Hi Trent,
Yes, I recall that now re the ops not accurately reported during the Run
and Max Rate reports. Not a drop dead issue for our single tower, only two
stations, M/2, but I can see where it would be to bigger operations. And,
yes the first op in the sequence seems to get full "credit" in the report. Not
very useful.
Here, we tightly schedule our few ops and always know who is on when and
what bands. I can see where this would help, but having it reported by N1MM+
would be helpful to others that loosely schedule.
73, Bob K8IA
Arizona Outlaws Contest Club
In a message dated 11/4/2016 2:25:13 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
vk4ts@outlook.com writes:
Hi Bob,
I just responded privately to another person and it answers your questions
–
To sort out the reporting :
Post Contest I have subscribed to _www.qscope.org_ (http://www.qscope.org/)
We have found throughout the reporting of N1MM anomalies in Multi ops -
such as operators listed under the Runs report and not listed under the rates
report
The rates in different parts of N1MM are not consistent - if you are using
1, 10 and 60 Minutes then this should be the only standard.
The Max rates report in a Multi op gives the callsign of the first
operator in the sequence - some slight extra coding to show the individuals
would
be awesome
This is not a new occurrence as both myself and Phil have been asking for
this to be rectified for some time now.
While we may not move on we are looking for alternatives.
To us operator management is a primary concern: Most of the downfall is
live
We would like to see a Bum in chair time as per Writelog even with
negative for those not on air ie how long off the rig.
Looking at other packages is very interesting ; for example on feature of
WINTEST is an integration with HAMCAP that forecasts prop to arrange skeds
with a Multiplier
This feature is called QSY Wizard
http://docs.win-test.com/wiki/Menu:Windows#QSY_Wizard
The search continues
Score at this stage from private emails
N1MM – 2
Writelog – 3
Wintest – 5
Regards
Trent Sampson
VK4TS
Po Box 275 Mooloolaba QLD 4557
Mobile 0408497550
From: BobK8IA@aol.com [mailto:BobK8IA@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, 5 November 2016 7:13 AM
To: vk4ts@outlook.com; CQ-Contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest Logger Thoughts
Hi Trent,
A small group of us Arizona Outlaws have been doing M/2 for over 7 years
here. (N7AT and several other calls). We have used N1MM/N1MM+ that entire
time. We find the networking ability quite good, very robust, and the
reporting suiting our operation.
What about the N1MM reporting is inadequate for your needs?
73, Bob K8IA
Arizona Outlaws Contest Club
In a message dated 11/3/2016 6:16:16 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
_vk4ts@outlook.com_ (mailto:vk4ts@outlook.com) writes:
Looking around at various contest Loggers and considering a change - We
have used N1MM for some time but the reporting leaves me cold.
We mainly operate Multi Operator - so need good networking, good comms,
and good reporting for each operator.
What do you use ? Why ? and what are its best features ?
Trent Sampson
VK4TS
Po Box 275 Mooloolaba QLD 4557
Mobile 0408497550
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
_CQ-Contest@contesting.com_ (mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com)
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|