Sorry Don, but I do not know. I'm copying Alex, VE3NEA, the author of
RTTY Skimmer Server. He can probably answer this, and he also needs to
know about the need to add DN to the list of CQ tagging keywords.
73, Pete N4ZR
Download the new N1MM Logger+ at
<http://N1MM.hamdocs.com>. Check
out the Reverse Beacon Network at
<http://reversebeacon.net>, now
spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
For spots, please use your favorite
"retail" DX cluster.
On 3/23/2016 10:20 PM, Don Hill AA5AU wrote:
We've heard some good things in this thread. We heard from, I think it was
Dave K6LL, who believes the RTTY skimmer spots are getting better. And we've
heard from Pete, N4ZR, saying that by using "aggressive" validation, we get
better spot accuracy with only a small reduction in the number of spots.
This all seems good but we need all RTTY skimmer ops to use this aggressive
setting.
I shied away from using RTTY skimmer spots after trying to use them on a
couple of occasions last year only to get slowed down by chasing spots of
S&P stations instead of run stations. I am going to try using skimmer spots
again during EA RTTY next weekend to see what improvements have been made. I
do realize the potential upside of RTTY skimmer spots.
I do have one question. I understand that one of the biggest issues is that
RTTY contesters place "CQ" at the end of their CQ message (and it's for good
reason). Most of us use a single space at the end of that message. Would it
help if everyone who places CQ at the end of their CQ message, used two
spaces instead of one after that trailing "CQ"? If so, I'll start doing that
and advocate that others do it as well. Would it make a difference? Would we
get less S&P stations being spotted by RTTY skimmer?
73, Don AA5AU
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Pete Smith N4ZR
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 5:45 AM
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY Skimmer
Thanks for calling this out, Ian. I checked, and discovered that DF4UE is
running "minimal" validation. I'm sure this is an oversight on his part,
and have just sent an e-mail to him suggesting he adopt the recommended RBN
standards of "normal" validation on CW and "aggressive"
on RTTY. Recent tests confirmed that "aggressive" validation on RTTY results
in usefully better spot accuracy with only a small reduction in the raw
number of spots.
73, Pete N4ZR
Download the new N1MM Logger+ at
<http://N1MM.hamdocs.com>. Check
out the Reverse Beacon Network at
<http://reversebeacon.net>, now
spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
For spots, please use your favorite
"retail" DX cluster.
On 3/23/2016 4:28 AM, Ian White wrote:
K6LL wrote:
In my experience, the VE3NEA RTTY Skimmers are much improved lately
on spotting stations that are actually calling CQ. I always connect
to a CC-Cluster node, using CC-user Software, which seamlessly feeds
N1MM Logger. I think the CC Clusters do some filtering to validate
spots from multiple skimmers. My usual nodes are VE7CC-1 or AE5E-2.
RTTY Skimmers have definitely come of age in the past 12 months.
Many thanks to all those who are feeding the RBN, both CW and RTTY!
The quality of RTTY skimmer spots does continue to improve, but there
is still a significant 'leakage' of spots for stations that are
replying to a CQ.
Although "CQ" can appear at both the beginning and end of a text
string, it still should not be too difficult to parse an ambiguous
fragment like "GM3W CQ K6LL". One of the two spaces in that string
will be a genuine, synchronous RTTY <space> character; but the other
will just be an asynchronous gap between two different stations.
And above all: if there is any doubt, the skimmer should *not* spot!
It isn't a race between different skimmers, and there's sure to be
another CQ coming along shortly.
Another problem last weekend was that one specific skimmer (DF4UE-#)
was spotting consistently incorrect callsigns.
73 from Ian GM3SEK (@GM3W)
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Hachadorian
Sent: 22 March 2016 23:03
To: reflector RTTY
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY Skimmer
In my experience, the VE3NEA RTTY Skimmers are much improved lately
on spotting stations that are actually calling CQ. I always connect
to a CC-Cluster node, using CC-user Software, which seamlessly feeds
N1MM Logger. I think the CC Clusters do some filtering to validate
spots from multiple skimmers. My usual nodes are VE7CC-1 or AE5E-2.
RTTY Skimmers have definitely come of age in the past 12 months.
Many thanks to all those who are feeding the RBN, both CW and RTTY!
Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
Yuma, AZ
-----Original Message-----
From: pcooper
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 10:31 AM
To: Al Kozakiewicz
Cc: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY Skimmer
Al AB2ZY and the group,
I have local access to a skimmer cluster as well as a normal cluster.
Both run simultaneously here in the shack 24/7. Looking at the
skimmer cluster, I repeatedly see spots for stations that are
responding to a CQ call, rather than calling CQ themselves.
I have tried using the skimmer cluster in a contest, and that simply
clogs up the bandmap with loads of spots that aren't calling CQ.
I know the skimmer clusters are supposed to be intelligent and only
spots calls who are sending CQ, but I see far more spots for those
that aren't.
Where cluster access is allowed in a contest, I will use the normal
cluster, as I mostly use it to gauge whether another band is open, or
worth trying. If there is some juicy DX spotted, I may well try for
them, depending on the situation, but generally, if that juicy DX has
just been spotted, it's usually pointless trying, as loads of others
will already be there.
This was evident during the BARTG contest at the weekend, as I came
across FP/KV1J calling CQ on 20m, so I tried to get in, but he had a
mini pile-up going. I did try a couple of times more, but then he got
spotted, and I gave up, as it just got silly, with callers shouting
over each other and the exchange in progress.
Happily came across him again later, and got in first shout. It was
similar with HP3/VY2SS.
That's just my own view of things.....
73 de Phil GU0SUP
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|