I wonder if the developers would be interested in adding code to support dynamic 73 messaging?  For example, at my QTH with it's nearby Casino noise level, QSOs generally at -14 or higher complete with little to no retries, while increasingly weaker contacts have a much higher probability of multiple repeats to confirm.  I could see a preference value supporting this mode.

Manually switching between the two messages within the QSO is often not achievable in real-time as the Auto-Sequence QSO structure has already begin transmitting it's reply.  Too, the QSO environment is quite dynamic as one will work a very loud station followed by a significantly weaker one.

Harry  K7GQ  (obviously too much time on my hands)

I would like to piggy back on Harry's idea but how about we eliminate RRR.  The majority of hams are using RR73 but when someone sends me a RRR they expect a 73 in return yet WSJTx continues to send RR73.  I either have to manually switch to 73 or just move on.

For that matter why not make Msg2 the calling Msg and save time?  I do this manually but when running FT4 I fail to be fast enough about 25% of the time.

Just some thoughts, 73

KC0GU
Warren

IMHO .. when in JT65, JT9, FT8, and FT4 ,  the only station that should send an RRR, is the CQ station, same for the RR73.   

However, the contest modes are completely different, for instance, in NA VHF Contest mode, the answering station sends the RRR after receiving an R GRID Tx from the CQ station.

The program will properly respond when the proper sequence is used.   Saving 15 seconds, or in FT4 7 seconds, causes more issues, and actually winds up taking more time to correct than to let it run properly

Neil, KN3ILZ

Why can't their program recognize response of RR73 properly after they send RRR?   Seems that is viable solution.   

73 W5AJ

On Fri, May 15, 2020, 6:52 PM <kcZEROgu@...> wrote:

I would like to piggy back on Harry's idea but how about we eliminate RRR.  The majority of hams are using RR73 but when someone sends me a RRR they expect a 73 in return yet WSJTx continues to send RR73.  I either have to manually switch to 73 or just move on.

For that matter why not make Msg2 the calling Msg and save time?  I do this manually but when running FT4 I fail to be fast enough about 25% of the time.

Just some thoughts, 73

KC0GU
Warren

I'm with you Warren.  The RRR should be totally replaced with RR73. 

73.
Carl - WC4H

FWIW .. there are perfectly good reasons to keep the RRR . .and Dr. Taylor has commented on them many times.

Neil, KN3ILZ

I'm with you Warren.  The RRR should be totally replaced with RR73. 

73.
Carl - WC4H

If it were up to me, I’d eliminate RR73 altogether. It certainly has almost no place in weak signal work, and the extra couple of seconds isn’t going to realistically ruin strong signal contacts. KISS.

Gentlemen, not so fast.

See Section 8.3. JT65 of the user guide:
"With VHF features enabled the JT65 decoder will respond to special message formats often used for EME: the OOO signal report and two-tone shorthand messages for RO, RRR, and 73. These messages are always enabled for reception; they will be automatically generated for transmission if you check the shorthand message box Sh."

These special signals can be "observed/decoded" visually on the waterfall, sometimes even when they fail to decode.
Let's leave RRR (and RO, and 73) alone.

Kindest regards,
Kai Siwiak, KE4PT

Right on, George.

Hi Kai!

You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! I have noticed MANY TIMES on 6m Es, with all the QSB that
I have to send RRR a number of times to finally get a RR73 or 73 from the other
station. I ALWAYS send RRR for that reason! If I just sent RR73 and went on to the
next station, there would be many contacts that were not complete!

GL and VY 73, Lance

On 5/16/2020 13:47:25, Kai-KE4PT wrote:

Let's leave RRR (and RO, and 73) alone.

Kindest regards,
Kai Siwiak, KE4PT

On 5/15/2020 22:32, Carl - WC4H via groups.io wrote:

I'm with you Warren.  The RRR should be totally replaced with RR73

73.
Carl - WC4H

--
Lance Collister, W7GJ(ex WA3GPL, WA1JXN, WA1JXN/C6A, ZF2OC/ZF8, E51SIX, 3D2LR, 5W0GJ, E6M, TX5K, KH8/W7GJ, V6M, T8GJ, VK9CGJ, VK9XGJ, C21GJ, CP1GJ, S79GJ, TX7MB)
P.O. Box 73
Frenchtown, MT 59834-0073
USA
TEL: (406) 626-5728
QTH: DN27ub
URL: http://www.bigskyspaces.com/w7gj
Skype: lanceW7GJ
2m DXCC #11/6m DXCC #815

Interested in 6m EME? Ask me about subscribing to the Magic Band EME
email group, or just fill in the request box at the bottom of my web
page (above)!

I agree with Lance and Kai about the use of RRR.
I rarely send RR73, and then only under good conditions and when I have high confidence it will be received.
And I do not send RR73 multiple times; I send RR73 only once, log the contact as complete, and move on.

Having both RRR and RR73 available is the compromise to a very old argument.

On 5/18/2020 8:19 AM, Harold Miller wrote:

If you cannot spare 15 seconds for a bit of courtesy, then that is your problem.

Hi Hal,

WSJT-X is used in many different ways and for very different purposes. I use it primarily to stretch the range of my station -- to work EU on 160M from my QTH near San Francisco, and to work new/rare grids on 6M. Both of these require that QSOs be as short as possible, because both openings are short. Those 160M openings are 20-30 minutes of daylight after EU sunris. Openings on 6M can last for hours or exist for as little as 10 minutes. This is especially true of double-hop E-skip, which I need to reach east of the Mississippi River.

In these situations, allowing the other guy to finish his QSO as quickly as possible is the courteous thing to do. And exactly the same rule applies to contest QSOs.

73, Jim K9YC

This thread will be locked effective 1200 UTC 19/5/2020. 

Andy K3UK

The program has to decode one or the other: RRR or RR73.  If for some reason it is required in VHF/UHF, the have it appear there but not on HF.  

WSJT-X is used more in HF than VHF/UHF.  I would not call it "hijacked" but rather "used for more than originally envisioned."  That is typical in Ham Radio.

As for "letting it work properly", it works perfectly well with RR73.   
Just because the RR73 brings up the "Log" popup, one does not have to log right away.  If the qso partner gave a +05 report, then I log it because its pretty near certain he will copy on first tx.  If he sends me a -20, I do not log it until I receive the 73 from him.  

I consider K1JT to be a true Genius and a truly benevolent person.  I just don't agree with this RRR being better than RR73.  At least not in HF which today, is by far the major use of the program.  If I have to resend an RR73 it is likely that I would have had to resend an RRR.  

If the RRR is better in VHF/UHV so be it for those bands.  I only go up to 6 meters and I use RR73 there also as do most ops. 
73.

Carl - WC4H

Warren, wsjt-x does send a 73 after receiving RRR or an RR73.  There are other programs that are not quite as good with the sequence!!!  I know one that creates that loop on it's side not on the wsjt-x side.
WSJT-X has the correct sequencing working very well in all cases.

IE: - I send RR73, the qso partner sends R-nn again, then my sequence goes to RR73 again.  When he sends 73, mine goes to CQ.  I have it set up so when I log it it clears the station.  As logging is not  premature, the sequencing will be correct.

73.
Carl - WC4H