Hi again Ted,
I had second thoughts, after sending the message, about my choice of
words. The 'proficient operator' expression can be misinterpreted as an
'elitist' comment. Rest assured that was not what I had in mind.
There is a fine line when it comes to automation, and the developers
were clear in the past that they will not cross that line. Whether your
enhancement suggestion would be crossing the line, I'll let the
developers speak for themselves.
I don't have anything against newbies, and as a matter of fact, I'm
still one myself. I get my fair share of 'reprimands'. I try to help
newbies with their FT8 questions on QRZ and eHam as much as I can, but
that enthusiasm cooled off a bit after the release of RC2. The number of
times people asked about the missing frequency list, when the same
question had been asked, and answered, numerous times in the previous 24
hours, was too much.
The question is how much 'handholding' is reasonable to expect? We all
know that reading the manual is the last option for some, for others
it's never an option. :^)
Sorry for the 'rant'.
73 de Vince, VA3VF
On 2017-10-01 11:54 AM, Ted Gisske wrote:
Vince,
Thanks for the comments. I think the key point is "by a proficient operator". I
often do manually what I am proposing to do automatically.
There are a lot of newbie non-proficient operators on the band, with the
smash-hit popularity of FT8. I was one of them, until recently...
I find lot of times that stations call me incessantly on exactly the same
frequency as the station that I am in QSO with. I don't think it is deliberate,
but rather just what the default is for the program. A minor amount of
spreading out of signals would go a long way toward improving the situation. If
it were automatic, then newbies would not be a problem.
Ted
K9IMM
-----Original Message-----
From: DXer [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2017 10:44 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Possible enhancement?
Hi Ted,
I don't speak for the developers. I'm simply a user.
What you are suggesting can easily be done now by a proficient operator.
I use N1MM+, and what they did was mitigate poor operating practices, after all
education attempts had failed.
There are people out there that will click on a spot, and start yelling their
'lasss two', before confirming the call is correct, and/or they can hear the
DX. Dxing by instruments, as I call it.
It always boils down to operating practices. There was an interesting case
yesterday involving an all time new one for me, and based on the pile up, for
many others as well. The DX was asking for people to spread out, and and yet to
the best of my observation, he was only answering those on frequency. After a
while his requests to spread out were ignored, and the QSO rate collapsed.
73 de Vince, VA3VF
On 2017-10-01 11:22 AM, Ted Gisske wrote:
I’ve noticed, and judging from the lively discussion on enforcing
split operation, others have too, that when I call CQ, lots of folks
call me on my exact transmitting frequency, resulting in no decode for any
reply.
The developers of N1MM faced a similar situation with packet-spotted
replies. When everyone pounced on a new CW packet spot at the same
time on the same frequency, the result was an indecipherable mess of
dits and dahs. Their clever solution was to add an optional random
offset to the frequency to a reply to an incoming packet spot of 30Hz
or 60Hz. This spread signals out enough to help the situation considerably.
It strikes me as a variation on that trick might help out FT8 QRM. FT8
appears to be able to decode signals only a few Hz apart. Why not add
an option to add/subtract a random offset of up to +/-15 Hz or so to
any reply to a CQ? This would make decoding much more likely and add
negligible additional QRM to the band.
Ted
K9IMM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
