locked CQ instead of 73 #FT8


Ken WB8UFC
 

This doesn't seem right to me...
 
Mode: FT8
Relevant setting: Auto Seq (checked) 
 
I answer a CQ by d-clicking on a line in the Rx Frequency list box.
The other side sends my signal report.
WSJT-X sends "R-" plus his signal report.
The other side sends RRR.
WSJT-X sends 73 (and advances the Next message to my CQ message).
The other side sends RRR again.
 
I d-click on his RRR line in the Rx Frequency list box, but after enabling the "Enable Tx" button, WSJT-X sends CQ instead of 73 because it doesn't re-position the "Next" message.
Is this expected behavior (and if so, why)?
 
At any other point in the QSO, d-clicking on the other side's line in the Rx Frequency list box selects the correct next message.

My best current workaround is to quickly click the radio button for the 73 message and then click on "Halt Tx" and then click on "Enable Tx"
Is there a faster/better way?

As a prophylactic measure I've taken to sometimes re-positioning the "Next" radio button manually back to the 73 message in anticipation of another RRR from the other side, but this seems kinda hokey.

WB8UFC


Bill Somerville
 

On 16/02/2021 21:12, Ken WB8UFC wrote:
This doesn't seem right to me...
Mode: FT8
Relevant setting: Auto Seq (checked)
I answer a CQ by d-clicking on a line in the Rx Frequency list box.
The other side sends my signal report.
WSJT-X sends "R-" plus his signal report.
The other side sends RRR.
WSJT-X sends 73 (and advances the Next message to my CQ message).
The other side sends RRR again.
I d-click on his RRR line in the Rx Frequency list box, but after enabling the "Enable Tx" button, WSJT-X sends CQ instead of 73 because it doesn't re-position the "Next" message.
Is this expected behavior (and if so, why)?
At any other point in the QSO, d-clicking on the other side's line in the Rx Frequency list box selects the correct next message.

My best current workaround is to quickly click the radio button for the 73 message and then click on "Halt Tx" and then click on "Enable Tx"
Is there a faster/better way?

As a prophylactic measure I've taken to sometimes re-positioning the "Next" radio button manually back to the 73 message in anticipation of another RRR from the other side, but this seems kinda hokey.

WB8UFC
Hi Ken,

try double-clicking the repeated RRR message.

73
Bill
G4WJS.


Ken WB8UFC
 

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 04:46 PM, Bill Somerville wrote:
try double-clicking the repeated RRR message.
Yes, I just confirmed that I am double-clicking on the repeated RRR message and the behavior I reported occurs.
That is, a CQ is sent; not another 73.


Chuck - KY4CU
 

I usually click on allow transmit as soon as the software thinks the exchange is complete.

Then, if you get a repeat RRR or RR73, the software auto sequences to your 73 msg instead of cq.

Sometimes it's like whack-a-mole trying to keep the button red if I'm on a busy band and getting late decodes.


Reino Talarmo
 

From: main@WSJTX.groups.io [mailto:main@WSJTX.groups.io] On Behalf Of Chuck - KY4CU
Sent: 17. helmikuuta 2021 16:51
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] CQ instead of 73 #FT8

 

I usually click on allow transmit as soon as the software thinks the exchange is complete.

Then, if you get a repeat RRR or RR73, the software auto sequences to your 73 msg instead of cq.

Sometimes it's like whack-a-mole trying to keep the button red if I'm on a busy band and getting late decodes.

 

Chuck,

At what point you log the QSO? Have you already logged the QSO before you receive the repeated RRR or RR73?

73, Reino OH3mA

 


Ken WB8UFC
 

Chuck,

That is definitely NOT the behavior I observe.

Like you, I click the "Enable Tx" immediately after logging the contact.

In the snapshot below, when that second RR73 was sent at 173600, "Enable Tx" was enabled.
It did not cycle back to another 73 from me.
Instead, it sent the CQ at 173615.

I then had to click "Halt Tx," click the radio button for my "73" message, and then click "Enable Tx."

