Date   
Re: RE : [RTTY] ARRL RTTY RU

David AD4TJ
 

Hi Mike! I just looked at the Function Key Message macros for the ARRL RTTY contest( also similar to other macros for RTTY ).

If running, the F2 macro says " {TX}{SENTRST} {EXCH} {EXCH} ! {RX}
So the recommended way to respond is 599 VA VA HISCALL.
Of course, with ESM checked, it will send HISCALL first then the exchange then HISCALL again.

And for a S&P guy, the F2 macro says " {TX}{ENTER} ! {SENTRST} {EXCH} {EXCH} {MYCALL} {RX}.

If these aren't recommended, then why are they set this way????

And I just looked at QRZ to see your antenna farm; very impressive! Now go to my QRZ page, and compare my setup( the picture does not show my temporary 38 foot tall Inverted L for 160 that goes right up between the TA-33 elements; so I can only rotate it about 20 degrees, but at least my signal is much improved over the 15 foot tall Inverted L that you might be able to see in the picture ). Now, do you see how my situation may have a harder time receiving less than perfect signals, compared to yours( and others with similar great antennas )?



On Tuesday, January 7, 2020, 9:40:29 AM EST, Mike Ricketts <mike.nd9g@...> wrote:


Had accidentally replied just to David, but thought it should go to the discussion as a whole...



I think the confusion here is in your initial message it seemed like you were referring to the responding station not sending the call of the station they were answering a CQ from (that's how I read it at least). In your clarification it looks like you are now talking a CQing station not including the call of the station they are coming back to at the end of their report as well as the beginning.

I typically only send it at the beginning of the exchange. Unless conditions are noticeably bad, and I find myself having to repeat it a bunch, I don't include the second callsign to my CQ responder. If I see conditions are worsening to the point I have to repeat myself often, I will alter my macro accordingly. Otherwise I just handle the exceptions on an as needed basis, which wasn't very often at all, so it didn't seem to be much of a problem.

73,
Mike ND9G



On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 8:29 AM David AD4TJ via Groups.Io <ad4tj=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
The problem is when conditions on the receiving end may be less than perfect; see this example:

CQ RU AD4TJ AD4TJ CQ
F4DSK F4DSK  ( by the way, some only send their call once )
AGN AGN
F4DSK F4DSK
F4DSK 599 VA VA F4DSK ( if I don't include F4DSK at the end, if the first one is QRMed, QRNed, QSBed, then F4DSK doesn't know who I am replying to )
AD4TJ 599 0010
NR NR
0010 0010 0010
TU DE AD4TJ QRZ

If you don't see the reasoning here, then you have never experienced working contests with less than reasonable antennas. Not everyone can put up tri-band HF beams at 60 feet or full-size dipoles at 100 feet!

By the way:  Phone or SSB; what are they?!?

On Tuesday, January 7, 2020, 8:38:52 AM EST, Dimitri F4DSK <cosson-dimitri@...> wrote:


Hi David,

<<<<
1. Sometimes the other station does not include a call in their reply; to whom are they replying to if the call is not there?
>>>>

When I S&P, I send my reply without callsign. 

During a phone contest, it will not hurt you, I think, if there's something like : 
AD4TJ CQ
F4DSK 
F4DSK 59 VA
QSL 599 001
TNX AD4TJ CQ

So where is the difference during a RTTY contest with :
CQ AD4TJ AD4TJ CQ 
F4DSK F4DSK 
F4DSK 599 VA VA
TU 599 001 001
TU AD4TJ CQ

You already know YOUR callsign so why is it necessary to send it ?
If I have a callsign to send with the reply, it will be :
 TU 599 001 001 F4DSK (if you have my call incorrect)
In the same way, it's very boring to read, during a run :
F4DSK F4DSK DE XX1XX XX1XX PSE K
...... 😨 I know who I am ! Of course, we are maybe 2 stations running on the same frequency but 99.9 % of the time, such macros are due to bad practices.

