True, but the FT8/4 method actually makes more sense to me. If people
bought into it including a report in the CQ it would theoretically allow
completing a contact in the equivalent of two frames instead of four.
To use your example:
Them: CQ K5ZD FN42
You: K5ZD N2RJ FN21
Them: N2RJ 73 K5ZD FN42 (although I would prefer "TU" to trigger
autologging instead of "73" because I think "TU" is clearer in purpose) )
Me: K5ZD AB7E DM41
Them: AB7E 73 K5ZD FM42
etc ...
Everything necessary for a contact is there in two frames. The fact
that N2RJ even answered is an acknowledgement that he received K5ZD's
report because FT8/4 is an all or nothing print ... busted callsigns or
reports don't print. And then K5ZD explicitly acknowledges receiving
N2RJ's report while finishing with the same kind of pseudo CQ many of us
do in CW or SSB contests.
Actually, something similar to this is already possible if you have more
than one caller lined up. You queue up a reply to the next guy while
the first guy is sending his final acknowledgement, but it doesn't work
for the current methodology if you have to call CQ again.
In the example above, if N2RJ should happen to not receive K5ZD's
acknowledgement he would simply call again ... just like happens in a
normal CW or SSB contest. If I'm running in a CW contest I don't wait
to see if the guy I just worked acknowledges my "TU" response to his
report. The only reason the issue pops up here is that WSJT-X has
trained users to look for it. It's a self-inflicted wound.
Also, shortening up the exchange to two frames reduces the chance that
propagation drops out before the acknowledgement. I've always thought
that a big problem with FT8 is that requiring a full minute for a
completed exchange creates an unnatural dependence upon stable
propagation. The whole reason for using FT8/4 in the first place is to
be able to work really weak signals, which means a lot of them are going
to be subject to rather small changes in propagation.
Just some thoughts ...
73,
Dave AB7E
On 2/27/2020 7:58 AM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote:
BTW something else is that the grid exchange seems transposed in
traditional vs FT8 auto seq. The grid is sent on initial CQ in FT8 but not
in CW or SSB.
Ria
N2RJ
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|