Hi Bill,
> There was a lengthy discussion that was mostly related to type 2
> compound call signs. It was HF focused because at the time WSJT-X only
> supported that.
This is not exactly correct. WSJT-X fully supported tye original ("Type
1") compound callsigns, but it did not generate the required messages
automatically. You had to enter the desired message manually. This had
always been effective in the VHF-and-up regimes, where there were few
"casual" WSJT users. Operators were generally long-time WSJT users,
read and understood the User Guide, and mostly knew how to handle
special cases.
>> ... because final Rogers were sent before both full callsigns have been
>> copied by both operators. K1ABC confirmed a valis QSO without having
>> copied his own full callsign.
> That is debatable as it is up to the receiving station to decide if they
> have copied the correct c/s. This same debate happens in contests where
> those aiming to maximize their QSO rate get annoyed when stns replying
> to a CQ send the CQ caller's c/s. The station calling CQ knows their own
> callsign and if the caller hears it wrong then that is their problem.
> Agreed that the stn running the frequency may lose points if logs are
> cross checked but I don't think that actually happens. For example here
> is a quote from a submission report for CQ WW FONE 2013:
>
> "Stations Copying Call Incorrectly - This is a list of all contacts we
> could identify where the station you worked copied your call
> incorrectly. You do not lose credit for these contacts. They are
> provided for your information. If you have many similar errors, you
> should concentrate on ways to send your call differently that may be
> easier for others to correctly copy."
>
> Agreed the above is an HF World view but nothing in my license
> conditions says that I have to log my QSO partners call correctly.
Of course all you say here is correct. But the WSJT family pedigree is
VHF based, and I'd to maintain a VHF-based level of integrity as the
default. Obviously individual operators can do as they please, and
enter whatever messages they find most useful.
> It is no problem to change especially as it has not been released in a
> version that includes non-HF modes. I suppose the real problem is that
> when tail-ending it is easy to not realize the full compound c/s of a
> stn running a frequency, especially if the stns worked cannot be
> decoded, although there should always be a period when "QRZ HK0/G4WJS"
> should be sent but I suppose that could be not decoded at the
> tail-ender's stn. Should the 73 message be a standard one with base call
> signs or is the shortened free text version with the QSO partner's
> compound c/s we currently generate the best option?
The current option seems OK for Type 2 calls.
> There is a further complication that occurs if both call signs are
> compound ones, I believe the present implementation deals with that OK
> but I'm not so sure using messages along the lines suggested in the User
> Guide will work out as well without further work..
This case is so rare that I haven't worried much about it. Squeezing
callsigns into 28 bits requires some compromises, to be sure.
Optimizing the protocol for EME meant not compromising its performance
(i.e., sensitivity) for 99% or the expected QSOs.
-- Joe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