Save your time to send the exchange twice (you right about that !!!)

73 de Dimitri F4DSK / TM3Z


Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy.
-------- Message d'origine --------
De : "David AD4TJ via Groups.Io" <ad4tj=yahoo.com@groups.io>
Date : 07/01/2020 14:02 (GMT+01:00)
À : Rttydigital Reflector <rttydigital@groups.io>, RTTY Reflector <rtty@groups.io>
Objet : [RTTY] ARRL RTTY RU

Some stations did not send a signal report as part of the exchange as the rules REQUIRE, not just suggested. Sigh. I guess I will still include them in my log.

Two Break Rule: who in the world thought that one up? Many people just operated as it is very hard to understand; even though there were some examples shown, it still remains a mystery as to how to handle it.

Pet Peeves:

1. Sometimes the other station does not include a call in their reply; to whom are they replying to if the call is not there?

2. Some stations only send their important info once, whether it is a State, Serial Number, whatever. If there is QRM, QRN, QSB, that info is not received. How hard is it to send it twice?

Ok. Flame suit on!

73, David AD4TJ

RE : Re: RE : [RTTY] ARRL RTTY RU

Dimitri F4DSK
 

David,

You're right about the QRM. But I prefer to send a 2nd time "AD4TJ 599 001 001" one time every 100 QSO because you didn't know it was to you than to send AD4TJ 599 001 001 AD4TJ at each QSO. It is a 45.45  bauds rate so easy to calculate the time saved 😉
And if it happen's too often, it's because "you" have a bad run frequency  (too much QRM around), QSY.
I'm always low power (no amplifier at the station since 2 years), so I know what it is to run into the QRM when I do 2000+ QSO during a CQWW RTTY ... 
I already tried "your" macro in the past. No gain and wasted time.
And think about SO2R timing ...

73 de Dimitri F4DSK / TM3Z 



Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy.

-------- Message d'origine --------
De : David Tanks <ad4tj@...>
Date : 07/01/2020 15:28 (GMT+01:00)
À : "David AD4TJ via Groups.Io" <ad4tj@...>, Rttydigital Reflector <rttydigital@groups.io>, RTTY Reflector <rtty@groups.io>, Dimitri F4DSK <cosson-dimitri@...>
Objet : Re: RE : [RTTY] ARRL RTTY RU

The problem is when conditions on the receiving end may be less than perfect; see this example:

CQ RU AD4TJ AD4TJ CQ
F4DSK F4DSK  ( by the way, some only send their call once )
AGN AGN
F4DSK F4DSK
F4DSK 599 VA VA F4DSK ( if I don't include F4DSK at the end, if the first one is QRMed, QRNed, QSBed, then F4DSK doesn't know who I am replying to )
AD4TJ 599 0010
NR NR
0010 0010 0010
TU DE AD4TJ QRZ

If you don't see the reasoning here, then you have never experienced working contests with less than reasonable antennas. Not everyone can put up tri-band HF beams at 60 feet or full-size dipoles at 100 feet!

By the way:  Phone or SSB; what are they?!?

On Tuesday, January 7, 2020, 8:38:52 AM EST, Dimitri F4DSK <cosson-dimitri@...> wrote:


Hi David,

<<<<
1. Sometimes the other station does not include a call in their reply; to whom are they replying to if the call is not there?
>>>>

When I S&P, I send my reply without callsign. 

During a phone contest, it will not hurt you, I think, if there's something like : 
AD4TJ CQ
F4DSK 
F4DSK 59 VA
QSL 599 001
TNX AD4TJ CQ

So where is the difference during a RTTY contest with :
CQ AD4TJ AD4TJ CQ 
F4DSK F4DSK 
F4DSK 599 VA VA
TU 599 001 001
TU AD4TJ CQ

You already know YOUR callsign so why is it necessary to send it ?
If I have a callsign to send with the reply, it will be :
 TU 599 001 001 F4DSK (if you have my call incorrect)
In the same way, it's very boring to read, during a run :
F4DSK F4DSK DE XX1XX XX1XX PSE K
...... 😨 I know who I am ! Of course, we are maybe 2 stations running on the same frequency but 99.9 % of the time, such macros are due to bad practices.

