[now includes information about SD and WL]
CT, NA, Super-Duper (SD), TR and WriteLog (WL) have all been updated to
work properly with the new WPX scoring rules where in-country QSOs count 1
point regardless of band.
The earliest versions which support the scoring change are:
CT 9.39 http://www.contesting.com/ctvault/
NA 10.36 http://www.contesting.com/datom/
SD 9.29 http://www.ei5di.com/
TR 6.34 http://www.qth.com/tr/
WL 9.22+ http://www.contesting.com/writelog/Downloads/
WriteLog does not have a full release, just one file to patch 9.22.
These versions are generally several weeks old, so it's not like this
should be news to anyone who follows the various contest software
reflectors. But I've received several inquiries about CT and someone
recently asked about NA, so apparently people don't know where to find the
information.
73 - Jim AD1C
--
Jim Reisert AD1C <jjreisert@alum.mit.edu>
Home Page: http://jjr.ne.mediaone.net/
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
>From Dick Green" <dick.green@valley.net Wed Mar 24 16:29:22 1999
From: Dick Green" <dick.green@valley.net (Dick Green)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] SS Log check
Message-ID: <014501be7613$7b5e8200$c8a073c6@tpk.net>
Sorry to weigh in late on this subject. I didn't know the log checking
results were available until I took a look at the archives. That finally
convinced me to subscribe (to the digest -- too many reflectors, too little
time...)
My two-cents? Excellent! Not my results, but being able to see where I made
mistakes copying.
Note that I did not check over my log prior to submission. Now I know that's
a mistake!
I had a 3.8% error rate, which is pretty lame. But I was pleased to see that
I only had four busted calls out of 1016 QSOs. Three of those were typical
CW miscopies for me, D->B and A->U, and one probably resulted from not
paying close enough attention (NQ2M was really KQ2M). Three of the busted
calls could have been corrected by paying closer attention to Super Check
Partial. Not one busted call from H, S, 5, I, etc. Hard to believe, since
that's my weakest area.
I had about 34 incorrect exchanges, half of which were due to copying the
check incorrectly. A few of these were due to my old 7->8 and 8->7 weakness,
but most were with numbers that I normally don't have trouble copying. I'd
say static crashes and/or weak signals were the probable cause. I haven't
checked the log yet, but I'll bet most were low band contacts. This tells me
I really need to make absolutely sure I have the check correct before I log
it. I know I have a tendancy to try to move on, even when there's some
doubt, and that's what I have to work on. It was nice to know that most of
the errors at the other end were bad copies on my check number.
I also had four bad exchanges due to miscopying the precedent. Assuming they
were sent correctly (not guaranteed!), that's probably due to zoning out
during that part of the exchange and being to lazy or impatient to ask for a
fill ("Well, he was so loud he must be running high power...")
I copied 11 sections incorrectly. This is the one area I really could have
fixed with a post-contest log check. Just about all of the errors were quite
obvious miscopies that I could have detected by checking the callbook. There
were a few bizarre ones that I can't explain, like NC->TN and OR->AK.
I'm using NA now, but I wasn't using it for this SS. It's Log Note feature
could be a big help in SS, and I'm trying to force myself to log a note
whenever I have any doubts about a QSO.
I think Tree & Co. have done a terrific job on this and I'm glad they did.
If we don't insist on good copy, the game gets too easy. I'm very grateful
for any feedback I can get that will improve my contest skills. End of 2
cents.
73, Dick, WC1M
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|