Neither FT8 nor FT4 are fully automatic using WSJT-X or JTDX. I'm not
sure which app you were using (there are others), but both of those two
require the operator to initiate each CQ and each QSO by default. Yes,
there are people who have written scripts to make QSOs automatic, but
unless you were using something like that your contacts were not
automatic. Neither WSJT-X nor JTDX have a menu option for full
automatic operation.
And if you're trying to optimize rates in an FT4 contest, you have to be
almost constantly doing something.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 8/15/2019 7:07 AM, Zack Widup wrote:
Some of you may have seen the postings elsewhere that ARRL will no longer
admit fully automatic QSO's for contest and DXCC credit (CQ's and QSO
initiation are fully automatic, with no operator intervention). I am
guessing this primarily affects FT8 operation. I have not operated much FT8
but the operation I did was fully automatic. I am guessing there is a way
to set it to semi-automatic operation (a real operator initiates each CQ
and each QSO) (which is a valid QSO for those awards). And I don't know how
how they would tell. But the ruling stands.
73, Zack W9SZ
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 8:08 AM robert <wa1fcn@charter.net> wrote:
GM Matts/Yuri
I agree with you about the ARRL's DXCC credit system.
A mistake for sure. As a life long low power operator it has
taken me 54 years to reach 40 meter DXCC of 280. By allowing
FT8 credits mixed in with every thing I foresee in the near
future,
many achieving this in 10 years or less of effort. At the
next sun spot
cycle peak high DXCC totals on 10, 12, and 15 will be
meaningless. I
know of hams who no longer take part in DXCC for just this
reason.
FT8 credit for DXCC is fine, but keep it separated from single
band/mixed
mode totals.
74 BoB WA1FCN
On 8/15/2019 1:30 AM, Mats Strandberg wrote:
I tend to agree with Yury.
CY9 was much more balanced between modes, than the 3D2 (or least that was
my perception).
It might be so that at the time of John’s (GD) participation in KP5 and
KP1, that there was no ambition to maximize the revenue through donations
(before, during and after the expedition). I don’t question that.
However, since FT8 appeared as an equal mode for DXCC (along with CW,SSB
and RTTY), it definitely has changed some expeditions into becoming
automated QSO/QSL-creating machines...
John, during KP1/KP5, the FT modes were not available, so comparison
might
not be fully relevant.
It is maybe good that FT8 will bring new “DXers” to the table, but the
appearance of this dull mode... has forever changed the feeling of “being
on the other side of the expedition”, and most likely also, being an
operator of that expedition as well.
I question myself, what is the pleasure of being that rare DX, giving out
the ATNOs and the new band points, when the reality is that NO operator
skills are required from me to make those “contacts” happen!
Before, good DX-expeditions we’re separated by less good ones, because of
operator skills. How wonderful was it not to listen to great operators,
handling thousand of callers, to maximize the number of contacts and
happy
DXers on the other side?
Those days were interesting and a memory of our past. The new FT8
euphoria
has forever changed the perception of DX-big, thanks to ARRL’s greed for
award revenue ;(
And, what we now see is the result of the wrong decision to equalize FTx,
JT and other artificial modes, with RTTY, SSB and CW, and accept them for
DXCC Mixed.
The correct way would have been to create FT/JT DXCC separate from
Classic
DXCC...
DXCC as we all knew it, has been hurt tremendously by ARRL unthoughtful
decision to accept FT/JT in Mixed!
73 de RM2D (Mats)
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 05:14, John Crovelli <w2gd@hotmail.com> wrote:
I want to take a moment to dispel the notion suggested by Yuri that
DXpedition operating strategy is all about financial considerations. It
simply isn't for well planned operations.
It is the intent of virtually every DXpedition to provide an opportunity
for those running 100 watts or more to work an ATNO. DXpeditions teams
are
constantly considering ways to reach the broadest possible audience
while
on site.
The implication that operating strategy and mode selection is all about
post operation donations (to cover costs) is just not true. Well
organized
teams have these issues resolved well in advance.
I've been on some large DXpeditions (KP5 and KP1 - both were top ten
world). Our operating teams NEVER set goals based upon donations, and
in
fact, this issue was never even discussed since no one felt it to be
important. Again, financing issues were resolved well before we ever
departed for the islands.
We did however (on a daily basis) take stock of propagation, probably of
openings, and how we were providing global coverage ... to prevent
missing
opportunities to those regions traditionally most difficult. As a tool,
FT8 can be useful.
FT8 modes are providing options not previously available and for the
most
part now replaces RTTY activity. It is my expectation CW and SSB will
always be the main modes for DXpeditions.
John, W2GD aka P40W/P44W
________________________________
From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com> on behalf of Yuri
<
ve3dz@rigexpert.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 4:57 PM
To: 'Jeff Clarke' <ku8e@ku8e.com>; cq-contest@contesting.com <
cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
Seems like the last two big Dxpeditions (CY9 and 3D2) are putting FT8
first before the traditional CW/SSB modes. I sure hope this isn't the
future of ham radio.
I might not be politically correct, but why not to mention that one of
the
all of the DXpeditions' goals is to try to maximize the overall QSO
count
in order to get more donation? That's what hiding behind "best kept
secret"
(that everybody knows) of F/H mode in FT8 in my opinion.
I'm not saying it's bad or good, but it's a fact.
Multi-channel streams need to be prohibited, otherwise it looks like
hypocrisy.
I still remember how the rules for M/S in the ARRL Contests were changed
under the pressure after PJ4G(?) team managed to have 2 stations on the
same band (even not at the same time).
Yuri VE3DZ
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf
Of
Jeff Clarke
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 10:51 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
Didn't someone create a FT8 contest reflector? It would be nice to take
all these comments over there. Seems like FT8 is monopolizing the
contest
reflector just like it is on the air.
Seems like the last two big Dxpeditions (CY9 and 3D2) are putting FT8
first before the traditional CW/SSB modes. I sure hope this isn't the
future of ham radio.
BTW I do operate some FT8 because I'm working on a the digital DXCC.
(because there is hardly any RTTY activity outside of contests) Now that
I've reached 100 countries I'm starting to get bored with it.
Jeff
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
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
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
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
|