Good summary, fully agree.
73 de Dimitri F4DSK
Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy.-------- Message d'origine
--------De : Jeff Blaine <KeepWalking188@ac0c.com> Date : 02/05/2019 06:17
(GMT+01:00) À : cq-contest@contesting.com Objet : Re: [CQ-Contest] FT4 -
Robotic Contesting
The fundamental reason for FTx needing it's own contest format is that
it's a fixed rate which is set by software. The exchanges are
essentially synchronous and slaved to a common clock. So if ops can
keep the pipeline full, there is no differentiator among "run" speeds.
All of the current RTTY contests have rate as a fundamental factor so
using that format in a FTx contest makes no sense. Additionally, as the
rate is machine limited for the most part, if the FTx contest is going
to have staying power it's got to offer some other challenge which op
skill development can address. High rates in RTTY depend on operator
execution among a sea of variables - in FTx that element is essentially
gone.
A format that rewards for distance seems a better fit - perhaps the Stew
Perry format where points scale with distance and the exchange is grid
square. A contest built around something like that where the score is
most influenced first by distance and then other factors a weak second
would match well with the strength of these modes.
73/jeff/ac0c
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
www.ac0c.com
On 5/1/19 8:25 PM, john@kk9a.com wrote:
> I agree, please keep FT? contests separate from RTTY. Unlike FT?, RTTY
> decoders are not perfect. To do well a RTTY operator needs to quickly look
> at multiple decoders to determine what the callsign and report most likely
> are. There is nothing automatic and there are no set TX/RX times so every
> operator can be as efficient as they choose. It is easy to send a quick
> hello to your friends during the QSO, just like on CW and SSB.
>
> John KK9A
>
>
> Jeff Blaine AC0C wrote:
>
> The FT8/4 modes need to have contests specifically built around the
> capabilities and limitations of the mode.
>
> Mixing FTx into the RTTY contests falls squarely into a category of
> things that we SHOULD NOT DO, even though we have the capability to do.
>
> 73/jeff/ac0c
> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
> www.ac0c.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
|