[CQ-Contest] Fwd: [wsjtgroup] WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc6

[ku8e]

Why are people talking about some digital mode on a reflector that's supposed to be for contesting? It's never going to be the dominant mode for contesting... at least I hope not. If you're getting excited about using a mode that you're making 30 QSO'S per hour or less in a contest I feel  bad for you :)I guess I'm maybe old fashioned like Paul and prefer modes where the operator is copying something with their own brain. But if you want to operate these computer modes all the power to you. I just pray it doesn't take over ham radio. If it does I will be finding a new hobby.I tried doing some RTTY contesting in the past but got bored with it pretty quickly.  I have also used FT8 in VHF contests when the band is dead. Will probably continue to do that in the future to boost my score.JeffSent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com> Date: 6/3/19  7:22 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: cq-contest at contesting.com Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Fwd: [wsjtgroup] WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc6 On 03/06/2019 20:44, David Gilbert wrote:>> You're talking to a wall.This "wall" listens, and has opinions, and explains the reasoning behinditsopinions. Insofar as my opinions deviate from "generally perceivedwisdom" (my quotes), they are often derided or unwelcome.> Paul always does this stuff ... if you don't view ham radio the way he > does you aren't doing ham radio.Only to the extent that I don't accept that everything done in the name ofham radio, by ham-radio operators, is invariably or necessarily ham radio.> What Paul is never able to grasp is that "ham radio" covers a much > broader scope than he perceives, and that includes contesting.  As > long as contest sponsors are thoughtful enough to properly categorize > activities, I can find no problem at all with there being CW contests, > SSB contests, RTTY contests, FT4 contests, etc.What I cannot "grasp" or accept is that automated machine-to-machinecontacts represent ham radio, even when a ham-radio operator orcontester has fired up the station and computer, and set theappropriateapp going.> They simply require different combinations of skills, and having > different types of contests simply serves the broader interests of > hams in general.  It's still ham radio.No skill is needed for automated machine-to-machine contacts.That includes FT8 and/or FT4.  YouTube has examples.> It's ridiculous and purely arbitrary to assert that the only valid > contests are those where hams do their own decoding (which of course > leaves out the very popular RTTY mode).Equally, it's ridiculous and arbitrary to give contesting or DXCCcredit for automated contacts - ones that take place and are loggedwith no human intervention whatsoever.> What about encoding?   I would bet that most contesters today don't > send their own information, at least not on CW and RTTY.  We push a > button on the keyboard and the logger does it for us.  Why should only > one direction of the communication path need to fit Paul's narrow > view? I have literally done entire major CW contests without ever > touching the paddle (and had half the received callsigns/reports > auto-filled for me by the logger to boot).Ward N0AX explained it better than I could - in April 2008.   "Dealing with automated reception differently than automated   transmission is appropriate because only reception can initiate   a QSO; whether in response to a solicitation (CQ) or from   tuning to a solicitation (S&P). Reception is qualitatively   different in this regard than transmission."http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/cq-contest/2008-April/079851.html   and -   "You can cast the lure as much as you want, but if no fish   bites, you have not caught a fish. There must be a reception   event to trigger the process by which a QSO is conducted.   Both reception and transmission are necessary, but neither   is sufficient. Transmission events soliciting QSOs typically   outnumber reception events many-to-one. (Which key on your   keyboard is the most worn - F1 or Insert?) Thus, reception   is the critical element in allowing the transaction to   proceed."http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/cq-contest/2008-April/079860.html> I wouldn't like to see contests lump fully automated QSOs with > non-automated ones, We're agreed on that, at least :-)> but the signal processing argument is bogus.That's a misquote.  I introduced the term "data processing" (thedata exchanged in a data-mode contact) - not "signal processing".