[CQ-Contest] World Wide Digi DX Contest Results.

[David Gilbert]

I completely agree with your comments, although I think the "FT8 
Kool-Aid" slam is unwarranted.

But as I have said before, it's not the mode (FT8 or FT4) that is the 
problem ... it's the fact that WSJT-X is a rigid and contest-unfriendly 
user interface.  The mode itself gives us great sensitivity and 
bandwidth usage, and FT4 is fundamentally fast enough for contest 
usage.  WSJT-X, on the other hand, is built around such a preset 
assumption for what a QSO should look like that any deviation due to 
propagation or operator error causes great amounts of confusion.

I think it should be entirely possible to wrap a proper UI around the 
core FT4 engine that still adheres to the fixed time windows required to 
achieve the desired performance, but has a more conventional, flexible 
message exchange format.  If the UI required the "meeting of the minds" 
you describe instead of reliance on the machine doing it for us I think 
we'd be far better off.

The mode isn't the problem ... the current user interface is.  I wish I 
was a programmer capable of building a proper contest UI around the 
existing open source FT4 engine, but I'm not.  Done properly, I think 
such a UI might look something like this:

1.  Adherence to fixed time frames that are required by the physics of 
the mode.
2.  Flexible message format that still has both send and receive 
callsigns (required because of the split frequency nature of the mode) 
but allows a more generalized report as long as it stays within the bit 
limit.
3.  Uses UDP to feed the exchange information to N1MM+, with N1MM+ 
handling the logging and scoring for different contests just as it does 
now for any other mode.  Think MMTTY for FT4.
4.  A better layout with better utilization of space.
5.  Allows function keys for various actions (such as Monitor pause, 
Transmit, Halt, Message selection, etc) instead of mouse clicks.

The problem is that I am not a programmer, so I think the mode is going 
to suffer unless and until somebody who is a programmer is willing to 
tackle the job (for which I'd be willing to contribute modest funds).  I 
am pretty certain that a contest UI for FT4 is not on K1JT's priority 
list, so I think it would have to come from somewhere else.

73,
Dave   AB7E



On 1/13/2020 9:24 AM, Tim Shoppa wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest