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
|