> The ability for FT4 to copy weak signals comes at the cost of speed, > and I can list other disparities between stations as well. If I have a > rig with better DSP capabilities I'm going to be able to hear stations > somebody with a lesser rig won't.  It's not my proficiency that makes > a difference ... it's PROCESSING that does.Signal processing helps us all, and operating proficiency never goesto waste.> If I have narrower filters than somebody else does I can pick out > stations from a pack better than somebody else could.  It's not my > proficiency that makes a difference ... it's PROCESSING.They both make a difference.> FT4 is simply a digital modeNot quite!  It's a digital data mode with data processing and errorchecking capabilities - a mode which can easily be fully automated.> with different processing tradeoffs, and why Paul thinks that the > possibilities being "limitless" is a problem is beyond me.Nowhere did I suggest the possibilities were "limitless". WhatIsaid was "the potential combinations (for new data modes) arelimitless". I look forward to FT4 Release Candidate 8 in the nearfuture.> The DSP found in almost all modern rigs is itself "processing". It > takes the analog signal from the antenna, slices and dices it to bits, > runs it through various software algorithms, transforms it in both > time and frequency domains, and reconstructs it to audio.Agreed, but it's not data processing in the sense I intended - texttransmission/reception with automatic error correction.> And what is so special about audio?  It is merely one of our senses.Here we go again - another misquote. I suggested "ham-radio operatorsdo their own decoding", and was careful to not specify a sense.<snip>> Diversity is healthy.That's a trite, feel-good statement that means nothing in particular.Competitive swimming doesn't "diversify" by permitting flippers.New technology is generally deemed to be inappropriate when its effectsaredisproportionate or when its use would change the nature of thecompetitive activity concerned.I suggest we're there now with fully-automated FT8 and FT4 - andI can't help feeling AB7E agrees :-)73,Paul EI5DI>> 73,> Dave   AB7E>> p.s. I can't wait to see what kind of private message Paul will send > me this time.>>>> On 6/3/2019 9:25 AM, Chuck Dietz wrote:>> I don’t have any idea what you are saying here. Are you just bad >> mouthing>> digital modes?>>>> Chuck W5PR>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:55 AM Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com> wrote:>>>>> Great - we have yet another data mode. There is no single data mode >>> that>>> is>>> "best" in all respects.  It's always a compromise between time, signal>>> rate,>>> bandwidth and number of discrete channels or tones - the potential>>> combinations>>> are limitless.>>>>>> What all data modes (including RTTY) have in common is that they >>> require>>> machine decoding.  It seems to me that ham-radio contesters do their >>> own>>> decoding, whether it's CW or Phone.  Everything else is data processing>>> and,>>> increasingly, fully-automated data processing.>>>>>> Let's leave data modes to the Data-Processing-over-RF apps.>>>>>> 73,>>> Paul EI5DI>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/06/2019 19:49, Jim Brown wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------->>>> Subject: [wsjtgroup] WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc6>>>> Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 14:32:20 -0400>>>> From: Joe Taylor joe at Princeton.EDU [wsjtgroup]>>>> <wsjtgroup-noreply at yahoogroups.com>>>>> Reply-To: Joe Taylor <joe at Princeton.EDU>>>>> To: wsjtgroup at yahoogroups.com <wsjtgroup at yahoogroups.com>>>>>>>>> To:   Users of WSJT-X -- especially those interested in radio >>>> contesting>>>> From: WSJT Development Group>>>>>>>> As you know, we have been developing a protocol called FT4 for use in>>>> radio contesting.  A new version of FT4 is now available for testing>>>> in WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc6.>>>>>>>> PLEASE NOTE THAT FT4 IN RELEASE CANDIDATE 6 IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH>>>> THAT IN ANY PREVIOUS RELEASE.>>>>>>>> Therefore: Please stop using WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc5.  If you wish to use FT4>>>> after today or to take advantage of other recent program corrections>>>> or enhancements, you should use WSJT-X 2.1.0-rc6.>>>>>> _______________________________________________>>> 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>> _______________________________________________> CQ-Contest mailing list> CQ-Contest at contesting.com> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest_______________________________________________CQ-Contest mailing listCQ-Contest at contesting.comhttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest