I've corresponded directly with Joe Taylor a few times in the recent
past on this subject, and I have the deepest respect for his credentials
(yes, I'm fully aware that he is a Nobel Prize laureate) and for what he
has provided in the form of WSJT-X for ham radio. He, however, sees no
benefit in adapting the basic signal processing underlying WSJT-X to a
form more suitable for contesting. He doesn't dispute that it is
possible ... only that he has no intention of spending the time and
effort on it. We essentially agreed to disagree.
The fact, however, that 90+ percent of the comments here on the
CQ-Contest reflector are negative toward either FT8 or FT4 as a
contesting mode supports my view on the subject rather than Joe's. We
could be reaping the benefits of much better signal to noise performance
for contesting ... with a user interface that functions more like CW or
SSB or RTTY contesting ... if someone with the right background would
just jump in and do it. I guarantee that it is possible because neither
the science nor the programming is unique, but as I say I'm completely
losing faith that it will ever happen.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 7/3/2021 12:29 PM, Jeff Clarke wrote:
Dave,
With all due respect there are other lists that are dedicated to
digital modes that this subject can be discussed. It doesn't appear
that contesting.com has a digital reflector anymore ( see
http://lists.contesting.com/) but Groups.io does. See
https://groups.io/g/digitalcontesting I bet lots of people like me are
tired of all the posts about FT8 on the contest reflector. There are
lists for VHF contesting and top band on contesting.com and you don't
see those people posting their gripes on CQ-Contest. Since FT8 is also
specialized mode it should be discussed on a digital reflector and not
a general contesting reflector. Please note I'm not anti-FT8. I
operate it all the time on 6 meters and some of the HF bands because
no one seems to operate CW or SSB outside a contest.
BTW your quote " a mode SIMILAR to FT8 or FT4 but with a different
interface and some different parameters could and should be an
excellent contesting mode i/f it was done properly by somebody who was
smart enough and cared enough to do it/. " seems to be disrespectful
towards Joe Taylor, K1JT. You're aware he is a Nobel Prize laureate in
Physics among other honors? (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Hooton_Taylor_Jr.) I'm sure he
could easily do what you suggest but have you ever thought that he
didn't envision FT8 to be used for contesting?
Jeff
On 7/3/2021 02:57 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
The answer to your question ... for the umpteenth time ... is that a
mode SIMILAR to FT8 or FT4 but with a different interface and some
different parameters could and should be an excellent contesting mode
if it was done properly by somebody who was smart enough and cared
enough to do it. That you and the majority of hams seem to think as
you do is why it isn't likely to ever happen, but that doesn't make
it a complete shame that it won't.
Dave AB7E
On 7/3/2021 9:36 AM, Jeff Clarke wrote:
Again for the umpteenth time... Why are people talking about this
subject on a CONTESTING reflector? Neither FT8 or FT4 are contesting
modes. I guess this is more proof that FT8 has totally taken over
ham radio? I guess people are really bored and can't help
themselves? Hello Mr Moderator can you please tell people to stop!
Jeff
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|