[CQ-Contest] Contest Logger Thoughts

[BobK8IA at aol.com]

Hi Trent,
 
Yes, I recall that now re the ops not accurately reported during the Run  
and Max Rate reports. Not a drop dead issue for our single tower, only two  
stations, M/2, but I can see where it would be to bigger operations. And,  
yes the first op in the sequence seems to get full "credit" in the report. Not 
 very useful.
 
Here, we tightly schedule our few ops and always know who is on when and  
what bands. I can see where this would help, but having it reported by N1MM+  
would be helpful to others that loosely schedule. 
 
73, Bob K8IA
Arizona Outlaws Contest Club
 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 11/4/2016 2:25:13 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,  
vk4ts at outlook.com writes:

 
Hi Bob, 
I just responded privately to another person and it  answers your questions 
–  
To sort out the reporting :  
Post Contest I have subscribed to _www.qscope.org_ (http://www.qscope.org/) 
   
We have found throughout the reporting of N1MM anomalies  in Multi ops - 
such as operators listed under the Runs report and not listed  under the rates 
report  
The rates in different parts of N1MM are not consistent  - if you are using 
1, 10 and 60 Minutes then this should be the only standard.   
The Max rates report in a Multi op gives the callsign of  the first 
operator in the sequence - some slight extra coding to show the  individuals would 
be awesome  
This is not a new occurrence as both myself and Phil  have been asking for 
this to be rectified for some time now.  
While we may not move on we are looking for  alternatives.  
To us operator management is a primary concern:  Most of the downfall is 
live  
We would like to see a Bum in chair time as per Writelog  even with 
negative for those not on air ie how long off the rig.   
Looking at other packages is very interesting ; for  example on feature of 
WINTEST is an integration with HAMCAP that forecasts  prop to arrange skeds 
with a Multiplier 
This feature is called QSY Wizard 
http://docs.win-test.com/wiki/Menu:Windows#QSY_Wizard 
The search continues  
Score at this stage from private emails  
N1MM – 2  
Writelog – 3  
Wintest – 5  
Regards  
Trent Sampson 
VK4TS  
Po Box 275 Mooloolaba QLD 4557  
Mobile 0408497550 
 
 
From:  BobK8IA at aol.com [mailto:BobK8IA at aol.com] 
Sent: Saturday, 5 November  2016 7:13 AM
To: vk4ts at outlook.com;  CQ-Contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Logger  Thoughts

 
Hi  Trent,
 

 
A  small group of us Arizona Outlaws have been doing M/2 for over 7 years 
here.  (N7AT and several other calls). We have used N1MM/N1MM+ that entire 
time. We  find the networking ability quite good, very robust, and the 
reporting  suiting our operation.
 

 
What  about the N1MM reporting is inadequate for your needs?  
 

 
73,  Bob K8IA
 
Arizona  Outlaws Contest Club
 

 

 

 
 
In a  message dated 11/3/2016 6:16:16 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, 
_vk4ts at outlook.com_ (mailto:vk4ts at outlook.com)   writes:

Looking  around at various contest Loggers and considering a change - We 
have used  N1MM for some time but the reporting leaves me cold.

We mainly  operate Multi Operator - so need good networking, good comms, 
and good  reporting for each operator.

What do you use ? Why ? and what are its  best features ?


Trent Sampson
VK4TS
Po Box 275 Mooloolaba  QLD 4557
Mobile  0408497550


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest  mailing list
_CQ-Contest at contesting.com_ (mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com) 
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest