave Slotter, W3DJS Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 12:21 To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Winter Field Day Revisited 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... ARRL 2021 January VHF Contest: 1,196 logs received (source: 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) 2020 FT8 VHF-UHF EU Contest: 151 logs received (source: 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 -- 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) 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 On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 11:17 AM Joe Taylor <[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> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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
