Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+FT4\s+in\s+CQ\s+VHF\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+FT4\s+in\s+CQ\s+VHF\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT4 in CQ VHF (score: 1): Author: Steve Kavanagh via VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>; Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 19:27:21 +0000 (UTC); Given what happened when FT8 first came out, I'm guessing some people will be trying FT4 this weekend. Does anyone know how FT4 handles non-standard calls (especially /R rovers) ? 73, Steve VE3SMA (w; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2019-07/msg00020.html (7,604 bytes)
2. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT4 in CQ VHF (score: 1): Author: Sean Waite <waisean@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:31:27 -0400; I believe WSJT-X 2.x fixed that, which was part of the reason why the 1.x streams are incompatible. _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting mailing list VHFcontesting@contesting; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2019-07/msg00021.html (8,005 bytes)
3. Re: [VHFcontesting] FT4 in CQ VHF (score: 1): Author: Steve Kavanagh via VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>; Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 19:51:44 +0000 (UTC); I believe you are right, Sean. And I have now received word from K1JT that FT4 messages are identical to FT8 so, in NA contest mode, all should be well for rovers. 73, Steve VE3SMA On Thursday, July; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2019-07/msg00022.html (8,002 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]