[CQ-Contest] FT8 vs FT4 in the Contest

[Mark - N5OT]

I suspect it was the basic difference between the regular FT 6 message 
version of a QSO, and the contest committee's choice to dispense with 
the signal report in favor of the shorter 4 message version of a QSO.  
They endorsed use of the NA VHF one already embedded in WSJT-X.

Which of course reduces the amount of time it takes for a normal FT QSO 
that includes the signal report, by one third.  Which is what contesting 
is all about after all.

The dichotomy is that one of the stated goals was to encourage 
non-contesters to get into the fray, but ... that was an accident 
waiting to happen.  It doesn't bother me.  I logged all the contacts 
where I sent my info and received the other guys info. I'll let the 
contest sponsors sort out my log.  I bet I have some NILs.  I'm sure it 
will be a learning experience for everyone, including the sponsors.

73 - Mark N5OT


On 9/1/2019 8:31 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
> On 9/1/2019 2:54 PM, Edward Sawyer wrote:
>> I am reading with interest the discussion about the digi contest.  
>> Many people were repeating that FT8 was used more than FT4 to "pick 
>> up the casuals". 
>
> It doesn't appear that you've read K1JT's documentation on WSJT-X, 
> which includes about a dozen different protocols for different 
> propagation and different operating activities.
>
> https://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/wsjtx-doc/wsjtx-main-2.1.0.html
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>