Russ,
I worked 62 DXCC (no EME) on 2m but stopped when we got 6m in SM. Since then I have worked 254 DXCC on 6m and I can tell you that 2m propagation and 6m propagation differ a lot. My main concern is 6m today. On 6m quite often several propagation modes interact (and you don’t always know which they are). During a TEP QSO to South Africa the signals can vary a bit, but then (quite often) a meteor burst will raise the strength 10 dB or more during one period, resulting in a “worthless” report. For contest, I don’t see any positive in changing the report during a QSO. Maybe the EU VHF contest mode could have a “locked report”? 73 Bo www.sm7fje.se <http://www.sm7fje.se> Från: k2txb--- via wsjt-devel <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> Skickat: den 11 mars 2024 21:37 Till: 'WSJT software development' <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> Kopia: k2...@comcast.net Ämne: Re: [wsjt-devel] MSK144 & FT8 I have to disagree. I do not like that the report does not change, during the QSO, when the received strength changes. For example, I call CQ on 144 FT8. I am beaming West. A station from the Northeast calls me. I receive his call at -20 dB. I immediately start rotating my antenna to point to him. I do not receive his first or second report because his signal is too weak (probably in a deeper null of my antenna pattern). But when I finally copy his report, my response is still -20! That is so incorrect! He should be able to know that I am receiving him better than that. Conversely, I would like to see his report indicate something closer than the way he received me in my initial response. And I would like my log to reflect the ending report, not the initial one. WSJT gives us a wonderful way to receive meaningful signal strength reports that really give us a way to compare how well we receive, compared to others. Why should we throw that away? 73, Russ K2TXB From: John Kludt via wsjt-devel <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 3:00 PM To: WSJT software development <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> > Cc: John Kludt <johnnykl...@gmail.com <mailto:johnnykl...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] MSK144 & FT8 Bo, I assume you mean vhf and up contests. On HF CW or Phone, the contest standard is always 599 or 59. Which means it is a meaningless part of the exchange. Why should FT8/MSK144 be held to a higher standard? At least they are trying to use some kind of a standard definition for signal strength. John K7SYS On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 11:11 AM Bo Nilsson via wsjt-devel <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> > wrote: Gents, As you know both FT8 and MSK144 are very popular modes on 6m, BUT for some reason the report sent can change many times during a QSO. The result is that both operators can log different reports and still have a valid QSO. This sounds crazy to me. Obviously I’m not the only one concerned. In several contests these two modes are banned for that reason. (A pity!) I’ve heard that one reason for changing the report during a QSO is to inform the station you are calling of the current status of received signal strength. I don’t see what help we get from this info. There are things like QSB, MS bursts, QRM and other things that can change the report 10 steps or more for one period. With 3 different programs on the market the report does not say very much at all, as you don’t know which SW is used by the station you work. Some SW is more generous than others. I propose that FT8 and MSK144 follow the standard pattern and that reports stay unchanged during a QSO. 73 Bo SM7FJE _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto: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