I wouldn't mind that so much except by the time all that is done, they often don't get the 73 and so I need to send another one just to be sure.

Bill, double-clicking on the message at 173600 would have made no difference.
The CQ message is sent - not the 73 response to his RR73.


Ken WB8UFC
 

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 11:27 AM, Reino Talarmo wrote:
At what point you log the QSO? Have you already logged the QSO before you receive the repeated RRR or RR73?
You directed that to Chuck, but I have ALWAYS logged the QSO by that point.
I have "Prompt me to log QSO" checked on the Reporting tab of Settings.
So WSJT-X prompts me to log as soon as I initiate my first 73 - which I do.

I'll try deferring the logging and see if that makes a difference.


Ken WB8UFC
 

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 12:49 PM, Ken WB8UFC wrote:
I'll try deferring the logging and see if that makes a difference.
Nope. No difference.

I didn't log and it WSJT-X still sent the 73 in response to the second RR73.
I then double-clicked on the RR73 at 175430 and WSJT-X then sent the second CQ at 175446.
The 73 at 175441 I did manually.


Bill Somerville
 

On 17/02/2021 17:59, Ken WB8UFC wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 12:49 PM, Ken WB8UFC wrote:
I'll try deferring the logging and see if that makes a difference.
Nope. No difference.

I didn't log and it WSJT-X still sent the 73 in response to the second RR73.
I then double-clicked on the RR73 at 175430 and WSJT-X then sent the second CQ at 175446.
The 73 at 175441 I did manually.

Ken,

the only reasonable replies to an RR73 message are either nothing, a 73 message, or some free text message sending extra information. If your QSO partner elects to send an RR73 message in reply to your R+report message then they should not expect any reply.

73
Bill
G4WJS.


JP Tucson, AZ
 

Notice also that the logging box  DID NOT PICK UP THE GRID SQUARE!  ...though it is clearly listed in the data exchanges!



73 - John - N7GHZ

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 10:59 AM Ken WB8UFC <wb8ufc@...> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 12:49 PM, Ken WB8UFC wrote:
I'll try deferring the logging and see if that makes a difference.
Nope. No difference.

I didn't log and it WSJT-X still sent the 73 in response to the second RR73.
I then double-clicked on the RR73 at 175430 and WSJT-X then sent the second CQ at 175446.
The 73 at 175441 I did manually.





Bill Somerville
 

John,

you must be looking at a different exchange from the one I see.

73
Bill
G4WJS.

On 17/02/2021 18:07, JP Tucson, AZ wrote:
Notice also that the logging box  DID NOT PICK UP THE GRID SQUARE!  ...though it is clearly listed in the data exchanges!



73 - John - N7GHZ

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 10:59 AM Ken WB8UFC <wb8ufc@...> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 12:49 PM, Ken WB8UFC wrote:
I'll try deferring the logging and see if that makes a difference.
Nope. No difference.

I didn't log and it WSJT-X still sent the 73 in response to the second RR73.
I then double-clicked on the RR73 at 175430 and WSJT-X then sent the second CQ at 175446.
The 73 at 175441 I did manually.



JP Tucson, AZ
 

Actually, I am looking at the log box with the empty "grid" block. Something I have been trying to inform you about for a while.  As you 
can see, it DOES happen to other users.  

But hey, whatever... I'm obviously lying about it. Right?


 - John - N7GHZ


On Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 11:12 AM Bill Somerville <g4wjs@...> wrote:
John,

you must be looking at a different exchange from the one I see.

73
Bill
G4WJS.

On 17/02/2021 18:07, JP Tucson, AZ wrote:
Notice also that the logging box  DID NOT PICK UP THE GRID SQUARE!  ...though it is clearly listed in the data exchanges!



73 - John - N7GHZ

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 10:59 AM Ken WB8UFC <wb8ufc@...> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 12:49 PM, Ken WB8UFC wrote:
I'll try deferring the logging and see if that makes a difference.
Nope. No difference.

