I basically agree that the role of the human brain should be the "bright
line" in contesting on phone and CW. But RTTY already crosses that
bright line so far as decoding is concerned, and nobody (so far) seems
to be suggesting that RTTY Contests aren't contests. If skill played no
part, then the standings would be a lot more crowded at the top.
In this respect, I disagree with Ed on assisted CW and SSB contesting.
Using the RBN or conventional spots is *not* "no different from FT8/4."
A different set of skills, but the operator is still essentially in the
mix, as you'll find out if you try to do really fast assisted S&P. This
is not to say that I minimize the downsides of the FT modes - I've tried
FT-8 several times, and each time wound up thinking "an excellent
technical development, but not what I want to do on the air." Any mode
where you can leave your desk, return a few minutes later, and discover
that your computer worked someone while you were gone, truly is across
the line for me.
73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network
at <http://reversebeacon.net>, now
spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
For spots, please use your favorite
"retail" DX cluster.
On 4/30/2019 9:02 AM, Edward Sawyer wrote:
Hello Rudy. To be clear, I am not resisting innovation. It just has no place being
mixed in with other modes and call it "the same but different". If FT8/4 users
want to robo war each other - go for it. No issue.
The answer to your fundamental question is that the operator decodes CW and SSB
before entering in the log by ear and brain. If that is eliminated, then I
agree with you. If someone is pulling RBN spots, clicking them, and never
being part of it, its no different than FT8/4. This would explain why so many
dupes are appearing and people not understanding the Serial number exchange on
WPX CW. Sounds like serial numbers should be added to every contest to
eliminate such things.
73
Ed N1UR
-----Original Message-----
From: Rudy Bakalov [mailto:r_bakalov@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 8:57 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com; Edward Sawyer
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] FT4 - Robotic Contesting
Ed,
I understand your reaction to FT4. Only time will tell how it will be adopted
in contesting. Before sounding the alarm, we should consider the following:
1) FT4/FT8 and other modern digital modes have extensive error correction algorithms
built-in. Nothing show up on your screen if the message has not been correctly received.
That is, CW and RTTY, there is absolutely no human involvement in deciding, not even human
“error correction”.
2) Specific to FT4, the operating behavior you described is essentially the
same as the stack in N1MM. You can let N1MM populate the stack and the only
thing a human does is pressing ENTER. If you chose so, you can populate the
stack by clicking on calls and have N1MM prioritize the stack just like FT4
does.
I would argue that the truly profound change is the complete elimination of the
human from any decoding activities. Everything else is noise...but this is only
my personal opinion.
At the higher level, I don’t understand those who resist innovation and yet
have no problem accepting computer logging, keyer or computer generated CW, etc. I
challenge any top contester to forgo computer automation and win over the average
competitor.
Rudy N2WQ
Sent using a tiny keyboard. Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate
autocorrect.
On Apr 30, 2019, at 6:59 AM, Edward Sawyer <EdwardS@sbelectronics.com> wrote:
I am not sure how many people are aware of a new FT mode that was just
released. The mode called FT-4 has a few new features.
The first is that its quicker by trading S/N capture algorithm for speed of
contacts. I read somewhere there is a 10db price to pay on the weak signal
capability.
The second is it allows for more flexibility of contest exchanges.
The third is disturbing. It allows for an automated feature that decides the
best contact available of the decoded possibilities (like a new mult) and just
goes for it automatically. The operator doesn't click on the call, the
operator clicks on the desire to find the best call.
Because of the simplistic possibility of having a screen macro just keep clicking on "find the
best call", a feeble attempt to thwart full robotic capability is made to swap the button on
the screen with the cancel button. Although this is NOT done after every QSO but only after
"a few QSOs" whatever that means. So even with this attempt, the acceptance of a few
automated and optimized QSOs has been declared acceptable. Just not 100% fully robotic. Although
whether this attempt to move buttons actually prevents a macro from engaging the button is not
assured to me. People more knowledgably on such things can comment.
I hope that the Contest community is watching this slippery slope slide. Fire
up FT4, decode the signals in the pass band, Automatically find a few and work
them without the operator even knowing which ones are being worked. Seriously,
what is the point? If a robot war contest is desired, I am all for it and
think it's a cool concept. But we don't put 6 year olds in the ring to fight
with robots in robowars and we shouldn't be mixing the two in contesting either.
Contesters ignore this disturbing trend and acceptance by sponsors at their
peril in my opinion.
73
Ed N1UR
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|