[VHFcontesting] How to order

Mon Jan 22 20:54:25 EST 2018

I seem to recall suggesting to the developers that perhaps one of the "extra" bits in the protocol could be used to indicate either "/R" or just provide an option flag  (or flags if they want to use more than one of the extra bits) that presumably could be used during VHF contests to indicate the same thing.

If a future version of the software allowed for an "option" indication to be provided during a QSO it would seem reasonable that during VHF contests that could be used to denote a station being "/R" 

Presumably it could be used in a similar way during other contests.

73
Mark S

VE7AFZ
mark at alignedsolutions.com
604 762 4099

> On Jan 22, 2018, at 4:50 PM, Barry Hansen <barry at k7bwh.com> wrote:
> 
> I'd sure like to see a solid solution for logging rovers running FT8.
> I ran FT8 for the first time last weekend in my portable operation, and
> was very impressed. For me, it would be perfectly reasonable to use the
> same equipment roving. My roving style is stop-n-shop rather than
> run-n-gun, so managing the logging laptop at each stop is already the
> plan. I like to activate a small number of really remote grid squares.
> FT8 picked up a slow but steady stream of contacts after I'd worked
> everyone I could reach on SSB. I'd sure hate to lose the contact points
> (and the other end would hate to lose the multiplier) if people can't
> automatically log my rover digital station correctly.
> 73 Barry K7BWH
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: VHFcontesting [mailto:vhfcontesting-bounces at contesting.com] On
> Behalf Of Mark Spencer
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 4:11 PM
> To: Keith Morehouse <w9rm at calmesapartners.com>
> Cc: VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] How to order
> 
> Based on my experiences in the September contest (to be transparent  I
> was running an earlier version of the software) I share the concerns
> about sending "/R"
> 
> My manual work around was complex for me to use, wouldn't work
> automatically and seemed to confuse other users.   I'm sad to see reports
> that this issue still exists.  (I also saw some comments along these
> lines on one of the chat boards during the contest.)
> 
> 73 Mark S
> VE7AFZ
> 
>>> On Jan 22, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Keith Morehouse <w9rm at calmesapartners.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> There are serious shortcomings in WSJT-X when used by a contest 
>> station that must sign /R.
>> 
>> AC0RA found out all about them this weekend - things needs to be 
>> changed but, apparently the current keepers of the software don't 
>> think changes are necessary.  This is 2nd hand info from someone who 
>> has been involved and should know.
>> 
>> -W9RM
>> 
>>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Steve Stahl <ke7ihg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Mark
>>> I think  Rover/Portable operators will lose out. FT8 works well but 
>>> is just one more thing to juggle in the rover rig. With the reduction 
>>> in ssb operations a guy would have to ask why would I spend my hard 
>>> earned money to rover when I can sit at home and run FT8 all day?
>>> 
>>> Steve K7SWS
>>> 
>>>> On Jan 22, 2018 2:19 PM, "Mark Spencer" <mark at alignedsolutions.com>
> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> My observations during the recent September and January VHF contests
>>> leave
>>>> me with the impression that a number of operators in my region are
>>> shifting
>>>> at least some of their focus on 50 MHz to FT8.   Given the
> performance I
>>>> have seen from FT8 and my experience running that mode from my home
>>> station
>>>> with a self imposed 25 watt power limit and a temporally installed 3 
>>>> element yagi during the January contest I can see why it is quite 
>>>> popular for many operators.
>>>> 
>>>> I did try to keep an eye on the band scope while running FT8 on 
>>>> 50.313
>>> but
>>>> didn't see much activity on 50.125
>>>> 
>>>> 73 Mark S VE7AFZ
>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jan 22, 2018, at 12:03 PM, George Sintchak 
>>>>>> <wa2vnv at optonline.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I know there is a lot of people thinking that FT8 will dominate
>>>> activity. I don't see that happening during a contest when you are
>>> running
>>>> SSB or CW during an Es opening. FT8 takes too long to complete a 
>>>> contact compared to a normal fast paced SSB/CW run. Same for RTTY in 
>>>> HF contests
>>> -
>>>> a RTTY fast contact takes maybe 10 seconds to complete when using a 
>>>> computer run station with you at the keyboard - not typing on an old
>>> model
>>>> 15 or 28 TTY machine. (Anyone still use one? I've used both.)
>>>>> In my experience with FT8 & MSK144, when conditions are normal(?) 
>>>>> and
>>>> activity is nil, FT8 contacts can be made where you normally can't 
>>>> make
>>> it
>>>> with conventional modes.  The ~20+ dB advantage receiving into the 
>>>> noise (at both ends) is just better than the human ear. All that 
>>>> aside, it's
>>> just
>>>> some more of the fun and technology now available to us. (Flame suit
> on).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 73, George WA2VNV (FN30 & EL96)
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herb Krumich via VHFcontesting" 
>>>>> <
>>>> vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
>>>>> To: "VHF Contesting" <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 10:20 AM
>>>>> Subject: [VHFcontesting] How to order
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Does anyone know of a company that is manufacturing a six meter
>>>> tranceiverthat is rock bound on 50.313Looks like in the future, 
>>>> there is
>>> no
>>>> need to tune the six meter band ?ThanksHerb K2LNSat WA2FGK FN21
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>>>>>> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> 
> 