I didn't log and it WSJT-X still sent the 73 in response to the second RR73.
I then double-clicked on the RR73 at 175430 and WSJT-X then sent the second CQ at 175446.
The 73 at 175441 I did manually.






Bill Somerville
 

John,

look again at the exchange! EA4SM never sent his gridsquare.

73
Bill
G4WJS.

On 17/02/2021 18:18, JP Tucson, AZ wrote:
Actually, I am looking at the log box with the empty "grid" block. Something I have been trying to inform you about for a while.  As you 
can see, it DOES happen to other users.  

But hey, whatever... I'm obviously lying about it. Right?


 - John - N7GHZ

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 11:12 AM Bill Somerville <g4wjs@...> wrote:
John,

you must be looking at a different exchange from the one I see.

73
Bill
G4WJS.

On 17/02/2021 18:07, JP Tucson, AZ wrote:
Notice also that the logging box  DID NOT PICK UP THE GRID SQUARE!  ...though it is clearly listed in the data exchanges!



73 - John - N7GHZ

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 10:59 AM Ken WB8UFC <wb8ufc@...> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 12:49 PM, Ken WB8UFC wrote:
I'll try deferring the logging and see if that makes a difference.
Nope. No difference.

I didn't log and it WSJT-X still sent the 73 in response to the second RR73.
I then double-clicked on the RR73 at 175430 and WSJT-X then sent the second CQ at 175446.
The 73 at 175441 I did manually.




Ken WB8UFC
 

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 01:03 PM, Bill Somerville wrote:
If your QSO partner elects to send an RR73 message in reply to your R+report message then they should not expect any reply.
Bill, that is a subtlety that clearly escapes many thousands of users.

Once you explicitly stated above that no reply should be expected, and I re-read the manual, I understood.
But before that I didn't.

The manual simply states:
"The RR73 message should be used only if you are reasonably confident that no repetitions will be required."

Not knowing the implications of repetition and figuring that not requiring repetition on 90+% of QSOs constituted "reasonably confident" I set mine to RR73 without understanding the full implications.
Perhaps that warning could be more forceful and the implications better explained?

This is creating unnecessary bandwidth consumption in 3 different ways:
1) They keep sending RR73
2) When they do, I need to send an extra 73 to ensure they receive one
3) Some don't confirm the QSO and so I need to periodically reconcile my log with LoTW and QRZ to remove unconfirmed QSOs (so they no longer show up as  worked in WSJT-X), but some of those unconfirmed are intentional and so I end up responding to their CQ repeatedly because their non-WSJT-X software has me recorded as worked and they ignore the calls.

Any reason a double-click on their last RR773 couldn't just position for sending another 73?

Regardless, thanks for your work on WSJT-X.
All the alternatives are far more buggy.


neil_zampella
 

There is no grid listed in the DX GRID box ... so when the operator clicked to resend the 73, the system did not see a GRID since it was previously cleared.    


Neil, KN3ILZ

On 2/17/2021 12:18 PM, JP Tucson, AZ wrote:
Actually, I am looking at the log box with the empty "grid" block. Something I have been trying to inform you about for a while.  As you 
can see, it DOES happen to other users.  

But hey, whatever... I'm obviously lying about it. Right?


 - John - N7GHZ

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 11:12 AM Bill Somerville <g4wjs@...> wrote:
John,

you must be looking at a different exchange from the one I see.

73
Bill
G4WJS.

On 17/02/2021 18:07, JP Tucson, AZ wrote:
Notice also that the logging box  DID NOT PICK UP THE GRID SQUARE!  ...though it is clearly listed in the data exchanges!



73 - John - N7GHZ

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 10:59 AM Ken WB8UFC <wb8ufc@...> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 12:49 PM, Ken WB8UFC wrote:
I'll try deferring the logging and see if that makes a difference.
Nope. No difference.

I didn't log and it WSJT-X still sent the 73 in response to the second RR73.
I then double-clicked on the RR73 at 175430 and WSJT-X then sent the second CQ at 175446.
The 73 at 175441 I did manually.





Attachments: