I completely agree that the community needs to agree on a QSO protocol that all
follow, regardless of the software used.
The question of whether to include the final "73" message may be moot because
of the protocol timing. Skipping this step does not shorten the QSO period for
the CQer since it's a listening period for them and they won't/can't transmit
until the next transmission period.
We need to recognize that we either copy the entire message (call and exchange)
or nothing. It's never the case of copying one and not the other. Line 3 in
these examples are necessary for the station responding to the CQ to know that
the CQer copied them. Line 4 isn't necessary, but doesn't affect the CQer's
rate. At the same time that the first responding station is acknowledging the
QSO with a completion "73," a second responder could be initiating the next QSO
with the CQer:
Alternate 1 from point of view of CQer:
Slot 1 (tx): CQ TEST K5ZD FN42
Slot 2 (rx): K5ZD WA7BNM R CM00
Slot 3 (tx): WA7BNM K5ZD RR73
Slot 4 (rx): K5ZD WA7BNM 73 and K5ZD K1ABCD EM00
the CQer can then transition to the next caller with "1st Caller" functionality
Slot 5 (tx): K1ABCD K5ZD R FN42
Slot 6 (rx): K5ZD K1ABCD RR73 (or 73) and K5ZD W7ABCD DM00
and on to the next caller. This would provide the potential of completing
"pileup" QSOs in two cycles with each station acknowledging the other.
Thoughts?
73 de Bruce, WA7BNM (bhorn@hornucopia.com)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Thompson K5ZD" <k5zd@charter.net>
To: "Bruce Horn" <bhorn@hornucopia.com>
Cc: "cq-contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2019 12:25:34 PM
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] When is a FTn Contest QSO Complete?
I think it is important. It lets me know we actually communicated. I.e., I
heard you talk to me more than one transmission.
It just feels strange to have someone call and I assume they heard me respond
to them.
Not to say we can’t get comfortable without that extra ack. The real point
here is for the community to agree on a QSO protocol so we can get the info
exchanged as efficiently as possible. FT* is fun. Watching endless retries is
not.
One thing this weekend confirmed is that the FT modes are not about rate. They
are about perfect copy in some very weak conditions. Was quite surprised what
I could work on 80 and 160 in late summer.
Randy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Horn <bhorn@hornucopia.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2019 2:08 PM
> To: Randy Thompson K5ZD <k5zd@charter.net>
> Cc: cq-contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] When is a FTn Contest QSO Complete?
>
> Thanks Randy for your thoughts on this. I'm rewriting your suggestions to
> indicate what I think you meant:
>
> Primary version:
> > CQ TEST K5ZD FN42
> > K5ZD WA7BNM CM00
> > WA7BNM K5ZD R FN42
> > K5ZD WA7BNM 73
> > CQ TEST K5ZD FN42
>
> Alternate 1:
> > CQ TEST K5ZD FN42
> > K5ZD WA7BNM R CM00
> > WA7BNM K5ZD RR73
> > K5ZD WA7BNM 73
> > CQ TEST K5ZD FN42
>
> My question is whether the "K5ZD WA7BNM 73" is needed for Alternate 1? I
> confirmed your exchange with the R in my first transmission. You
> confirmed mine in your "WA7BMM K5ZD RR73" transmission. If this was a
> CW/SSB exchange you would have only heard my call sign once for most
> contests. Do you need it more than once in an FTn contest?
>
> 73 de Bruce, WA7BNM (bhorn@hornucopia.com)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Randy Thompson K5ZD" <k5zd@charter.net>
> To: "Bruce Horn" <bhorn@hornucopia.com>, "cq-contest" <cq-
> contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2019 10:42:46 AM
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] When is a FTn Contest QSO Complete?
>
> I ran into similar issues many times this weekend. With the FT modes
> being so automated, it is really important that everyone understands and
> uses the same message sequences. Different programs seemed to have
> different expectations for the "next" message causing a lot of repeats
> and abandoned QSOs.
>
> The grid gets sent with the CQ. The WW Digi rules required an exchange
> of grids.
>
> I would like to see something like this:
>
> > CQ TEST K5ZD FN42
> < K5ZD WA7BNM CM00
> > K5ZD WA7BNM R FN42 <<I have your grid, here is mine again to meet
> > rules
> and expectations
> < K5ZD WA7BNM 73 <confirming completion
> > CQ TEST K5ZD FN42
>
> Alternate 1
>
> > CQ TEST K5ZD FN42
> < K5ZD WA7BNM R CM00 <<The R signals I have your grid from the CQ
> > K5ZD WA7BNM RR 73 <<I got your grid and we are good
> < K5ZD WA7BNM 73 <confirming completion
> > CQ TEST K5ZD FN42
>
> This at least forces some handshake between the two parties.
>
> That final 73 is important. Without it, I am logging a QSO where the
> only time I heard the guy was when he called me. I logged a bunch of
> these this weekend only to have the guy call me again a few minutes
> later.
>
> I am not FT expert. Just someone having fun trying to figure out the
> game as it was played this weekend.
>
> Randy K5ZD
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com> On Behalf Of
> > Bruce Horn
> > Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2019 9:56 PM
> > To: Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com>
> > Cc: cq-contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] When is a FTn Contest QSO Complete?
> >
> > Hi Ria,
> >
> > Thanks for your reply. It represents the practice implemented by
> > WSJT-X when the standard messages and sequence are used. However, here
> > are several common examples I experienced today during the contest:
> >
> > Example 1: - very common
> > CQ TEST WA7BNM DM04
> > WA7BNM K1ABCD EM01
> > K1ABCD WA7BNM R DM04
> > K1ABCD WA7BNM R DM04
> > K1ABCD WA7BNM R DM04
> > (and so on until I terminate the QSO because no RR73, etc was
> > received, or maybe K1ABCD finally sends RR73.)
> >
> > Example 2: - frequent
> > CQ TEST WA7BNM DM04
> > WA7BNM K2ABCD EM01
> > K2ABCD WA7BNM R DM04
> > WA7BNM K2ABCD EM01
> > K2ABCD WA7BNM R DM04
> > (and so on)
> >
> > Example 3: - probably why you need a confirmation CQ TEST WA7BNM DM04
> > WA7BNM K3ABCD EM03 K3ABC WA7BNM R DM04 DX1ABC K3ABC RR73 CQ TEST K3ABC
> > EM03 (huh? what happened?)
> >
> > In Example 1, I believe the respondent (K1ABCD) believes that all they
> > need is my acknowledgement of their exchange ("R" and then my grid).
> > This is equivalent to the typical contest exchange like CQWW. So they
> > think the QSO is complete. The fact that WSJT-X provides the exchange
> > (grid) in the CQ message starts the QSO "dance" differently than the
> > typical CW/SSB
> > contest:
> > WA7BNM sends: CQ TEST WA7BNM
> > K1ABCD sends: K1ABCD
> > WA7BNM sends: K1ABCD 599 03
> > K1ABCD sends: 599 05
> > WA7BNM sends: TU CQ TEST WA7BNM
> >
> > It would be beneficial if WSJT-X more closely followed the typical
> > contest practice, or it needs to be widely publicized whether WA7BNM
> > should have treated the QSO as complete after K1ABCD's first
> > transmission in Example 1.
> >
> > 73 de Bruce, WA7BNM (bhorn@hornucopia.com)
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ria Jairam" <rjairam@gmail.com>
> > To: "Edward Sawyer" <EdwardS@sbelectronics.com>
> > Cc: "Bruce Horn" <bhorn@hornucopia.com>, "cq-contest" <cq-
> > contest@contesting.com>
> > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 9:45:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] When is a FTn Contest QSO Complete?
> >
> > The accepted norm is already there.
> >
> > It's when each side gets one of an "R, RRR or RR73."
> >
> > The software can be configured to pop up the logging window when this
> > condition is met and is the most common mode of operation.
> >
> > Contest mode even logs automatically.
> >
> > Yes there are some hams who insist on a 73 but there are also hams who
> > will try to ask your name or the weather during a SSB contest. Log it
> > and move on.
> >
> > 73
> > Ria, N2RJ
> >
> > On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 at 00:41, Edward Sawyer
> > <EdwardS@sbelectronics.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Like existing contests not using FT4/8 - over time an accepted norm
> > will end up occurring. At the end of the day, if you have it in your
> > log and they have it in their log, with the right information, it's a
> > good Q, right? Many of us have logged a Q that we were 95% sure was
> > good and 95% of the time - it's a verified Q on the other end. Will
> > the software actually allow such judgment calls? Not sure.
> > >
> > > The way Bruce describes it, sure sounds like a lot of QRM causing
> > inefficiency happening.
> > >
> > > 73
> > >
> > > Ed N1UR
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On
> > > Behalf Of rjairam@gmail.com
> > > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 10:07 PM
> > > To: Bruce Horn
> > > Cc: cq-contest
> > > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] When is a FTn Contest QSO Complete?
> > >
> > > QSO is over when each side acknowledges receipt.
> > >
> > > This can be RR73, RRR or 73.
> > >
> > > Not before.
> > >
> > > Ria
> > > N2RJ
> > >
> > > On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 at 21:50, Bruce Horn <bhorn@hornucopia.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > OK, I'm a newbie at FTn, but managed a few QSOs the last couple of
> > days. During today's practice session I noticed that some never
> > completed the QSO with an acknowledgement like (R or 73) for FT4 in
> contest mode.
> > As a result the WSJT-X sequencer kept sending the grid, looking for a
> > response, and no logging was initiated. This seemed like the other
> > station was trying to save a cycle. Should such QSOs be logged, or are
> > they incomplete? Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > 73 de Bruce, WA7BNM (bhorn@hornucopia.com)
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|