FOR INFO
Mine resets to 1st call also!
Ken.. G0ORH
Sent from my iPad
> On 8 Dec 2019, at 04:58, Jon Anhold wrote:
>
> You guys say "Just don't use Call 1st" - well, in a contest this can destroy
> your rate (see below).
>
> Now, I'm not blaming or shaming WA3EKL - I think maybe his software
You guys say "Just don't use Call 1st" - well, in a contest this can
destroy your rate (see below).
Now, I'm not blaming or shaming WA3EKL - I think maybe his software got
wedged somehow - it happens to the best of us.
When this happens, at least in RTTY Roundup mode, it keeps answering even
if I
On 3 Dec 2019 at 22:10, Eric Spero via wsjt-devel wrote:
> Amazing how those who don't see a need for a new option have their
> opinions and reflect only a view from their use of the software. Again,
> we need to think and view this issue from the operator's point of view
> that is located in r
Agreed.
In addition, as a CQ caller, you have no control over the order in which
WSJT-X decoded the received calls and who's first.
AFAIK, the "persistent" caller can remain 1st if he calls on a frequency
lower than the other callers and the signal is strong enough to be decoded
on the first pass
Just another view on this - last night there was a UK contest - despite it
being a ‘Normal’ mode contest a pile of people were using ‘EU Contest mode’.
What was noticeable, yes WSJT switched modes to follow but in many cases while
switching you ‘lost’ the report.
While the system went on to sen
It's not a lockout file.
The idea is very simple.
Right now call first always picks the 1st decode...ergo the problem
So the idea is that once a call is worked it gets put in a list (doesn't matter
whether or not you log it). The call first logic checks the list and ignores
anybody in it.If
W9MDB wrote:
I'm all ears for opinions from operators who have had a call pileup on them.
I've been a ham since 1955, General in '56, Extra '59. I've always been
primarily a CW op, mostly contesting and chasing DX. I've been the guy
on the DX end of pileups working CW in a major contest, no
Amazing how those who don't see a need for a new option have their
opinions and reflect only a view from their use of the software. Again,
we need to think and view this issue from the operator's point of view
that is located in remote DX wanted locations, and end up in a pile-up.
Mostly thes
David,
As I suspected you are a casual user, hence why you are not able to
comprehend the benefits. For Comparison, since you brought it up..Many
weeks I was doing 1500 + Q's in FT-8 only last year during the grid chase.
I was on the FT-4 Alpha Test Team and I won First Place World in the last
FT
Not so. Any of it.
I've made over 2,000 FT8/FT4 contacts (over 130 countries) in about
three months time and the only ones that weren't DX were the ones that
called me. I tail end DX stations for many of my contacts, but when I
call CQ DX I have zero problem ignoring the persistent statesid
On 12/3/2019 10:11 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
find it ridiculous that people smart enough to get a license
Sadly, too many did nothing more than memorizing answers to multiple
guess questions, not bothering to study the concepts behind the questions.
73, Jim K9YC
Dave, with all due respect, maybe you need to read the thread again... You
are going off on wild tangents in your attempt to discredit and trash talk
every operator you can.
The Reason this is needed is to block Lids from tripping Call First, and or
to prevent them from calling you at all. Maybe a
The point is that you said you needed a block to prevent the impact of
an unwanted caller on your receiver. You just made that up.
The program was designed to require you to actually be an operator,
which is why you have to enable each QSO instead of it being fully
robotic. "Call 1st" is m
That's an absolutely terrible idea unless it was purely an option. When
I have several callers I queue up the next one in the messages boxes if
I'm confident the station in QSO is sending me his final 73. I am then
able to answer the next station immediately upon conclusion of the QSO
and I
If he's not tripping my Call First so I can use the program as it was
designed, I don't give a damn what he's doing... Ron, WV4P
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 10:51, Gary McDuffie wrote:
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 2019, at 19:57, Carey Fisher wrote:
> >
> > That's ridiculous. A "block" wouldn't keep a station f
> On Dec 2, 2019, at 19:57, Carey Fisher wrote:
>
> That's ridiculous. A "block" wouldn't keep a station from transmitting, just
> from being displayed. Can't you just ignore it?
Exactly. Blocking your program from showing him won’t do a thing about the way
his signal affects your receiver
"That's ridiculous. A "block" wouldn't keep a station from transmitting,
just from being displayed. Can't you just ignore it?"
Not easy to ignore when all callers are displayed in Rx frequency window. A
large part of this problem would be fixed by making the RX frequency window
display only cal
It's pretty difficult to ignore a LID on CW or SSB, but it's really
easy to do so on FT8. I do it all the time when I'm calling CQ DX and
somebody stateside insists upon calling me over and over again. I
consider it to be one of the beauties of FT8. If I'm actively working
stations he does
Hi Ron, In your particular situation, I would send them a 73 (tx5) and don't
log them. If they ever ask for a confirmation, I reject it. 73, Sam W2JDB
-Original Message-
From: Ron WV4P
To: WSJT software development
Sent: Mon, Dec 2, 2019 8:29 pm
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Cal
That's ridiculous. A "block" wouldn't keep a station from transmitting,
just from being displayed. Can't you just ignore it?
