[CQ-Contest] FT4 - Robotic Contesting

[Sterling Mann]

Paolo,

Skill is required when contesting with any mode. You still have to deal
with antennas, propagation, amplifiers, the weather, lids, QRM, QRN, and
your own endurance, regardless the mode. At the end of the day, someone
will have made the more contacts than the next person in a set period of
time, and that is all contesting is. FT4 is basically no different than
RTTY contesting with N1MM, which reduces a lot of effort such that more
contacts are made.

The mentality is similar to golf - today's golf clubs and balls are getting
farther and straighter, it's players thinks the game is too easy for
professionals since technology is making the game much easier, thereby
"killing" the game of golf. However, the real issue is the golf courses
haven't changed to adapt to the improvements made elsewhere. In ham radio,
our playing field (and players) also hasn't adapted yet, but mark my words,
FT4 contesting will be as fun and challenging as CW, SSB, RTTY, or whatever
mode contest once such an adaptation is made.

I think radiosport's biggest challenge is persuading traditional contesters
that there is still skill required for faster, automated, and computerized
modes that still lends itself to an adequate competition. You should give
it a try before you denounce it.

--Sterling N0SSC

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 8:24 AM Paolo, IK3QAR <ik3qar at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have watched, as a spectator, to a few contacts between PCs in FT8.
>
> Contesting should be, above all, about operating skill.
>
> In my opinion, this mode is the opposite of it, and mixing the words
> "FTx" and "contest" in the same statement is a nonsense.
>
> 73
> Paolo IK3QAR
>
>
>
> On 30/04/2019 12:59, 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 at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>