Topics

2.3.0 rc2 Unexpected behavior


Gary Rogers
 

When conducting a QSO, my partner will send R-xx to which i reply RR73...I rearm the enable TX button...My partner did not receive my RR73 and resends R-xx...Instead of replying back to my partner with another RR73, RC2 goes into CQ TX6...In previous versions if the RR73 was not received, as long as the enable tx button was armed, it would resend RR73...Under under RC2, it is now necessary to click on the partner's R-xx to resend my RR73. Is this the intended behavior?

FT8 example today:

CQ VE3XET EN58

VE3XET KO3F DM12

KO3F VE3XET -08

VE3XET KO3F R -10

KO3F VE3XET RRR

VE3XET KO3F 73 At this point I've logged the QSO, DX call and grid boxes have cleared and I've rearmed Enable TX, but VE3XET did not hear my 73

KO3F VE3XET RRR Here RC2 transmits CQ KO3F DM12 instead of VE3XET KO3F 73 as it has in previous versions. 

Clear DX call and grid after logging is checked. Running on Mac OS Catalina 10.15.7

Let me know if you need more info Gary KO3F


Gary Rogers
 

This must be an intermittent incident as its happened before but just now worked as expected on a different QSO.


Reino Talarmo
 

Hi,

I assume that this is intended behavior as you logged the QSO after sending 73 without waiting a 73 from your partner who sent RRR not RR73.

So wsjt-x assumes that you completed the call as you logged it. It seems that you have ‘Clear DX call and grid after logging’ activated. If you don’t activate it, then you could just click on Now Tx5 to repeat 73.

73, Reino OH3mA

 

From: main@WSJTX.groups.io [mailto:main@WSJTX.groups.io] On Behalf Of Gary Rogers
Sent: 20. marraskuuta 2020 0:20
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: [WSJTX] 2.3.0 rc2 Unexpected behavior

 

When conducting a QSO, my partner will send R-xx to which i reply RR73...I rearm the enable TX button...My partner did not receive my RR73 and resends R-xx...Instead of replying back to my partner with another RR73, RC2 goes into CQ TX6...In previous versions if the RR73 was not received, as long as the enable tx button was armed, it would resend RR73...Under under RC2, it is now necessary to click on the partner's R-xx to resend my RR73. Is this the intended behavior?

FT8 example today:

CQ VE3XET EN58

VE3XET KO3F DM12

KO3F VE3XET -08

VE3XET KO3F R -10

KO3F VE3XET RRR

VE3XET KO3F 73 At this point I've logged the QSO, DX call and grid boxes have cleared and I've rearmed Enable TX, but VE3XET did not hear my 73

KO3F VE3XET RRR Here RC2 transmits CQ KO3F DM12 instead of VE3XET KO3F 73 as it has in previous versions. 

Clear DX call and grid after logging is checked. Running on Mac OS Catalina 10.15.7

Let me know if you need more info Gary KO3F


Gary Rogers
 

Right in the example below, he sent RRR and when I sent 73, the logging box popped up and I clicked ok and rearmed enable Tx. My point is that previously the program would resend 73 not CQ. 


Tony Collett
 

I think Reino explanation is correct but not worded so that you understood?

The program only sent CQ because you had logged the QSO and cleared the fields.
If you had waited and not logged the QSO until after you saw his 73 message it would have behaved as you expected.

Perhaps there is a difference in behaviour in how it works with RRR or RR73 endings but so few now use RRR sequence that I can't be sure!

73
Tony G4NBS


JP Tucson, AZ
 

Hi Tony,

The only problem with your theory is that it (wsjtx) calls on you respond & log as it starts sending out the RR73 (TX4) message. 

What you are suggesting can only be done manually, and this discussion is about the AUTO-sequencer not operating quite right.

Personally, I think the issue comes down to 2 different & apparently incompatible philosophies about the RRR vs. RR73  response & the logic bug it creates; both in software & practice. Perhaps the best choice is for wsjtx to pick one & offer only that  one choice.

Since I see about 90-95% of users use RR73... I think we should go with that.

73 - John - N7GHZ

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 9:07 AM Tony Collett via groups.io <tony.nbs=btinternet.com@groups.io> wrote:
I think Reino explanation is correct but not worded so that you understood?

The program only sent CQ because you had logged the QSO and cleared the fields.
If you had waited and not logged the QSO until after you saw his 73 message it would have behaved as you expected.

Perhaps there is a difference in behaviour in how it works with RRR or RR73 endings but so few now use RRR sequence that I can't be sure!

73
Tony G4NBS



Reino Talarmo
 

Hi John,

I know that we cannot agree, but statement:

 

The only problem with your theory is that it (wsjtx) calls on you respond & log as it starts sending out the RR73 (TX4) message. 

implies something else should happen, most probably (wxjt-x) should not propose you to log the QSO. My question is when AUTO-sequencer should present to you a logging possibility?

 

User Guide reminds The RR73 message should be used only if you are reasonably confident that no repetitions will be required.

To me this indicates that some human being consideration is needed before you should log the QSO. On the SEMI-AUTO-sequencer point of view QSO is completed as 73 is sent. Should the logging window contain a reservation e.g.

By clicking the OK button you accept that you are confident that QSO is completed ALSO by both parties in this QSO!!!

 

The SEMI-AUTO-sequencer is not intended to be an intelligent robot, but a simple helping tool for operator!

If operator logs the QSO, then that sequencer does as instructed and considers QSO completed and a new double clicking on any call sign is considered to belong to another QSO attempt.

 

For human being there is a nice set of Next and Now buttons for behavior manual selection.

 

What you are suggesting can only be done manually, and this discussion is about the AUTO-sequencer not operating quite right.

It is really a question, which deviations from a straight through QSO message sequence should be covered. The current auto-repeat of messages, when a corresponding Roger is missing should be enough. By the way ‘73’ is not a roger in a minimum QSO, hi! No need to open that discussion as no machine can mimic humans there.

 

73, Reino OH3mA

 

PS thanks Tony for clarifying what I tried to say.

Reino


Gary Rogers
 

My example below was for an RRR response which does not seem to respond as it did previously if a second RRR is received after the QSO is logged...RR73 seems to be ok