Save your time to send the exchange twice (you right about that !!!)

73 de Dimitri F4DSK / TM3Z


Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy.
-------- Message d'origine --------
De : "David AD4TJ via Groups.Io" <ad4tj@...>
Date : 07/01/2020 14:02 (GMT+01:00)
À : Rttydigital Reflector <rttydigital@groups.io>, RTTY Reflector <rtty@groups.io>
Cc : RTTY@groups.io
Objet : [RTTY] ARRL RTTY RU

Some stations did not send a signal report as part of the exchange as the rules REQUIRE, not just suggested. Sigh. I guess I will still include them in my log.

Two Break Rule: who in the world thought that one up? Many people just operated as it is very hard to understand; even though there were some examples shown, it still remains a mystery as to how to handle it.

Pet Peeves:

1. Sometimes the other station does not include a call in their reply; to whom are they replying to if the call is not there?

2. Some stations only send their important info once, whether it is a State, Serial Number, whatever. If there is QRM, QRN, QSB, that info is not received. How hard is it to send it twice?

Ok. Flame suit on!

73, David AD4TJ

Re: More Musings on RTTY and the FT Modes in the ARRL RTTY Roundup

Mark
 

Hi everyone,

I agree with others that the ARRL should restore RTTY as a recognized mode and separate it from the current and future digital modes. The FTx modes have characteristics that, in my opinion, set it apart from RTTY. A few of these would be forward error correction, (I would have loved to have that a few times),  self completing contacts, and very little tuning required. I should note that I have not used the FTx modes during any contests. I prefer to stick to RTTY.

There is certainly a place for the new modes in the hobby. I know several local hams that have become active again because of FT8/4. They  began to work DX from minimal stations. I helped one ham (who has 5BDXCC on CW and phone and about 280 DXCC entities) set up for FT8. He now has DXCC digital. In his case, it was all about a new challenge on a new mode.

It took me years to work DXCC on RTTY. I think that even if the ARRL returned to recognizing RTTY as a mode it would be very difficult for someone new to the mode to earn DXCC RTTY. Very few DX stations use that mode anymore. I waited too long to finally apply for my DXCC and, of course, it says "DIGITAL" on it!

I really can't say for sure just how much impact FT4 had on the last RU. There were a lot of RTTY signals. The second day was really slow for me. I wonder how many RTTYers left RTTY to try the new mode. If it would add more RTTY stations to the contest population then I would also like to see the RTTY RU become a RTTY only event. Yes, I know that the RU has always been open to other digital modes but until the advent of FT8/4 there never was much activity on any other mode (some PSK31 perhaps). I hope that what Don has said about getting some of the FT4 crowd interested in RTTY is true.

Anyway, thanks to everyone who gave me a contact and occasionally put up with me messing up a return!

73, Mark K5XH

Re: RE : [RTTY] ARRL RTTY RU

ND9G Mike
 

Had accidentally replied just to David, but thought it should go to the discussion as a whole...



I think the confusion here is in your initial message it seemed like you were referring to the responding station not sending the call of the station they were answering a CQ from (that's how I read it at least). In your clarification it looks like you are now talking a CQing station not including the call of the station they are coming back to at the end of their report as well as the beginning.

I typically only send it at the beginning of the exchange. Unless conditions are noticeably bad, and I find myself having to repeat it a bunch, I don't include the second callsign to my CQ responder. If I see conditions are worsening to the point I have to repeat myself often, I will alter my macro accordingly. Otherwise I just handle the exceptions on an as needed basis, which wasn't very often at all, so it didn't seem to be much of a problem.

73,
Mike ND9G



On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 8:29 AM David AD4TJ via Groups.Io <ad4tj=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
The problem is when conditions on the receiving end may be less than perfect; see this example:

CQ RU AD4TJ AD4TJ CQ
F4DSK F4DSK  ( by the way, some only send their call once )
AGN AGN
F4DSK F4DSK
F4DSK 599 VA VA F4DSK ( if I don't include F4DSK at the end, if the first one is QRMed, QRNed, QSBed, then F4DSK doesn't know who I am replying to )
AD4TJ 599 0010
NR NR
0010 0010 0010
TU DE AD4TJ QRZ

If you don't see the reasoning here, then you have never experienced working contests with less than reasonable antennas. Not everyone can put up tri-band HF beams at 60 feet or full-size dipoles at 100 feet!

By the way:  Phone or SSB; what are they?!?

On Tuesday, January 7, 2020, 8:38:52 AM EST, Dimitri F4DSK <cosson-dimitri@...> wrote:


Hi David,

<<<<
1. Sometimes the other station does not include a call in their reply; to whom are they replying to if the call is not there?
>>>>

When I S&P, I send my reply without callsign. 

During a phone contest, it will not hurt you, I think, if there's something like : 
AD4TJ CQ
F4DSK 
F4DSK 59 VA
QSL 599 001
TNX AD4TJ CQ

So where is the difference during a RTTY contest with :
CQ AD4TJ AD4TJ CQ 
F4DSK F4DSK 
F4DSK 599 VA VA
TU 599 001 001
TU AD4TJ CQ

You already know YOUR callsign so why is it necessary to send it ?
If I have a callsign to send with the reply, it will be :
 TU 599 001 001 F4DSK (if you have my call incorrect)
In the same way, it's very boring to read, during a run :
F4DSK F4DSK DE XX1XX XX1XX PSE K
...... 😨 I know who I am ! Of course, we are maybe 2 stations running on the same frequency but 99.9 % of the time, such macros are due to bad practices.

Save your time to send the exchange twice (you right about that !!!)

73 de Dimitri F4DSK / TM3Z


Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy.
-------- Message d'origine --------
De : "David AD4TJ via Groups.Io" <ad4tj=yahoo.com@groups.io>
Date : 07/01/2020 14:02 (GMT+01:00)
À : Rttydigital Reflector <rttydigital@groups.io>, RTTY Reflector <rtty@groups.io>
Objet : [RTTY] ARRL RTTY RU

Some stations did not send a signal report as part of the exchange as the rules REQUIRE, not just suggested. Sigh. I guess I will still include them in my log.

Two Break Rule: who in the world thought that one up? Many people just operated as it is very hard to understand; even though there were some examples shown, it still remains a mystery as to how to handle it.

Pet Peeves:

1. Sometimes the other station does not include a call in their reply; to whom are they replying to if the call is not there?

2. Some stations only send their important info once, whether it is a State, Serial Number, whatever. If there is QRM, QRN, QSB, that info is not received. How hard is it to send it twice?

Ok. Flame suit on!

73, David AD4TJ

Re: RE : [RTTY] ARRL RTTY RU

Martin Berube
 

<<<
When I S&P, I send my reply without callsign. 
You already know YOUR callsign so why is it necessary to send it ?  
>>>

Well you should sending the other station callsign in exchange.  I personally rely on this to validate if the other station gor my callsign correctly.   

I can't count how many times stations send VE2MOB instead of VE2NMB.

-- 
73,  Martin
VA2PX,VE2NMB

Le mar. 7 janv. 2020 à 08:38, Dimitri F4DSK <cosson-dimitri@...> a écrit :
Hi David,

<<<<
1. Sometimes the other station does not include a call in their reply; to whom are they replying to if the call is not there?
>>>>

When I S&P, I send my reply without callsign. 

