Tor. With FT4 now "contest capable" and FT8 already being sprinkled into the
mix in FD and starting to take over the VHF/UHF contests, I am fearful that the
acceptance is inevitable for the HF RTTY contests. I sure hope that isn’t the
case but instead new FT4 contests emerge - let the robowars begin. And more
power to all so inclined. I will pass but that is no disparagement to others
that find it exciting.
Ed N1UR
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of RT Clay
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 9:55 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] FT4 - Robotic Contesting
>
> Contesters ignore this disturbing trend and acceptance by sponsors at their
> peril in my opinion.
>
What acceptance by sponsors? FT8 (or FT4) are not allowed in the ARRL or CQ
RTTY contest single op categories.
Tor N4OGW
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019, 8:25:14 AM CDT, Barry <w2up@comcast.net> wrote:
I agree.
In the last decade, I was an active digital contester and still hold a CQWW
RTTY record (SOLP USA) set in 2002. I don't understand this sit there and
click with no operator intervention mentality. Seems the only thing missing
from this new FT4 software is the ability to enter your cell number, so the
software can text you when the contest is over, and you can see how you did :-)
Barry W2UP
On 4/30/2019 4:59 AM, Edward Sawyer 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|