Steve, JT65 is surely this way. I have made many contacts that could not
be heard.
FT8 however, is a different animal. I have sat listening to 50.313 for
long periods at a time while in the office and constantly hear entire 15
sec weak sequences that don't appear to have multi-path or other
distortion. They will not reliably decode. They will once in a while, but
not reliably. I strongly believe my ears and CW make a better decoder then
FT8.
If one disagrees, I'd need to see numbers. Otherwise it's a he-said,
she-said exercise.
-W9RM
Keith J Morehouse
Managing Partner
Calmesa Partners G.P.
Olathe, CO
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Steve (K1IIG) <stephen.tripp@snet.net>
wrote:
> Hello Keith,
> I do not find your comments offense in the least. Not being a digi guy, I
> found it informative. The most interesting comment was
> "CW can also be copied by ear at lower signal levels then FT8 can
> reliably and repeatably decode.
> FT8 does nothing 'better''.
>
> I thought FT8 and other digital modes could copy well below the noise that
> CW could not copy.
>
> Steve
> K1IIG
>
> This is gonna cause flames to erupt, but so be it...not the first time.
> Since this is a VHF CONTESTING mail reflector, I don't think anybody should
> be too offended. If you are....well....
>
> Marshall, the whole 'funny little numbers' thing is the result of the now
> complete take-over of the WSJT program by HF-centered operators. This
> trend has been going on for a number of years and, with the release of -X
> version of the program, the days of WSJT being the work of EME and weak
> signal guys is over. It's obviously true when you actually have to go into
> SETTINGS to enable those quaint and useless to most "VHF/UHF FEATURES" and
> even more useless "CONTEST MODE". Read the posts on the WSJT mail
> reflector and note that you're a 'bad guy' if you dare to run high power
> with JT65 or FT8. I'll bet you VHF ops didn't know that the 'rule' of WSJT
> modes is that they are 'low power' modes ! I'll bet the original JT65 EME
> users didn't realize they were supposed to be QRP.
>
> This is why you see default settings of JT65 to be nothing like the
> original, EME-centered, versions. JT65 was hijacked, changed, found to be
> lacking for HF and cast off. But the 'funny little numbers' remain.
> Everybody is supposed to use QRA64 for EME now - didn't you get the memo ?
> (j/k).
>
> HF users of WSJT-X outnumber "us" by 10 to 1 (probably more). Anything
> related (and better for) VHF is but a side note.
>
> A comment to another post on here - WSJT & Digital operation is NOT a Brave
> New World of contesting. Many of us have been using digital meteor scatter
> modes (FSK441 and now MSK144) for years and years to improve our scores.
> Also an occasional QSO on JT65 and ISCAT where things are REALLY weak. The
> whole explosion of WSJT-X by HF centered ops has just thrown it into the
> harsh light of day. MSK144 for meteors and JT65 for ultra weak and
> constant signals are PROPER uses of the digital modes during a contest.
> FT8, while interesting and useful, is not a 'proper' mode for contesting.
> One can work QSOs much faster on SSB or CW and, from what I can see after
> using FT8 for several months during 6M E season, CW can also be copied by
> ear at lower signal levels then FT8 can reliably and repeatably decode.
> FT8 does nothing 'better'. The goal of contesting is to create score - a
> higher score can be created using modes other then FT8. FT8 is an adjunct
> to SSB/CW, not a means to an end. Remember that the next E opening when
> 50.313 is QRMed to death and 50.080 through 50.200 is a wasteland of noise.
>
> -W9RM
>
> Keith J Morehouse
> Managing Partner
> Calmesa Partners G.P.
> Olathe, CO
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Marshall-K5QE <k5qe@k5qe.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello all....I have read all the comments about the digital modes and the
> > Sept contest--some of them twice. Here are my observations.
> >
> > FT8 was practically useless here. I worked a few stations, but many,
> many
> > more on MSK144. The problems that I saw were almost all related to
> newbie
> > ops that don't have any idea what the proper protocols are or how to use
> > them. EVERYONE needs to understand what constitutes a valid VHF contact
> > and be sure that the correct information is sent and received--calls in
> > both directions, grids in both directions, and a Roger in both
> directions.
> > This definition has served us well for years, and years, and years.
> > Everyone should know it.
> >
> > A)The beginners do not understand that a contact is not complete(in a
> > contest at least) unless the grid is exchanged in both directions. I saw
> > more than one station that sent several messages and the grid was nowhere
> > to be found. I even saw one or two where the call was not there--they
> went
> > right away to R-15 or something like that.
> > B)A big problem for me, is the sending of the "funny little numbers".
> > It is very unfortunate that the program defaults to this kind of
> messages.
> > If station1 does not have contest mode checked and station2 does, then
> the
> > messages do not seem to decode properly on one end or the other. The
> > newbies can't decode the "contest messages"(my guess), so they just keep
> > sending the same message until they get tired and give up. I have been
> > told the reason for the "funny numbers", but it did not make any sense to
> > me.
> > C)JT65 is a well defined protocol with very well defined messages.
> > This new version of WSJT-X has upended all that with the sending of the
> > "funny little numbers". The newbies don't know what the proper messages
> > are, so they don't understand why they don't decode correctly. When you
> > send {his call} {your call} {your grid} OOO, they don't have a clue. I
> > know that this can be fixed by checking the "Enable VHF and Microwave
> > features" AND the SH box in WSJT-X, but beginners don't seem to know
> this.
> > A lot of this could be fixed with some serious education articles before
> > the Jan contest. The newbies don't seem to know that JT65A is for 6M,
> > while JT65B is for 2M, 222, and 432. More education, I guess. We did
> not
> > use JT65 for any tropo type contacts. We did use it for our EME contacts
> > on 2M and 432. We used WSJT v9.3(works good, lasts a long time), which
> > works perfectly, of course.
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|