I was testing my set up with a few locals for the Up-Coming WWDIGI Contest, and we discovered something, that is NOT a HUGE issue, but looking for a workaround. here is what happened. N9UDO calling C
From a pure contesting perspective, receiving a 73 is not a requirement for making a contact. The 73 is a curtesy. W9ET has done his part and is correct in moving on. Why should he have to slow down
On the subject of "it can't be a valid contact without a 73, can it?", there was a QST "The World Above 50 MHz" column on the FT8 contest operations, that led off with the re-assurance that there is
Both W9ET and N9UDO contributed to this "less than ideal" QSO sequence. W9ET didn't follow the default message sequence which required N9UDO to take abnormal action. N9UDO failed to take that abnorma
W9ET's 73 message was a QSL that he received N9UDO's report. It would have been clearer had the default message of "RR73" been sent, but nonetheless, W9ET's message was more than a "courtesy" because
Yes, "73" is not explicitly required. However, that's only part of the issue here. Long-time QSO convention is that both sides QSL (confirm) the contact, specifically that they received the required
[Please explain the questions below.] On 7/30/2019 12:12 PM, Ed Muns wrote: Both W9ET and N9UDO contributed to this "less than ideal" QSO sequence. W9ET didn't follow the default message sequence [Wh
WSJT-X pre-loads the following default messages for the NA VHF Contest mode, which is the recommended WSJT-X mode for the 2019 WW Digi contest: Tx 1: W9ET N9UDO EN53 Tx 2: W9ET N9UDO EN53 Tx 3: W9ET
yeah ignore the "round," just what was default. sorry, Joe WB9SBD Sig The Original Rolling Ball Clock Idle Tyme Idle-Tyme.com http://www.idle-tyme.com On 7/30/2019 2:51 PM, Ed Muns wrote: WSJT-X pre-
I always say I'm not going to get involved in these arguments and then I do anyway, so here goes: CW contest: 1. Me: CQ TEST NC6K 2. Them: W1AW 3. Me: W1AW 5NN SDG (for example) 4. Them: TU 5NN CT 5.
Today, "RR73" is usually the end of a FT8/FT4 QSO. IT's faster and you don't need a separate 73. I also doubt anybody is going to be activating grid RR73 73 Ria, N2RJ ________________________________
To repeat a third time, sending '73' is not being advocated. Rather confirmation of receipt of the exchange is being recommended. Confirmation can be done any number of ways, including 'TU', 'R', '73
In the CW exchange, TU is superfluous in 4. In 5, QRZ is superfluous in most contest applications. It's only good use in contesting is to ask someone whose call you didn't copy to call again. 73, Jim
Good point, Ria. I should have used that in my FT8 example for Line 4. Same end result, but more appropriate given the way WSJT-X is set up. --Original Message-- From: rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmai
It seems to me that a lot of this discussion is missing a key point. The problem is not what to do when you have 100% copy; the default protocol takes care of that. It's what to do when copy is poor/
Author: ktfrog007--- via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 13:49:31 +0000 (UTC)
GM, Are there any practice/mock contests scheduled in preparation for the WWDigi contest? If not, it seems scheduling one sooner rather than later will help sort out some of the issues involved. A pr
I have been trying to promote that we do a 30 minute test after each Phone Fray on Tuesdays. but have seen no replies about it. Joe WB9SBD Sig The Original Rolling Ball Clock Idle Tyme Idle-Tyme.com
Here's some data from to illustrate and expand on the "key point": 2018 WW RTTY 2018 FT8 Roundup Dupes: 0.7% 3.0% Busted Exchange: 0.7 1.0 Busted Call: 1.0 0.0 NIL: 1.8 5.1 Total Error Rate: 3.5 6.1
To clarify, the TU in 4. is only superfluous because the confirmation (of receipt of report) is implied by the fact that W1AW probably wouldn't be sending his report if he hadn't received NC6K's repo
Good to hear the interest in practicing for WW Digi. It's been the plan since the press release in late June. Meanwhile, the various software developers have been adding their support for the contest