[CQ-Contest] QSO B4

[Edward Sawyer]

Ken, I agree with you for conventional contesting.  But the FT4/FT8 protocol needs a confirmation of acceptance programmatically AND the QSO time is not short and snappy like CW or SSB.  So I am not certain that approach is the best here.  

I will let the digi folks sort that out.

Sure sounds like a lot of stuff still to work out to make this mode "contest friendly".  Its DX prowess for weak signals is clearly where its shining for those inclined.

Ed  N1UR

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces+edwards=sbelectronics.com at contesting.com] On Behalf Of ktfrog007--- via CQ-Contest
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 10:13 AM
To: n6ar at earthlink.net; cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] QSO B4

4. Why not add one or two more message lines that are user programmable to the list immediately available so you don’t have to make multiple clicks. A “QSO B4” message and a selectable “TU; whatever” message for example.

The only use for a" QSO B4" message is if someone is repeatedly harassing you. 
Otherwise, either you or the other guy is mistaken and you should just go ahead and work them again.  No fuss.  If you don't, most likely you will lose points and reduce your score.
Concern about dupes is a leftover meme from long ago paper logging days.  It's time to drive a wooden stake through its heart.
73,Ken, AB1J


-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Brockman <n6ar at earthlink.net>
To: cq-contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 2, 2020 2:48 pm
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 206, Issue 39

On the FT4/FT8 protocols. Worked the FT4 DX Contest this weekend and noticed the following.
1. The feature that sends TU; N1XX 599 FL is almost worthless because you have to click on the next call in your cue while the screen is scrolling, and if you don’t get to it until after the screen is stable, there is not enough time for the message decode on the other end to assure that both stations got it. This messes up the protocol for both contacts.
2. Serial numbers are still a disaster. Most guys interleave calls to more than one station, so they send the same serial number to more than one person. I am never sure the logger gets it right.
3. I read all the comments on the protocol and the paper. But pardon my French, there is still a problem. A running station never sends the final acknowledgement of the RR73, and this confuses folks especially in weaker signal conditions. The current protocol for the running station should be changed to TU; CQ Test N6AR EL98; or, a feature should be added to click on two stations answering you after a CQ so that the software sends TU; XX 599 FL where XX is the second station in the cue at the end of the first QSO.
4. Why not add one or two more message lines that are user programmable to the list immediately available so you don’t have to make multiple clicks. A “QSO B4” message and a selectable “TU; whatever” message for example.
5. The software needs a dupe check.
6. There are probably 10 percent of the contacts that the software doesn’t log properly even when the information is there. It is difficult to fill in this info on the logging pop up and maintain any kind of rate.
7. We need multiple sub bands. Not an extension but a separately located second subband. It’s too crowded.

I could go on and on.  But FT4 and FT 8 will continue to be popular because of the fabulous situation awareness and low signal capability. So many DX stations out there are now workable from China and Brazil and all over.

73,
Larry N6AR


Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 28, 2020, at 12:00 PM, cq-contest-request at contesting.com wrote:
> 
>> Nonetheless, some operators, often casual
>> operators,

_______________________________________________
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