I suspect it was the basic difference between the regular FT 6 message
version of a QSO, and the contest committee's choice to dispense with
the signal report in favor of the shorter 4 message version of a QSO.
They endorsed use of the NA VHF one already embedded in WSJT-X.
Which of course reduces the amount of time it takes for a normal FT QSO
that includes the signal report, by one third. Which is what contesting
is all about after all.
The dichotomy is that one of the stated goals was to encourage
non-contesters to get into the fray, but ... that was an accident
waiting to happen. It doesn't bother me. I logged all the contacts
where I sent my info and received the other guys info. I'll let the
contest sponsors sort out my log. I bet I have some NILs. I'm sure it
will be a learning experience for everyone, including the sponsors.
73 - Mark N5OT
On 9/1/2019 8:31 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
On 9/1/2019 2:54 PM, Edward Sawyer wrote:
I am reading with interest the discussion about the digi contest.
Many people were repeating that FT8 was used more than FT4 to "pick
up the casuals".
It doesn't appear that you've read K1JT's documentation on WSJT-X,
which includes about a dozen different protocols for different
propagation and different operating activities.
https://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/wsjtx-doc/wsjtx-main-2.1.0.html
73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
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
|