Hello all, Just a quick post I submitted my log to the ARRL for the January VHF Sweepstakes and it threw out all the 903 Q's They were listed in Cabrillo as 903 so maybe they changed something. This
Hi again, For those of you who use N3FJP's VHF 2.7 logging program the software classifies the 33cm QSO as a "903" QSO It appears the ARRL upon reading the software created Cabrillo log file will not
Steve Gilmore expunged (shg@staffnet.com): The valid band entries are defined in this document: http://www.kkn.net/~trey/cabrillo/qso-template.html Of course, that needs to be modified as (I think) w
Steve et al. As it did to you, 'the ARRL contest robot gave me fits this time. Not having broke 100 Q's I did a quick check of my log , hit the convert to Cabrillo format in my logging program *(VHF-
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:55:47 -0800
The example Cabrillo file format for ARRL VHF+ contest logs shows "902" as the correct designation for that band. See: http://www.kkn.net/~trey/cabrillo/ http://www.kkn.net/~trey/cabrillo/qso-templat
I had to go back and change all my "903" to "902". The robot accepted that. 73, Zack W9SZ _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting mailing list VHFcontesting@contesting.com http:
If the VHF-DX program doesn't work anymore then I will not send in any more logs. I learned how to use it, is simple and I see no reason why the ARRL needs to change their program so it doesn't work.
David, I had to upgrade the cabrillo compiler to get my score to go past the robot. All is cool now. Thanks for the qso in the test. Ron _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting
David, maybe others... VHF-DX V 4.1.56 was released in 1999. Cabrillo format was amended in 2000 to include VHF bands and subsequently in 2002 and 2004 (altered "name" of 902 MHz band). Look at the h
Thanks Ned, but it just isn't worth the trouble. I have been a faithful VHF contester having only missed one ARRL contest in over a decade. I almost stopped contesting when the Cabrillo requirements
One of the cardinal rules of the computer world is that new implementations should be backwards compatible with older versions. Part of the Cabrillo spec is the "START-OF-LOG: version number" line. T
Hear hear! At the very least it should have barfed on the wrong version number instead of just blundering along and assuming the new version. Lots of smelly code out there :) de w1rt/john ___________
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:14:30 -0800
There is still, to this day, no requirement that you use a computer to log or submit an entry to an ARRL sponsored VHF contest. You can log on paper and submit that log through the mail: http://www.a
I hope you won't leave. Formats of things to change from time to time. My first contest was written down in a file and I didn't realize about Cabrillo so I spent an 'enjoyable' evening writing little
Steve, It appears that ARRL is not thinking clearly. When changing from A to 50, B to 144 etc. there are more characters the used which, IMHO, complicates the program, not simplifies it. Seems like i
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 06:25:14 -0800
The ARRL log submission robot is not the only "customer" of Cabrillo format data. As someone who has written software that reads in Cabrillo logs myself, I can tell you it's madness to have to antici
What version are they on now? I've been using either CTWIN version 10.02 or CT version 9.92 to do my logs. It generates Cabrillo logs with the header "START-OF-LOG: 2.0". The only problem I had with
Sure, it's a cardinal rule, but 5 years in the computer world is almost an eternity. The new band designators have been around since 2000. That means that there have been 5 years of backwards compati
At 09:25 AM 1/30/2006, Kenneth E. Harker responded: Let's see: - I write a widely used logging program which was one of the first to support Cabrillo. - I'm on the ARRL Contest Advisory Committee - I