I agree George. I work a lot of 6m up and Cm is favored by rovers who need to
get contacts confirmed fast. FT4 would be nice as far as it's speed but just
doesn't have the sensitivity of FT8.Rory, K5CKS Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S20
FE 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: George J Molnar via wsjt-devel
<wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> Date: 8/2/21 7:02 AM (GMT-06:00) To:
al...@alangroups.plus.com, WSJT software development
<wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> Cc: George J Molnar <geo...@molnar.tv>
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Good old-fashioned Grids-Only mode My suggestion is
not to banish reports. The software can (and should) determine SNR, display it
and report it up the spotter path. No harm at all. The valuable data on
PSKReporter, HamSpots, etc., would remain intact. The SNR would just not be
part of the default over-the-air VHF+ exchange.The suggestion is to enable
“grids only” QSOs at VHF and above, with the focus on helping rovers,
capitalizing on short openings, and meteor scatter. On 2m in North America, at
least, CM is the de facto standard for 2m and above ms already. Having the
software support it as default without a Cabrillo log and “CQ TEST” would help.
The latter especially if directed CQs or QSX modes (e.g. CQ 160) are desired.By
streamlining the default VHF+ contact sequence, we would also gain improved
compatibility between contest mode users and those not using CM (either by
setting or different software). Sequence confusion should be kept to a minimum.
George J MolnarCollege Park, MarylandKF2T | FM19ma
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
