[CQ-Contest] World Wide Digi DX Contest Results

Sun Jan 12 17:58:53 EST 2020

Ed,

<<Interestingly, not one person has answered my question, was the 20 – 40
hour rate screen watching and mouse clicking for 24 hours fun?  Anyone?>>

If you read between the lines of my response, you will probably find a
"yes." I put in 19 hours in the chair, so if I didn't think it was fun,
then something is wrong with me. :-)

I had my own personal goal of beating my previous (RTTY) scores, which I
did. I was also trying to get WAS, if not a sweep. Just missed both. Not
being a top-dog contester, I have to contest against myself and a few
others. I also set my WAS and DXCC counts to zero every January 1st and try
to make them in a year or less and on multiple modes and bands. You have to
make your own challenges, sometimes.

73,

Stan
___________________
Stan Zawrotny, K4SBZ

Real radio bounces off the sky.

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 5:37 PM Edward Sawyer <EdwardS at sbelectronics.com>
wrote:

> Stanley.  Thanks for this detailed explanation.  I agree that Digital
> running, whether its RTTY or FT-X, just consisting of mouse clicking while
> watching a screen sounds pretty boring.
>
>
>
> Interestingly, not one person has answered my question, was the 20 – 40
> hour rate screen watching and mouse clicking for 24 hours fun?  Anyone?
>
>
>
> Despite claims to the contrary, I am not afraid of it nor bashing it.
> Just asking a simple question.  And no one wants to answer.
>
>
>
> Ed  N1UR
>
>
>
> *From:* Stanley Zawrotny [mailto:k4sbz.stan at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 12, 2020 3:56 PM
> *To:* Edward Sawyer
> *Cc:* David Gilbert; cq-contest at contesting.com
> *Subject:* Re: [CQ-Contest] World Wide Digi DX Contest Results
>
>
>
> Ed,
>
>
>
> I am both a RTTY contester and a digital contester. I operated in the ARRL
> RTTY Contest using FT4. I found that FT4 was faster than RTTY using S&P
> because I didn’t have to wait as long at the pileups. I did try RTTY S&P
> and got bored *watching the screen* while the station gave his report to
> a contact, the contact replied and finally the station sent a TU QRZ. Then
> I had a chance to.....wait for it....MOUSE CLICK on the macro that sends my
> callsign. If he replied to someone else, I had to.....yep......WATCH THE
> SCREEN while he finished that QSO. Then I would jump up and press F4 again
> to send my call.
>
>
>
> Oh, you don’t do S&P, you run. That means that you MOUSE CLICK (or press a
> function key) to send CQ, MOUSE CLICK on a call, MOUSE CLICK on the
> Exchange macro, watch the screen, execute the TU QRZ macro and watch the
> screen to see who is next. Or do you use call stacking to make that step
> more automatic?  Since you are running, the calls all come to you. You
> don’t have to SEARCH for them or time your call to them to try to beat out
> the other guys. Tell me, Ed, how much fun it that?
>
>
>
> When I use FT8/FT4, I use a combination of running and S&P. I constantly
> watch the decoding panel, looking for someone who is saying 73 so I can
> call him before he needs to send a CQ. That beats out the guys who only
> call someone who is calling CQ. I watch for others who are giving their
> exchange to see if I need their multiplier and call them when they send
> their 73.
>
>
>
> WSJT-X has a check box so that you can only see stations calling CQ.
> Anyone that uses it is a fool. Whether you are contesting or DXing, there
> is much more to be gained by watching exchanges being made and taking
> advantage of the information revealed.
>
>
>
> No, I don’t sit blankly watching the screen. I actively go after my Qs,
> running only when there are no new gems for me to work.
>
>
>
> Anyone who makes comments about how boring digital is has not learned how
> to skillfully operate in that mode.
>
>
>
> BTW, FT8/FT4 were designed using RTTY contesting as a template. Hearing
> such comments for a RTTY contester amazes me.
>
>
>
> Stan, K4SBZ
>
>
>
> "Real radio bounces off the sky."
>
>
>
> On Jan 12, 2020, at 8:59 AM, Edward Sawyer <EdwardS at sbelectronics.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hello David.  Froom everything observed in real practice with the
> typically unsophisticated masses of FT8 users, its dreaming to think that
> such rates will ever be achieved.  All current data points to the rates
> experienced.  The question was about "how was it" nit "what you hope it to
> be".  So "how was it, actually?"
>
> As someone who is running most of the time, and not bandmap clicking, the
> experience is a world to actually be engaged with the participants, with my
> ears and brain.  I guess if someone's world in contesting is clicking on
> the bandmap, never actually verifying the call, and hitting a few function
> keys, then its not much different.  Thankfully, that's not my world of
> contesting.  IS it yours?
>
> Ed  N1UR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces+edwards=
> sbelectronics.com at contesting.com] On Behalf Of David Gilbert
> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2020 9:07 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] World Wide Digi DX Contest Results
>
>
> The rates would be considerably higher, and the operating somewhat less
> confusing, if everyone operated FT4 instead of being spread across FT4
> and FT8.  If you have a steady string of callers on FT4 the theoretical
> maximum rate is 240 per hour, at least until you have to call CQ again.
>
> And I'm not sure that mouse clicks on a WSJT-X screen are any different
> than mouse clicks on a CW or RTTY bandmap together with macro key
> presses on a keyboard.  Possibly you can explain what you see being the
> difference.
>
> 73,
> Dave   AB7E
>
>
> On 1/11/2020 5:26 PM, Edward Sawyer wrote:
>
> With the results in, I am curious as to the answer to this question.
>
>
>
> With 30 - 40 an hour rates over 24 hours and just looking at a computer
> screen and clicking mouses, was it fun?
>
>
>
> 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
>
>