On 25/12/2018 15:29, F6BHK wrote:
151630 -17 0.4 1694 ~ CQ 4X19HNY
151646 Tx 1694 ~ <4X19HNY> F6BHK
151715 Tx 1694 ~ <4X19HNY> F6BHK
151730 -17 0.4 1694 ~ F6BHK <4X19HNY> -22
151745 Tx 1694 ~ <4X19HNY> F6BHK R-17
151815 Tx 1694 ~ <4X19HNY> F6BHK R-17
151800 -22 0.4 1693 ~ F6BHK <4X19HNY> -22
151816 Tx 1694 ~ <4X19HNY> F6BHK R-22
151845 Tx 1694 ~ <4X19HNY> F6BHK R-22
151900 -19 0.3 1693 ~ <...> 4X19HNY RR73
151915 -16 1.1 1694 ~ <4X19HNY> SQ2BNM -15
in the sense I am not able to be sure 4X19HNY has got my report. I
would have expected <...> being <F6BHK> instead.
Hi Serge,
this is another variant on the known issue with hash collisions in
WSJT-X v2.0.0. In this case the first message you receive with your
callsign hashed:
151900 -19 0.3 1693 ~ <...> 4X19HNY RR73
is not printed correctly because WSJT-X has not stored your own callsign
in the relevant hash table (not a hash collision but a missing hash code
mapping to you callsign). Although it is not clear you can be quite
certain that 4X19HNY has copied your call correctly since it was sent in
full during the QSO in the message:
151730 -17 0.4 1694 ~ F6BHK <4X19HNY> -22
I would log the QSO as it almost 100% certain that the sign off message
sent by 4X19HNY was "<F6BHK> 4X19HNY RR73" and it will be in his log.
This issue is resolved for the next release of WSJT-X.
73 & Merry Christmas
Bill
G4WJS.
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
