[CQ-Contest] CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 205, Issue 21

[Ron Koenig]

If FT-4 had actually been released as a Contest Mode most of the issues
would not exist.  Sadly, it was not and because of it there is a mess.
You have cross sections of people that will NOT log if they don't get a
RR73 (They even refused to log With RR73 when they wanted RRR and then 73)
lots of these people are Causal ops in the contests, the NIL's are
intentional.
You have people answering Contest CQ's that are not in Contest mode (If
FT-4 was a Contest Mode, that would not be possible) Of course, Neither
side can properly log these as the exchange cannot be made... Some force it
to log.... NIL
FT-4 is very picky about time, many Many Q's go into a loop of repeats
because one or both ops time has shifted a 10th, or QSB has pushed the
signal down just enough. Often, after wasting several cycles, one side will
force it to log.... NIL
I am a fan of the FT-Modes for contesting, I have high hopes that someone
will develop software that makes it work.
I am Not a fan of FT-X in RTTY RU, or any other "Mixed" contest... It
simply causes confusion, lowers QSO counts and causes people to make Silly
claims that their FT-X rate rivaled RTTY...

Ron, WV4P


On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:00 AM <cq-contest-request at contesting.com> wrote:

> Send CQ-Contest mailing list submissions to
>         cq-contest at contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         cq-contest-request at contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         cq-contest-owner at contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of CQ-Contest digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: World Wide Digi DX Contest Results (john at kk9a.com)
>    2. Re: World Wide Digi DX Contest Results. (Zack Widup)
>    3. Re: World Wide Digi DX Contest Results (Timo Klimoff)
>    4. Re: World Wide Digi DX Contest Results. (Glenn Wyant)
>    5. Re: World Wide Digi DX Contest Results. (Tim Shoppa)
>    6. World Wide Digi DX Contest Results. (DXer)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 08:09:12 -0600
> From: john at kk9a.com
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] World Wide Digi DX Contest Results
> Message-ID:
>         <20200113080912.Horde.f2WnlKQbMtEoTtfidcmb1RV at www11.qth.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes
>
> If Ft4 is faster than RTTY why did all of the RU winners make so few
> FTx(so called digital) QSOs?
>
> BTW I thought RTTY was a digital mode.
>
> John KK9A  (W4AAA in 2020 Roundup - 100% RTTY QSOs)
>
>
>
> Stanley Zawrotny k4sbz wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 08:38:50 -0600
> From: Zack Widup <w9sz.zack at gmail.com>
> To: CQ Contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] World Wide Digi DX Contest Results.
> Message-ID:
>         <CANJxhWj+rjyF_ocDHigrhsHhA0CS1U=
> tKwj7he9s4LZ9a_r1uA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> I saw someone note also that he had worked "A Canadian airport." I asked if
> it was YYZ and didn't get a response to that yet. I don't think Neil Peart
> was a ham, but the beginning of the Rush song YYZ does start out with the
> band's interpretation of the letters YYZ sent in Morse code.
>
> 73, Zack W9SZ
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 8:30 AM DXer <hfdxmonitor at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Very well stated, Stan. Thank you!
> >
> > Will it change minds? Not likely.
> >
> > To the WW-Digi Committee: Please continue with your good work. It needs
> > more time to bear fruit. If it does not work out in the end, fine, you
> > tried. It'll have been a lot more than most appear to have attempted.
> >
> > 73 de Vince, VA3VF
> >
> >
> >
> > "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."
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 16:57:12 +0200
> From: "Timo Klimoff" <timo.klimoff at dnainternet.net>
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] World Wide Digi DX Contest Results
> Message-ID: <04eb01d5ca21$bcb8d920$362a8b60$@dnainternet.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="UTF-8"
>
> I operated in RU some qsos each FT4, FT8 and RTTY and I have also operated
> all these modes in the past.
> I am using >100W and modest Windom antenna at 12mH.
>
> FT8 = very good weak signal mode but qso rates are very slow, WSJT-X has
> its problems in the contest mode
> FT4 = very fast qsos, smooth operating when everything goes well but very
> poor mode for weak signals. On FT4 many stations I receive with + reports
> are not responding at all. This almost never happens on FT8.
> RTTY = solid mode, the rates are higher than in FT8 and FT4 combined when
> bands are open. DX qsos are harder than on FT8.
>
> Now the current rules (3 digi modes) spread the activity too much. Working
> RTTY and FTx in the same contest is not the logging-wise straightforward
> either.
>
> 73, Timo OH1NOA
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-
> > bounces+timo.klimoff=dnainternet.net at contesting.com> On Behalf Of
> > john at kk9a.com
> > Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 4:09 PM
> > To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] World Wide Digi DX Contest Results
> >
> > If Ft4 is faster than RTTY why did all of the RU winners make so few
> FTx(so
> > called digital) QSOs?
> >
> > BTW I thought RTTY was a digital mode.
> >
> > John KK9A  (W4AAA in 2020 Roundup - 100% RTTY QSOs)
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 10:30:52 -0500
> From: "Glenn Wyant" <va3dx at sympatico.ca>
> To: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane at ei5di.com>
> Cc: <CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] World Wide Digi DX Contest Results.
> Message-ID: <08C5D507969E44E1970039CB79FC415F at glenn>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8";
>         reply-type=response
>
> Third class.....
>
> Those former contesters who have grown tired
> of  the on line bitching, complaining and accusations;
> and now given up on contesting , reverting back to a
> more simple and relaxing style of radio operation.
>
> Glenn VA3DX
>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] World Wide Digi DX Contest Results.
>
>
> > It seems to me that VA3VF is sitting on the fence. It is clear that, in
