I don't think so George but I think equipment, software and operating skills
have moved on quite rapidly in recent years. Initially when the IOTA contest
rules were drafted, there was only really CT and NA available for multi
operator contests, neither of which were interested in supporting a
pip-squeak contest. EI5DI's Super Duper did support it but only for single
ops.
Certainly one of the aspects considered at that time, some 13 years ago, was
whether the rules should accommodate the limited appeal of SD, and it was
felt that in doing so it would be the tail wagging the dog. I think that was
the right decision at that time.
Over the years the contest has grown in popularity, with leading multi-op
entries able to make over 3000 Qs in the 24 hours. Entries received have
moved from an initial couple of hundred to around 1300 now, even with the
declining sunspot cycle. As a result one of the areas the adjudicators have
looked at is this business of serial numbers and as far as I am aware
sequential numbers are not required but the advise is make sure the
recipient has received the number that you gave, which seems fair enough.
I do recall during the period when I was involved with checking that I
docked some Qs and Mults from a leading MO group who used TR, because they
had duplicate serial numbers. Thankfully times have moved on.
I would however defend a contest organiser in generally drafting rules to
support the aims of the contest rather than trying to make them fit current
software limitations.
For instance, whilst the IOTA exchange is long eg 599 2347 EU114 in
comparison to say CQWW, ENN N, I would not wish the sponsors to change it
(a) because of serial number situations like the current discussion and (b)
because people can't hack a different operating style. It would certainly be
undesirable to have numerous contests all sounding like CQWW, however great
that one is.
Apologies but one further point. Whilst I understand there has been some
relaxing of the interpretation of the rules regarding receivers, the
original idea of this event was not Multi-Multi style. The rules are quite
specific in allowing just two transceivers.
73 Chris G3SJJ, op at GU8D (multi-operator section)
-----Original Message-----
From: writelog-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:writelog-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of George Johnson
Sent: 24 July 2005 21:45
To: K4SB; writelog@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [WriteLog] Serial Numbers with networked PCs
The rerun of this thread makes me wonder if the contest sponsors:
1. Are truly "living in a cave" and do not realize that some modern
practitioners, who want to use multiple everything to be more competitive,
are constantly aggravated by notion of a single sequential (no gap) serial
number to be sent and logged.
or are these same sponsors
2. Surreptitiously putting roadblocks on the way of single op multi multi
configurations.
Hmmm...
Ed, will your TRS80 program run from cassette?
73, George .. W1ZT
At 03:25 PM 7/24/2005, K4SB wrote:
>kd4d@comcast.net wrote:
> > Unfortunately, WAE DOES require sequential serial numbers between
> > the main (run) and multiplier stations. They also don't accept
> > serial numbers by band. So, this is not a non-existent problem! :-(
>------------
>Please keep in mind that I wrote contest programs on a Trash 80 back
>from 78 to 80.
>All in pure machine language, using a compiler of course. And my dupe
>algorithm on a
>1.8 mHz machine will still beat the snot out of any current program.
>And yes, it is
>patented, copy writed, and ever thing else.
>
>There are 2 solutions to the WAE problem. A program which will sort
>the log by serial number is the more simple, and easy.
>
>However, should Wayne wish to work on the problem within WL, it would
>seem the most
>logical approach is to set aside a 2 byte buffer which holds the
>serial number in
>binary format. Now, using perhaps the "log the contact key", whichever
>computer is selected gets that serial number, the number is
>incremented by one, and so on. This also
>requires that a "master" log be kept on the "run" computer.
>
>But, as I said, combining the logs and then sorting by serial number
>is much more simple. Especially when only WAE is involved.
>
>73
>Ed
_______________________________________________
WriteLog mailing list
WriteLog@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.4 - Release Date: 22-07-05
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.4 - Release Date: 22-07-05
_______________________________________________
WriteLog mailing list
WriteLog@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
|