[RTTY] SO2R in WPX RTTY

[Roger Cooke]

Well, it looks like this topic has opened a can of worms!
As has been said, it really is down to the individual which mode
he uses and no-one is complaining really about the use of SO2R.
I guess that curve is a very steep one, but it is nevertheless very
annoying to be kept waiting, so perhaps more practice "off air"
is required! :-)

   It will be more interesting to see how the SO2R guys manage in
the BARTG 75 Baud test when the turn around time is even
smaller!
   As Ian says, even 2 seconds in a contest is a long time to wait
for a response. It should be almost seamless if both are experienced
but we should remember there are the newcomers to RTTY contesting
still learning their way around the commands.
   It's only a hobby and RTTY is supposed to be the last bastion of
gentlemanly behaviour so let's enjoy it!

73 de Roger, G3LDI


On 17/02/2010 08:31, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
> RTTY contesting has two very different problems with slow responders.
>
> A few of them are SO2R operators who have an unexpected holdup on the
> other radio; but SO2R stations are still a small minority.
>
> By far the largest number of slow responders are just plain SLOW. What
> is it about RTTY that makes some people think 2...3...5 seconds is an
> acceptable turnaround time? In a contest?
>
> Some of them may be all-round slow thinkers (especially on Saturday
> evening and Sunday afternoon, in certain countries that are celebrated
> for their fine cuisine,  wines and beers) but there have to be at least
> two other possible causes:
>
> 1. They're waiting to be sure we have stopped transmitting, because they
> aren't listening to the radio. BIG MISTAKE! The RTTY decoder only prints
> out the message - all the other information about TX/RX changeovers, QSB
> and QRM comes in through your ears.
>
> 2. They're copy-typing our information from the decoder screen into
> their logging program, because nobody has told them: IF YOU'RE TYPING,
> YOU'RE LOSING!
>
> How can we get the message out? RTTY contesting is supposed to be slick!
>
>
>