Date
1 - 10 of 10
locked #FT8 FT8 signal reports 2.4.0-rc4 #FT8
|
Chris Hannagan
I was operating 30 metres FT8 this morning and believe that a behavior has changed in sending the signal reports.
When a station didn't copy the TX2 sent report and responded again with TX1, each time you resent the callers signal report in previous releases, the report updated to the latest decoded report. The report now appears to no longer update to the last decode and continues to send the original report. I'm not sure if this is a problem but it is a behavior that seems to have changed. Call 1st is enabled and I noticed this on several stations that were calling. Chris zl7dx
|
|
|
|
On 01/04/2021 21:43, Chris Hannagan wrote:
I was operating 30 metres FT8 this morning and believe that a behavior has changed in sending the signal reports.Hi Chris, this is expected behaviour and was changed in v2.4.0-rc4. It creates ambiguity if an amended signal report is sent in repeats as you cannot be certain which signal report your QSO partner copied. If you really want to change the sent report you can clear down the QSO with ESC and restart by double-clicking a decode, be sure to check that the sent and received reports are set correctly in the Log QSO dialog when you do this. 73 Bill G4WJS.
|
|
|
|
Jim Brown
On 4/1/2021 3:33 PM, Bill Somerville wrote:
if an amended signal report is sent in repeats as you cannot be certain which signal report your QSO partner copied.Why does that matter? 73, Jim K9YC
|
|
|
|
On 02/04/2021 01:09, Jim Brown wrote:
On 4/1/2021 3:33 PM, Bill Somerville wrote: Hi Jim, because most definitions of a complete QSO include exchange and
confirmation of receipt of callsigns and a QSO specific piece of
information. If that QSO specific information is a signal report
then it is hard to confirm receipt of a report that has two
values, i.e. the log entries may not match for critical QSO
information. TBH the most important factor is in modes that use averaging to increase sensitivity of decoding there changing the report defeats the averaging as the bits change significantly (the report bits, the FEC bits, and the CRC). Keeping the sent report constant for each QSO seems reasonable in all cases as a default procedure. 73
|
|
|
|
Jim Brown
On 4/1/2021 5:16 PM, Bill Somerville wrote:
If that QSO specific information is a signal report then it is hard to confirm receipt of a report that has two values, i.e. the log entries may not match for critical QSO information.That still makes no sense. TBH the most important factor is in modes that use averaging to increase sensitivity of decoding there changing the report defeats the averaging as the bits change significantly (the report bits, the FEC bits, and the CRC). Keeping the sent report constant for each QSO seems reasonable in all cases as a default procedure.This DOES make sense. 73, Jim K9YC
|
|
|
|
On 02/04/2021 01:22, Jim Brown wrote:
On 4/1/2021 5:16 PM, Bill Somerville wrote: Jim, if you made a QSO and received a QSL with a different report recorded than the one you sent would you query it? Yes I know QSL cards don't record received reports but electronic QSLs do. Here's and example, your QSO partner receiving two different reports over three periods may reply with R+report to each but you could receive just the first or just the second, so you have no idea, in this case, which report is being confirmed. Which report sent do you log? 73
|
|
|
|
Think you will have a 2m beam up in 3 weeks? Just asking... ;-) GL and VY 73, Lance
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
P.S. - this "report freezing" was a big improvement when listening for responses in the AVERAGE window, and is consistent with the way Q65 works. You can't average out over the transmissions if they change content each time...
On 4/1/2021 20:43:01, Chris Hannagan wrote:
I was operating 30 metres FT8 this morning and believe that a behavior has changed in sending the signal reports. --
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 - FFMA #7 Interested in 6m EME? Ask me about subscribing to the new Magic Band EME email group, or just fill in the request box at the bottom of my web page (above)!
|
|
|
|
Tom Melvin
Another reason - contests - you send +05 on the repeat it changed to -06 - you log -06 but sender logs +05 as the report.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Points will be lost. This was one of the main reasons that a large number of ft4/ft8 contests in the UK no longer require contest mode. Regards Tom GM8MJV
On 2 Apr 2021, at 01:09, Jim Brown <k9yc@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Roger
On 02/04/2021 11:11, Tom Melvin wrote:
Another reason - contests - you send +05 on the repeat it changed to -06 - you log -06 but sender logs +05 as the report.If the contact is allowed to fully complete then the final reports sent by each station will be the ones logged. If the contact is logged before completion there are going to be these discrepancies. I've written to the RSGB about a couple of problems with their FT4 contest rules but they couldn't even be bothered to acknowledge my email. I understand contest stations strive to raise their contact rate but those taking these short cuts deserve to lose points. Roger GW4HZA
|
|
|
|
On 02/04/2021 12:30, groups@... wrote:
If the contact is allowed to fully complete then the final reports sent by each station will be the ones logged.Hi Roger, that's not correct, you have no way of knowing which report transmission is copied when repeats are necessary. For example your QSO partner could be acknowledging a prior report you sent, not the last one you sent. They may never hear the last one you sent. When analysing these situations you have to assume that when there are repeats on both sides; then which message copies are actually received cannot be certain. 73 Bill G4WJS.
|
|
|