I like the idea - it sure needs something to help the current situation. But "... FT8 appears to be able to decode signals only a few Hz apart" is fact or an assumption? I have found that a strong signal even slightly over-lapping a wanted weaker one, as seen on the waterfall, will cripple decoding. Please explain further how you achieve it and also please define the 'few Hz' term.
Erik EI4KF. -----Original Message----- From: DXer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 October 2017 16:22 To: WSJT software development <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Possible enhancement? 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
