I'll bite. VHF contests have a small number of people operating. It's easy
to slap a wire into a tree and get on HF, getting useful antennas in a
useful place for VHF is harder despite of the smaller size. Modes like FT-8
make it possible for someone with a loop in a tree to actually work the
contest. This means more people can get on the air, and more points for
everyone.
That said - I'm a rover and digital modes are hard for us. We don't run
with a generator, and a laptop powered off of our batteries is quite the
draw. I think it might be possible to work FT-8 with a raspberry pi, but
it's just more crap to have in the rover and it's already cramped in there.
Maybe a dedicated rover vehicle that I can permanently install this would
solve that problem, but thus far donations of such have not been
forthcoming. I also ran into the situation this weekend where our 2 Vermont
grids had zero cell service, so ping jockey/on4kst/sms/etc were not an
option. Duffey has a strong point about operator overload as well, I forgot
to even do the simple task of pinging with Rover Status to get an APRS spot
out for us most of the time.
Both sides have merit. I'd argue that these experimental weak signal modes
may be more in the spirit of amateur radio than sitting on SSB, at least
it's pushing the envelope of what's possible. As long as I can continue to
make contacts on non-digital modes, live and let live. There isn't enough
activity during these events to justify mode-specific dates, and removing
them would reduce the number of people on the air during them anyway.
Personally, I love the fun little chats you can get during slower times on
sideband during the contest, and I know the fact that we failed at getting
our keys connected to the radios (and our poor CW ability) hurt us on a
couple of contacts. It would also be a huge advantage if I could pick up a
handful of remote grids with MSK or similar, handy for a rover when you
don't have 200' towers with stacked beams.
73,
Sean Waite, WA1TE (K1SIG/R)
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 1:22 PM James Duffey <jamesduffey@comcast.net>
wrote:
> After two years, the use of assistance is finally shaking out and I don’t
> think that a fast computer and lots of monitors are necessary to use it to
> best effect. With the recent introduction of FT-8, what, three months old?,
> it is not surprising that people have not learned to use it to its best
> effect. I suspect that will change when people figure out that they can
> complete a CW or SSB QSO locally in a fraction of the time it takes to do
> an FT-8 QSO. I think it a matter of getting used to the mode and not
> relying on it for high SNR QSOes.
>
> Assistance has helped my rover QSO total significantly and at little cost,
> either dollar or time wise, to me. I use APRS-TX to transmit my position
> and that takes little effort or computer expertise on my part. On the fixed
> stations part, it becomes a bigger effort as they need to have an APRS
> client available, such as APRS.fi <http://aprs.fi/>, but that does not
> require a particularly fast computer or an additional monitor. The fixed
> station can see when I am moving and so ignore me, and when I have stopped
> and am on the air and they can work me. They can see my location and point
> their antennas my way when the chances of working me are greatest. To me,
> this is a small investment on the fixed stations part for a big return. It
> reduces the uncertainty about rovers that fixed stations have had in the
> past, primarily, is the rover on the air? and where do I point the antenna
> to work the rover? Good operators will point their antennas at the rover
> when he is stopped in a new grid and call CQ. That generates not only
> activity for me, but also for other stations. It is a win-win situation.
> Having said this, it appears that the ops who would work me first and
> fastest before assistance became available when I published my itinerary,
> are also the first to work me now that assistance is allowed. Good ops rise
> to the top no matter what tools are available to use. It is just with the
> tools one can work more QSOes and mults.
>
> I also use texting on the cell phone for assistance, although that can be
> configured to send messages to the logging computer. Texting is nice as I
> can deal with it at my own pace. I also get calls to the cellphone but
> these are not as convenient as they require immediate attention, but that
> is not always possible given other demands.
>
> I have not adopted FT-8 or MSK144 yet, but it appears that those,
> particularly FT-8, will be necessary to be competitive. I am fine with that
> and a computer logging program can be configured to be compatible with
> FT-8, not sure of MSK144, so that will be much like operating RTTY on an HF
> contest. I will probably work that up for the January contest. I suppose
> that I will need to use ping jockey then, but FT-8 and MSK144 ops in this
> contest have told me that they cold make random QSOes with these modes, at
> least on 6M. We will see.
>
> FT-8 is a big improvement over JT65 for both the fixed station operator
> and the rover. A JT65 QSO takes much longer than an FT-8 QSO and time is of
> the essence for a rover. Waiting for a fixed station to complete a JT65 QSO
> while in a grid was frustrating as that could take 10s of minutes. Waiting
> a few minutes for an FT-8 QSO to be complete is a big advantage and I know
> several locals have benefited from that in QSOes with me.
>
> But, with all the inputs available to the operator, it is easy to get
> overloaded. I see the time coming when the successful rover and multi-op
> stations will have a dedicated situational awareness operator who will
> monitor incoming texts and phone calls, monitor ping jockey for new mults,
> monitor the various bands on a panadapter, to identify new opportunities
> and pass that all on to the operators through networked computers.
>
> Juggling available resources has always been an integral part of
> contesting. The advent of assistance and digital modes is only a new aspect
> of this problem. Computers and monitors should be tools to increase our
> scores, not a means unto themselves. It takes time to work out all the bugs
> when new technology arrives, but that is part of the game.
>
> See you in the Sprints? - Duffey KK6MC
>
> KK6MC
> James Duffey
> Cedar Crest NM
> jamesduffey@comcast.net
>
>
>
> WZ1V wrote:
> > Couldn't operate the entire contest, but most of the time I was on
> > conditions
> > seemed poor and activity lacking. IMO these are no longer Amateur Radio
> > operating skill contests. They have evolved into Computer operating skill
> > contests, where whoever has the fastest and most computers and monitors
> > running
> > and can type the fastest wins. Having to juggle between chat rooms and
> new
> > digital modes vs. actually operating radio has gotten to the point of
> being
> > ridiculous. And what's up with everyone trying to use FT8 to make local
> 6m
> > contacts? Half the time they never complete because half the people
> forgot
> > to
> > change to contest mode for grid square exchanges. And the idea of
> everyone
> > trying to use just one frequency for this during a contest is like
> having a
> > bunch of CB radios all stuck on channel 19 jamming each other.
> > Another gripe - I can't understand why the League continues to condone
> > having
> > the ARRL New England Convention the same weekend as the September VHF
> > contest.
> > No wonder activity was so poor around here. OK I'm done ranting - for
> now.
> > Thanks to the Rovers and portable operations for providing some extra fun
> > to an
> > otherwise lackluster contest.
> > -73, Ron WZ1V
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|