[CQ-Contest] World Wide Digi DX Contest Results
David Gilbert
xdavid at cis-broadband.com
Sun Jan 12 18:54:52 EST 2020
Well, since you asked ...
I didn't do the WW-Digi because of heavy lightning (summer monsoons here
in southern Arizona), but I did do the FT Roundup in December and it
WOULD have been a lot of fun except for limitations that I've mentioned
before:
1. Combining FT8 and FT4 was a terrible idea. It split the activity,
caused lots of confusion, and generated a ridiculous amount of dupes.
2. The requirement for no more than two off periods (not the case for
WW-Digi but is also the case for ARRL RTTY) does not add to strategy
like the sponsors claim. It makes unforeseen breaks totally ruin
whatever operating strategy you may have had.
3. WSJT-X has a bad habit about 10% of the time of not logging the
received report for one or more stations when juggling more than one.
It ruins runs to have to go back to find and then manually enter the report.
The activity level was pretty high, though, and runs on FT4 at times
were pretty hectic. It is not at all as simple as point and click when
you are juggling multiple contacts at the same time because some
stations are popping in and out of the decode range.
In my opinion, FT4 as a mode is every bit as legitimate as RTTY, with
much better sensitivity and far better spectrum use. If the activity
levels were similar a competent operator could achieve FT4 rates
comparable to RTTY. The problem is that currently WSJT-X is a poor user
interface for contesting and it's an even worse logger/scorer. Somebody
needs to take the core engine of WSJT-X and wrap an actual contesting UI
around it ... ideally a generalized one (preferably just for FT4) that
feeds specialized contest formats in N1MM+ or something like that, just
like MMTTY does for RTTY.
Some people say that the FTx modes are going to go away. The only way
that happens is if something better shows up. I was scanning the bands
immediately prior to this past weekend's NAQP CW contest to check for
propagation, and 20m FT8 was loaded with QSOs while for a full fifteen
minutes (no exaggeration) there was not a single CW signal. Most
evenings this past week I am able to work literally dozens of Europeans
on 160m FT8 from here in southern Arizona (admittedly with high power)
without hearing a single CW signal.
Here are some reasons why, in my opinion, FT4 would be attractive to a
wide base for contesting, at least compared to RTTY:
1. Everybody operates split, or at least would if the UI mandated
locked transmit frequency. I fail to see the rationale for WSJT-X
allowing a caller to jump to the CQ frequency.
2. There is little difference between run and S&P, which is a big
advantage for more casual operators ... thereby encouraging more activity.
3. Copy either there or it isn't. As long as a signal is strong enough
to be decoded it prints, which tends to level the playing field between
big stations and lesser ones.
4. FT4 handles QRM better, especially relative to the bandwidth required.
5. FT4 is sensitive, opening up more activity both geographically and
station-wise.
I find FT8 to be frustratingly slow, but I'm convinced that FT4 has
major advantages ... it's just not being used properly for contesting
yet. I think it's important to distinguish between FT8/4 as a mode and
WSJT-X as an implementation.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 1/12/2020 3:37 PM, Edward Sawyer 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
>
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list