Ed,
I spend most of my contesting time running. But I also do a fair amount of
FT8 on the side.
There is no “autopilot” with FT4. You still have to keep your hands on the
wheel and intervene when necessary.
Joe has said absolutely that this is NOT intended to be an auto QSO machine.
I’ve used FT8 in VHF contesting and it’s a mixed bag. I doubt that it will
take the place of SSB or CW. It may displace RTTY to some degree.
73
Ria
N2RJ
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:31 PM Edward Sawyer <EdwardS@sbelectronics.com>
wrote:
> Ria, I agree with you that if someone's "contesting" is 100% S & P with
> spot and RBN fed callsigns on the screen and there is no serial number to
> copy - that person's contesting is not incrementally different than hitting
> the "autopilot" button and just let the computer do it - while you do
> what? - take a nap, go out to dinner, not sure.
>
> For those of us that actually run the stations (the RBN or spotted
> station) it would be a drastic change to let the computer have all the fun.
>
> Change is not about just being potentially afraid its also about asking
> "what is the purpose of the change and is it actually needed"? Is it "more
> fun" to watch the computer do the work? Maybe for some. Certainly not for
> many. How much of each, not sure. I think Boeing has well demonstrated
> where change can go too far. Change for the sake of change is also not
> always a good thing.
>
> 73
>
> Ed N1UR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rjairam@gmail.com [mailto:rjairam@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 10:04 AM
> To: Edward Sawyer
> Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] FT4 - Robotic Contesting
>
> The beauty of contesting is that there are so many different ways to
> contest, even within a single contest there are many ways to compete.
>
> If you want to go fully unassisted, by all means you can do that. If you
> want to use cluster and skimmer, by all means you can do that.
>
> If you want to go low power (as you've done for many years), by all means.
> If you want to use big stacks, kilowatts of power, by all means.
>
> I don't also understand the aversion to robotic contesting, when so many
> even CW contesters use ESM in N1MM. Enter the callsign, press enter, enter,
> enter, basically same as WSJT auto-sequence. Red and green spots show up in
> the bandmap. Ctrl Alt up and down to pick off mults.
>
> I understand some are afraid of change, but if you really look at it,
> contesting today is vastly different even from the 60s and 70s.
>
> 73
> Ria, N2RJ
>
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 07:57, 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
>
>
>
> --
> Ria Jairam, N2RJ
> Director, Hudson Division
> ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™
> +1.973.594.6275
> https://hudson.arrl.org
> n2rj@arrl.org
>
--
Ria Jairam, N2RJ
Director, Hudson Division
ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™
+1.973.594.6275
https://hudson.arrl.org
n2rj@arrl.org
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|