Just to clarify, the line contained both calls and RR73. This was AFTER reports
had been sent both ways. So I don't know what the difference would be in
receiving 2 "Rogers" instead of 3. :-)
Jay KA9CFD
Sent from my U.S. Cellular® Smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: George J Molnar <[email protected]>
Date: 08/24/2015 5:23 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: Bill Ockert - ND0B <[email protected]>, WSJT software development
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto
sequencer
Agree, Bill. Auto-sequence should be the same as manual, and RR73 isn't a good
way to complete, nor is anything else that fails to include your callsign.
George J Molnar, CEM, CHPPNevada Statewide Interoperability Coordinator
@GJMolnar | KF2T | AFA9GM
On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:18 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B <[email protected]> wrote:
Mike,
No I do treat RRR 73 as a valid ending when I handle it
manually. I treat RR73 as improper in both in content and in white
space.
Bill
From: Michael Black
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:53 PM
To: Bill Ockert
- ND0B ; WSJT software development
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto
sequencer
Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO
ending?
About 7% of users use that according to my
logs.
Mike W9MDB
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B <[email protected]> wrote:
Jay,
I
do not view it as harsh. Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes
completely
for well over a year
because of it. I am one of
about five stations in ND that are on JT HF
modes, one
of about three on
both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of one on JT HF modes,
LOTW
and
12 and 160 meters. I get on about twice a year to help folks
with
WAS, I am
not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an
enjoyable experience and I
get a
resentful when folks start counting
teeth... I already know I am about
ready for McDonalds
or the glue
factory.
Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is
considered a minimal
QSO
and I am in complete agreement with
it. A QSO is complete when all of the
essential elements of if
are complete and that includes one station
receiving an RRR.
If
others choose to use a different format that is purely their business
just
as it
is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal
contact.
At one point
I had a much more lenient policy about that which
included sending TX3 a
second
time then emailing the station letting
them know what the issue was and
offering a
retry. However I
was point blank told that I had no right to tell other
stations what
to
transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I
terminate
the contact
immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not
offer a retry.
The person
who was doing the complaining called me a
crazy old ^&%$#$% when I made the
change
so it must have been
exactly the right thing to do.
As a personal side note I was hoping to
make it to 60 before that happened
but oh well...
I believe if there
is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions
should be
to
enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal
QSOs. That is
both
for integrity of the QSO reasons and
because it would be a pain to program
all of the
variations that are
floating around out there. The only question mark
there
should
be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the
contact. There
is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I
believe is handled
reasonably well in the WSJT
ISCAT auto sequencer that
I hope to move over the WSJTX.
For those users who feel otherwise they
can always override the auto
sequencer and advance
if they feel the auto
sequencer was being too strict.
73 de Bill
ND0B
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Hainline
Sent:
Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM
To: WSJT software development
Subject:
Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
Not
logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up
to
that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and
just
bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was
send the
73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that
point. I did
manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was
logged.
73 Jay
Jay Hainline KA9CFD
Colchester, IL
EN40om
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Ockert - ND0B
Sent:
Monday, August 24, 2015 15:54
To: [email protected]
Subject:
Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
The
auto sequencer, while it should not have gone back to TX2, actually
acted
in a
benign manner compared to what I would have done manually, namely
ended the
contact
without the benefit of logging it.
73 de
Bill ND0B
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Hainline
Sent:
Monday, August 24, 2015 6:56 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject:
[wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer
I had a
small issue this morning working a station on 6 meters using
WSJTX-devel
r5808 using JT9H mode and auto sequencing. The station I was
running with
sent calls followed by RR73 programmed in the TX4 message
button. The auto
sequencer on my end got confused by this and went back to
TX2 to send the
report again. I was wondering if this is something where the
auto sequencer
can be programmed to be a little more flexible? I think if I
copy either
RRR or RR73, it should go to transmit TX5 which I have as
sending calls and
73.
The station I ran with says he is using version r5803 and claims
RR73 was
pre-set for TX4 inside that particular version he downloaded. My
WSJTX 1.6.1
copy has always had TX4 programmed with calls and
RRR.
73 Jay
Jay Hainline KA9CFD
Colchester, IL
EN40om
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel
mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel
mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel
mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel
mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
