There's no rule proposed, Patrick; I think of it as a mode-specific comment.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
-----Original Message-----
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Patrick Lindecker
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 4:54 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] DXKeeper APP_DXKEEPER_SUBMODE field
Hello Dave,
>Patrick, the newest version of DXKeeper provides a sub-mode field;
>it'd be nice if MultiPSK would log things like the Olivia tone
>constellation there: APP_DXKEEPER_SUBMODE. Perhaps Simon and I can
>convince the ADIF development community to make this a standard field.
Yes it would be nice to add some more information (speed and shift in RTTY,
for example, as you can do standard RTTY but also RTTY with 23 Hz of shift
(even if RTTY MSK is not very used...), or as you propose number of tones
and bandwidth in Olivia or Contestia, or type of SSTV standard...).
Is there some rule about this new field? I will see directly with you for
more details.
73
Patrick
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Bernstein
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 4:58 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Comments on the JT65A and Olivia contests
15 QSOs in about 2 hours of operating, just under half with European
stations, all on 20m. There was an MFSK-16 station QRV that
threatened my sanity; it wasn't the QRM, it was listening to 2 hours
of that moronic "music" that made me feel like Red Buttons in "the
Longest Day". MFSK-16 definitely deserves its own band segment,
preferably with padded soundproof walls. Too bad Pactor III doesn't
sound like that; Winlink would have had their own private band
segment years ago.
Patrick, the newest version of DXKeeper provides a sub-mode field;
it'd be nice if MultiPSK would log things like the Olivia tone
constellation there: APP_DXKEEPER_SUBMODE. Perhaps Simon and I can
convince the ADIF development community to make this a standard field.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Of the 15 or so logs received so far, the comments appear to be.
>
> The bands (40 and 20M) were in very poor conditions
>
> Both Olivia and JT65A contests were considered "tough". Activity
was
> , according to early reports, higher in the JT65A mode .
>
> Several JT65A WSJT users had difficulty handing a "pile-up " (There
> are some advanced features within WSJT where you can decode several
> signals at once, but perhaps people do not know this).
>
> Some folks mistook their local time for UTC time.
>
> Several ZL's, VKs, and JA's on the JT65A contest
>
>
>
> As for the comments that the contest was "tough", that was expected.
> The experimental contests take a lot of patience.
>
> JT65A as implemented in WSJT is not at all designed for
conventional
> contesting. Today's results are helpful for analyzing how contests
> with JT65A could be conducted in the future (if at all!).
>
> Olivia should have been easier, I did see 4 QSO's taking place in
> Olivia 500/8 at the same time on 40M, some die-hards stuck with
500/4
> !
>
>
> Andy K3UK
>