> > ham radio, there are two basic classes of contest operators, drivers and
> > passengers. Drivers decode other transmissions themselves, and everyone
> > else is a passenger. This is independent of mode.
> >
> > Could there be room for for a third class - data-processing contesters?
> > VA3VF implies there might be - I say no chance! When and if the FT craze
> > dies out, there will be yet another "more-advanced data mode" to take
> its
> > place and, once again, its users will be passengers. Sure, it will still
> > be contesting of one kind or another - your machine competing with my
> > machine.
> >
> >
> > 73,
> > Paul EI5DI
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/01/2020 18:20, DXer wrote:
> >> Hi Peter,
> >>
> >> That's a valid concern, and the excerpt from the committee message you
> >> quoted should 'buy' all critics some time:
> >>
> >> "For the FT mode it is not yet clear where the fault is..."
> >>
> >> Read the preceding messages again, and you'll see that was not the
> issue.
> >>
> >> The issue there, whether 'flowered' or not, was still FT-X is not
> >> hamradio, no skills, boring, unsophisticated users, etc.
> >>
> >> As I said before, FT-X contesting is not likely to be my 'thing', but
> >> give it a chance, if you are concerned about contesting.
> >>
> >> If you are still in 'mode wars' mood, give it a rest. Other 'experts'
> say
> >> the FT craze will die out in 3 years or so, let it happen on its own
> >> then. Natural death is one thing, 'premeditated murder' is another.
> >>
> >> 73 de Vince, VA3VF
> >>
> >> On 2020-01-12 12:56, Peter Sundberg wrote:
> >>> But there is a major problem when the contest committee tell us that
> >>> they had to waive the NIL penalty because otherwise a large number of
> >>> stations would end up with a negative score.
> >>>
> >>> Furthermore the committee states the following:
> >>>
> >>> "In the legacy modes, the "fault" for a NIL is most always on the side
> >>> that logged the QSO. For
> >>> the FT mode it is not yet clear where the fault is, but in any case,
> the
> >>> amount of NILs is
> >>> abnormally high. Going forward, FT contesting needs to better define
> how
> >>> QSO partners can reliably
> >>> communicate whether a QSO is complete and should be logged. The
> >>> responsibility resides both
> >>> with contest participants and FT contest software developers."
> >>>
> >>> Yes Vince, a contest is a contest and the goal is the same. But when
> the
> >>> operator is unable to decide whether a QSO should be logged or not, to
> >>> me it that's a clear indication that automation has gone too far.
> >>> Especially when the committee says that the amount of NILs is
> abnormally
> >>> high.
> >>>
> >>> The operator is "in the back seat" and certainly NOT up front driving.
> >>> Now that's where there's clearly room for criticizing the concept.
> >>>
> >>> 73
> >>> Peter SM2CEW
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:24:20 -0500
> From: Tim Shoppa <tshoppa at gmail.com>
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] World Wide Digi DX Contest Results.
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAJ_qRvasz6thbCYFpXg_+UQGReV6yXo_z8+_qBuvhqN61RtT8Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> I was a vigorous participator in the CQ WW Digi and have some thoughts
> about the high NIL rate.
>
> First of all - I was not at all surprised. I work with some DXpedition QSL
> managers and they have been complaining about the incredibly high NIL rate
> seen with DXpeditions in FT8 mode for a while now.
>
> In CW, SSB, or RTTY there is (at the 99% accuracy level) a "meeting of
> minds" over the air as to whether the QSO was complete or not on both
> sides. Part of it the fraction of a second it takes in these modes to send
> a "thanks" or "TU" before moving to the next caller. Another part is that a
> human actually makes the call on each end as to whether it was complete
> using the human's best judgement, and the cycle time it takes to be sure is
> infinitesimal (just seconds, not a 30-second cycle).
>
> In FT4/FT8 this meeting of minds is far more slippery and tenuous. This is
> completely inexplicable to those who have drunk the FT8 Kool-Aid because
> they trust the computer for all aspects of a QSO. As a result the FT4/FT8
> NIL rate (even with DXpeditions) is far far higher than the traditional
> modes. Adding a whole additional transmit/receive cycle for an extra level
> of confirmation may not actually improve things but make it worse because
> if reception is lost by one side but not the other in that extra cycle that
> itself will lead to more NIL's.
>
> Tim N3QE
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:41:55 -0500
> From: DXer <hfdxmonitor at gmail.com>
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] World Wide Digi DX Contest Results.
> Message-ID: <a2dc7c21-de13-096f-c554-dcb7d3658b84 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
>  >>BTW I thought RTTY was a digital mode.
>
> As is CW. I think I get your point, and if so, I agree. Another case of
> nomenclature becoming the issue. Easy to fix though.
>
>  >>If Ft4 is faster than RTTY why did all of the RU winners make so few
> FTx(so called digital) QSOs?
>
> Most contests' so called QSOs are actually contacts. A QSO happens when
> you talk about the weather, station improvements, bad propagation, or
> just silliness as the main reason for the link up. Saying hi or wishing
> your buddy good luck in the contest does not make it a QSO, regardless
> of mode, but I digress.
>
> Back to the RTTY/FT4 speed/efficiency point, this is one more reason to
> try and understand what is happening. Was it because FT4 is less
> efficient than RTTY, or because RTTY users being proficient with the
> mode stayed with it? Did experienced contesters use RTTY, while the
> 'unsophisticated' used FT4? If the latter, can they make the jump to
> perceived 'legitimate' contesting modes after experiencing a new aspect
> of the hobby?
>
> If FT4 was less efficient in the contest, was it because FT4 is still
> not the best FT-x contesting protocol, or something else? I have an
> opinion on this, check past posts in the unlikely event that you are
> interested.
>
> This is all new stuff. Good, bad, time will tell.
>
> 73 de Vince, VA3VF
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 205, Issue 21
> *******************************************
>