RR73 works just fine if both stations are hearing each other well. If not, it
can create problems.
I use FT8 almost exclusively on 2 meters. To work stations 400 miles away can
be very difficult, and my setup is pretty good. I may be in FT8 qso with a
station amid meteor pings and deep qsb. In a difficult qso, it may take ten
minutes to complete such a qso, waiting for qsb to peak to get a decode. So,
if a station hears my signal report and responds with RR73 and then moves on,
it is likely thatI did not hear him. In general, stations working on the band
use RRR and not RR73, just for this reason. They wait for the 73 to confirm
completion of the qso.
It's not unusual for a new station to turn up on the band and use RR73. If
they are too weak, I am stuck sending them a signal report until they realize I
never got their RR73 or one of us gives up.
Running weak signal on vhf can be challenging, but the use of RR73 often makes
it more difficult than it needs to be. And this discussion leads me to believe
it can make things more difficult on hf too.
73,Andy, ka2uqw
On Friday, July 15, 2022 at 09:20:51 AM EDT, Larry Banks via wsjt-devel
<wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
If they don't get your RR73, then they will send back their R-#. IF you get
nothing back they got your R73 and are playing by the rules.
Larry / W1DYJ
On 7/15/2022 1:29, Adrian via wsjt-devel wrote:
When you send a RR73 and get nothing back, then wsjtx has logged the call, but
you don't know if your RR73 was received,
or if the other party logged you.
Making the log work only on 73 sent or received instead of RR73, confirms the
sig report both ways and the qso both ways.
if the program worked this way the everyone would send the 73 to get in and be
logged.
Why is using 73 to trigger a log entry sent/received a problem ?
Send RR73 and program logs on received 73.
Receive RR73 and program logs on sent 73.
vk4tux
On 15/7/22 15:12, Reino Talarmo via wsjt-devel wrote:
>Hopefully, in an ideal world, it should be that WSJT-X waits for a second
>RR73 (hypothetical answer confirmation sequence I mean) from the remote
>station, before to definitely close and log the QSO.
Hi Marco,
I am not sure what you mean by the “second RR73”. There seems to be a generic
misunderstanding how the protocol is assumed to work. User Guide sections 7.1.
and 7.4. provide a nice advice. For a minimum QSO, where locator information is
exchanged:
CQ K1ABC FN42 #K1ABC calls CQ
K1ABC G0XYZ IO91 #G0XYZ answers
G0XYZ K1ABC –19 #K1ABC sends report
K1ABC G0XYZ R-22 #G0XYZ sends R+report
G0XYZ K1ABC RR73 #K1ABC sends RR73
K1ABC G0XYZ 73 #G0XYZ sends 73
The last message (73) is optional.
Relevant issue is that in none of the examples a station that receives RR73 is
sending back RR73, but 73 or nothing more for that call.
73, Reino OH3mA
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