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 8:29 PM Ron WV4P wrote:
> There are Many reasons to block a caller, they may be a Lid, they may be
> disrupting a QSO, they may just be Very annoyin
Hi Gary -
Part of my reason for using Call 1st is philosophical: When I
call CQ, I am saying I'm willing to work anybody who answers. If
I say CQ ND, for example, I'm saying, "If you're in North
Dakota, I'd really like a QSO." Other operators give CQ a
different meaning.
I will note that I
It was probably a robot!
73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ
From: Ron WV4P
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 20:26
To: WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Callsign lockout
There are Many reasons to block a caller, they may be a Lid, they may be
disrupting a QSO, they may just be Very
There are Many reasons to block a caller, they may be a Lid, they may be
disrupting a QSO, they may just be Very annoying. As it stands we have No
way to deal with them. We need a way. Just last night I had a PA station I
had never worked send me RR73 over and over for 30 min. Ron, WV4P
On Mon, De
I agree. I believe a lockout feature could be abused. Case in point wasduring
the heyday of packet radio (I call it the Packet Radio Wars).If you did not
march to 'their' drum you were locked out of all nodes, BBS'gateways, etc. Such
a thing should be banned. If it is there, someonewill use it
Same - I figure the automation functions are an operator aid, not an operator
replacement.
Jim S.
N2ADV
> On Dec 2, 2019, at 4:37 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>
>
> I have the same opinion. I almost never use "Call 1st" and I find it trivial
> to operate without it no matter how many callers
I'm all ears for opinions from operators who have had a call pileup on them.
If Call 1st is to be implemented at all it should be robust.
It's a trivial patch which I'll make myself and submit for consideration in
WSJT-X.
de Mike W9MDB
___
wsjt-devel mai
I have the same opinion. I almost never use "Call 1st" and I find it
trivial to operate without it no matter how many callers I get.
Even FT8 should be able to handle some degree of operator proficiency.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 12/2/2019 1:00 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
On 12/2/2019 2:54 AM, Martin Da
On 12/2/2019 2:54 AM, Martin Davies G0HDB wrote:
In summary, I don't see any need whatsoever for any modification of the 'Call
1st' capability
to include any forms of queuing or callsign lockout
Agreed. This is an operator issue, not a software one.
73, Jim K9YC
On 1 Dec 2019 at 12:56, Gary McDuffie wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 2019, at 15:15, Black Michael via wsjt-devel
> > wrote:
> >
> > What is needed is the ability to block a callsign for an adjustable time
> > out period defaulting perhaps to 15 minutes.
>
> I´m curious why you use Call 1st anyway. I
I'd love to be able to lock out operators who like to answer your CQ, but
never get beyond their report to you... 20 minutes of cycling back and
forth, until you just change bands to get away from them...
On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 8:08 PM Al Pawlowski wrote:
> The lockout que/buffer idea seems a
The lockout que/buffer idea seems a reasonable way to improve “Call 1st”
operation.
Call signs would be locked out automatically after failing to answer (n times?)
a CQ sender's response. The lockout/s would then clear be cleared manually, or
automatically (by operator selection?), when a CQ’r
> On Nov 30, 2019, at 15:15, Black Michael via wsjt-devel
> wrote:
>
> What is needed is the ability to block a callsign for an adjustable time out
> period defaulting perhaps to 15 minutes.
I’m curious why you use Call 1st anyway. I never use it and have never found a
use for it. I want
On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 2:22 PM Larry Burke wrote:
> >> You have no idea if they are calling blind until you send them TX2 and
> they don't send you TX3.
>
>
>
> While I agree that there are some who call blind, there are other reasons
> for the caller not replying with a TX3… QSB being the one th
turday, November 30, 2019 11:16 PM
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: Black Michael
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Callsign lockout
You're assuming they are not calling blind. You have no idea if they are
calling blind until you send them TX2 and they don't send you TX3.
This is
3 Paul.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
Original message
From: Ron WV4P
Date: 01/12/2019 00:18 (GMT+00:00)
To: Black Michael , WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Callsign lockout
This function has Desperately been needed for a long time. Ron, WV4P
You're assuming they are not calling blind. You have no idea if they are
calling blind until you send them TX2 and they don't send you TX3.
This is noticeable all the time on dxpeditions where you will see a dozen
people constantly calling and if you check their spot history (for those that
hav
This function has Desperately been needed for a long time. Ron, WV4P
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 4:21 PM Black Michael via wsjt-devel <
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> Was just communicating with an Alaskan operator who was complaining about
> operators calling him in the blind. And when yo
Was just communicating with an Alaskan operator who was complaining about
operators calling him in the blind. And when you have Call First checked the
blind callers become a PITA.
What is needed is the ability to block a callsign for an adjustable time out
period defaulting perhaps to 15 minute
38 matches
Mail list logo
