[CQ-Contest] FTx and Contesting ... was social media and contesting

[David Gilbert]

We've deviated quite a bit from the original post so I adjusted the 
thread title.

I think we mostly agree here, except you keep talking what FTx is and I 
keep trying to point out that it could be a lot different. Just because 
a particular mode is CAPABLE of being automated doesn't mean that it has 
to be IMPLEMENTED in a way to make that possible. CW and RTTY can be 
(and I think have been in the past) implemented in a way to make them 
fully automated as well.  The basic principle of software enhancement of 
a signal via precoding is not the existential threat to amateur radio 
that many seem to think it is, especially when compared to RTTY.  I have 
some thoughts on how a more flexible contest-focused user interface for 
an FTx-type mode could be designed that would support high rates and a 
degree of operator skill greater than I could likely handle.   If I can 
conceive of that so could somebody that could actually implement it.

As for merging social media and contesting, I've already stated that I 
don't particularly see the value in that.  What I DO think would be more 
enticing to young folks is if we could bring some of the fundamentals of 
online multiplayer gaming into ham radio contesting.  That could maybe 
include a more combat oriented scoring system, where I had the ability 
to affect somebody else's score as part of my activity instead of simply 
competing against the clock during the contest and comparing scores at 
the end ... except that I don't know how to do that (yet).  Another 
enhancement might be some way to integrate graphics into the contest, 
since one of the great appeals of gaming is the visual immersion.  I 
don't know how to do that either, but I know from personal experience 
that there are good reasons why young people massively prefer 
competitive gaming to radio contesting.  We keep ignoring that as though 
young people just don't understand, which is a foolish and self 
destructive attitude.

And to get back to the title of this post, an FTx-type mode might 
conceivably even facilitate the incorporation of the combat and graphics 
concepts I described in the paragraph above.

73,
Dave  AB7E


On 3/15/2020 8:05 AM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
>   On 14/03/2020 18:02, David Gilbert wrote:
>
>   > Except that fundamentally FTx is simply an encode/decode system.
>
> It is fundamentally a software modem, optimized for processing 
> weak-signal data.
>
>   > It doesn't have to be semi-automated or fully automated,
>
> In practice, it is often automated.  I know of one significant 2019 
> DXpedition where FTx was used in fully-automatic, unattended mode at 
> night.  There may have been others.  We all know there will be more.
>
>   > and modern signal chains aren't human recognizable anyway
>
> This applies to all data modes, including RTTY.
>
>   > When operating CW or SSB with any radio built in the last couple of
>   > decades the incoming signal is sliced and diced, digitally analyzed,
>   > digitally processed with various algorythms (filters, noise 
> reduction,
>   > etc), and then digitally restored to analog.  That digital processing
>   > improves SNR to allow better readability of signals.
>   > FTx simply an extension of that process .... it just pre-encodes
>   > the signal at the transmit end for more effective decode processing
>   > at the receiving end.
>
> Cool things can be done with DSP on all modes, whether at RF or AF. 
> The bottom line is that FTx represents automatic (for most practical 
> purposes), machine-to-machine, data processing over RF. All modes can 
> be enhanced by DSP, but CW and SSB tend not to be automated.
>
>   > I could literally create a tunable narrow band (essentially single
>   > signal) version of FTx that has the same superior SNR performance
>   > of FTx, except that it translated the received text to audible CW
>   > instead of printing it to the screen.
>
> We might equally translate the received text to audible speech. But 
> why do it?
>
>   > The only difference between that and normal CW in a contest (which
>   > is already almost always sent via macros) is that there would be a
>   > few seconds delay (probably less than 5) on the receiving end, the
>   > CW would be at whatever speed the receiver wanted it to be, the SNR
>   > capability would be about 10 db better than normal CW, and the CW
>   > would be QRM free.  To be clear, the digital frame wouldn't even
>   > have to be locked to a clock cycle ... it could be asynchronous.
>
> Yes, it is cool technology, but how many such simultaneous CW signals 
> would be "QRM free"?  Some of us can still mentally decode individual 
> CW signals in the presence of several others.  We choose to do things 
> the hard way, for its own sake.
>
>   > FTx as a mode by itself is simply modern signal processing.
>
> It also happens to facilitate automated unattended contacts.
>
>   > RTTY is also essentially machine-to-machine with visual text, and
>   > FTx could have been designed almost exactly like RTTY except with
>   > much better SNR and much better utilization of bandwidth.
>   > Maybe you have a gripe against RTTY too, but it is hugely popular
>   > for contesting.
>
> All data modes, including RTTY, are essentially machine-to-machine - 
> and each has its good and bad points.  What RTTY does have in common 
> with FTx is that it can not be decoded by people.
>
>   > FTx created a whole new ballgame for DXing and general contacts,
>   > but some of the features of WSJT-X made it a bit clumsy for
>   > contesting and took away some of the ability for skill to be a
>   > differentiator.  That could be addressed.
>
> This "whole new ballgame" needs an appropriate name, and I've already 
> suggested "Data Processing Over RF".  However technically accomplished 
> it may be, and however altruistic its designers' intentions, this 
> ballgame now distorts and devalues the DXCC program, it de-skills both 
> DXing and DXpedition operating, and it diverts those who don't know 
> any better (and some who should) from CW and Phone contesting.  I 
> consider FTx to be a WMD for ham radio.
>
> As for the suggestion to merge social media and contesting - why do 
> it?  When disparate communications media are merged, the dominant one 
> usually wins out - and contesting is the junior partner here. Are 
> phone apps anyone's idea of ham radio?  It seems to me that once ham 
> radio becomes inseparable from the internet, it will have ceased to 
> exist.
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest