Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+WPX\s+suggestion\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+WPX\s+suggestion\s*$/: 40 ]

Total 40 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] WPX suggestion (score: 1): Author: Mark <n2qt@verizon.net>; Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 17:31:45 -0500; For those of us who click on reports please use the three digit form. It's much easier to click 001 than 1. Of course also be sure you include a space at the end of your call so you print as N2QT and; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-02/msg00054.html (7,009 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] WPX suggestion (score: 1): Author: Claude Du Berger <duberger.miousse81@globetrotter.net>; Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 17:43:10 -0500; YES YES YES PSE Claude VE2FK For those of us who click on reports please use the three digit form. It's much easier to click 001 than 1. Of course also be sure you include a space at the end of your; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-02/msg00055.html (7,440 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] WPX suggestion (score: 1): Author: "Ron Kolarik" <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>; Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:23:24 -0600; But won't the extra digits and space slow me down? :) Seriously, the full 3 digits and space will keep things flowing and the space after the call will help the skimmers find you if you want to be sp; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-02/msg00056.html (8,546 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] WPX suggestion (score: 1): Author: "Don Hill AA5AU" <aa5au@bellsouth.net>; Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:46:07 -0600; It will only slow you down for the first 99 contacts! After having played with N1MM, I can see how it would be harder to click on a single digit with text scrolling. With WriteLog, the text does not; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-02/msg00057.html (9,213 bytes)
5. Re: [RTTY] WPX suggestion (score: 1): Author: "Gary AL9A" <al9a@mtaonline.net>; Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 14:50:43 -0900; I seem to remember reading a post on the N1MM reflector that their software team tried to emulate the WL screen that doesn't scroll, but couldn't get it to work. I believe the problem was the program; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-02/msg00058.html (10,488 bytes)
6. Re: [RTTY] WPX suggestion (score: 1): Author: "Jim McDonald" <jim@n7us.net>; Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:52:29 -0600; I would like to see the Writelog-style RTTY window in N1MM too. It would be a significant improvement. 73, Jim N7US --Original Message-- It will only slow you down for the first 99 contacts! After ha; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-02/msg00059.html (7,835 bytes)
7. Re: [RTTY] WPX suggestion (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:55:46 -0800; REPLY: Yes they do slow you down and you might be surprised how much. Every character takes 167 mS to send. If you send K1AM 599 001 001 W6WRT instead of K1AM 599 1 1 W6WRT You are sending four extra; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-02/msg00060.html (7,634 bytes)
8. Re: [RTTY] WPX suggestion (score: 1): Author: "Jeff Blaine" <keepwalking188@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:58:28 -0600; Bill, There is only a double penalty on the first 9 qso. And a single character penalty on the balance 91. So the total time loss is a fraction of the 11 minutes. Right? 73/jeff/ac0c www.ac0c.com alp; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-02/msg00061.html (10,310 bytes)
9. Re: [RTTY] WPX suggestion (score: 1): Author: N6OJ <n6oj@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:01:50 -0800; And how much time giving repeats because of no leading zeros ??? Chuck N6OJ REPLY: Yes they do slow you down and you might be surprised how much. Every character takes 167 mS to send. If you send K1A; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-02/msg00062.html (9,731 bytes)
10. Re: [RTTY] WPX suggestion (score: 1): Author: "Ed Muns" <ed@w0yk.com>; Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 20:03:45 -0400; That's what I understand as well. There aren't the API's available in Visual Basic to do the window manipulations required. Ed P49X I seem to remember reading a post on the N1MM reflector that their; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-02/msg00063.html (12,182 bytes)
11. Re: [RTTY] WPX suggestion (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:05:38 -0800; REPLY: OOPS... I forgot that as your number goes up, the number of leading zeroes go down. So it wouldn't be 4000 extra zeroes, only a few till you get to 100 and then no more. No wonder I never win; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-02/msg00064.html (9,132 bytes)
12. Re: [RTTY] WPX suggestion (score: 1): Author: Ktfrog007@aol.com; Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 19:09:30 -0500 (EST); Why don't we get rid of the ludicrous 599 and really save a lot of time? In the recent BARTG Sprint I never missed it a bit. Neither did my decoders. 73, Kermit, AB1J In a message dated 2/7/2013 11:5; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-02/msg00065.html (7,977 bytes)
13. Re: [RTTY] WPX suggestion (score: 1): Author: Hank Garretson <w6sx@arrl.net>; Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 16:08:51 -0800; Assuming you send your NR twice, 36 extra seconds for your first ninety-nine contacts. Ski Exuberantly, Hank, W6SX Mammoth Lakes, California Elevation 8083 feet in John Muir's Range of Light ________; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-02/msg00066.html (8,742 bytes)
14. Re: [RTTY] WPX suggestion (score: 1): Author: Alejandro XE1EE <xe1ee@telmexmail.com>; Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 18:20:12 -0600; Agree on eliminate the 599, is not needed; including on real signals of 333 everyone sends 599 because is part of the macro we send. However if this is stated on the rules (RST plus serial number) we; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-02/msg00067.html (9,877 bytes)
15. Re: [RTTY] WPX suggestion (score: 1): Author: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>; Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:24:51 -0800; While we are trying to shave milliseconds per exchange... If you use USOS, just send TOO. People will know what you mean :-). Saves sending the extra FIGS character. 73 Chen, W7AY ___________________; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-02/msg00068.html (8,367 bytes)
16. Re: [RTTY] WPX suggestion (score: 1): Author: John Merrill <johnn1jm@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 17:29:58 -0700; I noticed in the XE contest, and from time to time others, there was a US station that was not sending 599. I tried to get him to send it but he wouldn't. Did not put him in my log. 73, John N1JM ___; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-02/msg00069.html (10,450 bytes)
17. Re: [RTTY] WPX suggestion (score: 1): Author: Alejandro XE1EE <xe1ee@telmexmail.com>; Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 18:34:24 -0600; Yes, We noted that too and as the rules stated they must send 599 + serial number.. Those hams will have important deduction on their final scores. If we, as FMRE RTTY Contest commitee decide to elim; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-02/msg00070.html (11,175 bytes)
18. Re: [RTTY] WPX suggestion (score: 1): Author: "Rick Ellison" <yahoogroups@cnyfindit.com>; Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 19:37:44 -0500; I am having a hard time seeing where there is a problem clicking on items in the RX window of N1MM. Since I have written the RX windows (2000) and have been in many RTTY contests I have not needed to; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-02/msg00072.html (11,640 bytes)
19. Re: [RTTY] WPX suggestion (score: 1): Author: "Ed Muns" <ed@w0yk.com>; Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 21:22:17 -0400; I agree that scrolling back is not a high need. For me the bigger issue is when the line scrolls up just as you click on something, causing you to miss. If you have enough screen space to make each r; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-02/msg00074.html (9,711 bytes)
20. Re: [RTTY] WPX suggestion (score: 1): Author: David VE3VID <ve3vid@hotmail.com>; Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 21:32:11 -0500; I had my macros set wrong in a contest last year and the obligatory 599 was not sent. ...no one asked for it :-D VE3VID Located in rural Canada Solar power. Wood heat. Mosley tribander @ 10m Lots of; /archives//html/RTTY/2013-02/msg00076.html (9,336 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]