During a phone contest, it will not hurt you, I think, if there's something like : 
AD4TJ CQ
F4DSK 
F4DSK 59 VA
QSL 599 001
TNX AD4TJ CQ

So where is the difference during a RTTY contest with :
CQ AD4TJ AD4TJ CQ 
F4DSK F4DSK 
F4DSK 599 VA VA
TU 599 001 001
TU AD4TJ CQ

You already know YOUR callsign so why is it necessary to send it ?
If I have a callsign to send with the reply, it will be :
 TU 599 001 001 F4DSK (if you have my call incorrect)
In the same way, it's very boring to read, during a run :
F4DSK F4DSK DE XX1XX XX1XX PSE K
...... 😨 I know who I am ! Of course, we are maybe 2 stations running on the same frequency but 99.9 % of the time, such macros are due to bad practices.

Save your time to send the exchange twice (you right about that !!!)

73 de Dimitri F4DSK / TM3Z




Re: RE : [RTTY] ARRL RTTY RU

David AD4TJ
 

The problem is when conditions on the receiving end may be less than perfect; see this example:

CQ RU AD4TJ AD4TJ CQ
F4DSK F4DSK  ( by the way, some only send their call once )
AGN AGN
F4DSK F4DSK
F4DSK 599 VA VA F4DSK ( if I don't include F4DSK at the end, if the first one is QRMed, QRNed, QSBed, then F4DSK doesn't know who I am replying to )
AD4TJ 599 0010
NR NR
0010 0010 0010
TU DE AD4TJ QRZ

If you don't see the reasoning here, then you have never experienced working contests with less than reasonable antennas. Not everyone can put up tri-band HF beams at 60 feet or full-size dipoles at 100 feet!

By the way:  Phone or SSB; what are they?!?

On Tuesday, January 7, 2020, 8:38:52 AM EST, Dimitri F4DSK <cosson-dimitri@...> wrote:


Hi David,

<<<<
1. Sometimes the other station does not include a call in their reply; to whom are they replying to if the call is not there?
>>>>

When I S&P, I send my reply without callsign. 

During a phone contest, it will not hurt you, I think, if there's something like : 
AD4TJ CQ
F4DSK 
F4DSK 59 VA
QSL 599 001
TNX AD4TJ CQ

So where is the difference during a RTTY contest with :
CQ AD4TJ AD4TJ CQ 
F4DSK F4DSK 
F4DSK 599 VA VA
TU 599 001 001
TU AD4TJ CQ

You already know YOUR callsign so why is it necessary to send it ?
If I have a callsign to send with the reply, it will be :
 TU 599 001 001 F4DSK (if you have my call incorrect)
In the same way, it's very boring to read, during a run :
F4DSK F4DSK DE XX1XX XX1XX PSE K
...... 😨 I know who I am ! Of course, we are maybe 2 stations running on the same frequency but 99.9 % of the time, such macros are due to bad practices.

Save your time to send the exchange twice (you right about that !!!)

73 de Dimitri F4DSK / TM3Z


Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy.
-------- Message d'origine --------
De : "David AD4TJ via Groups.Io" <ad4tj@...>
Date : 07/01/2020 14:02 (GMT+01:00)
À : Rttydigital Reflector <rttydigital@groups.io>, RTTY Reflector <rtty@groups.io>
Cc : RTTY@groups.io
Objet : [RTTY] ARRL RTTY RU

Some stations did not send a signal report as part of the exchange as the rules REQUIRE, not just suggested. Sigh. I guess I will still include them in my log.

Two Break Rule: who in the world thought that one up? Many people just operated as it is very hard to understand; even though there were some examples shown, it still remains a mystery as to how to handle it.

Pet Peeves:

1. Sometimes the other station does not include a call in their reply; to whom are they replying to if the call is not there?

2. Some stations only send their important info once, whether it is a State, Serial Number, whatever. If there is QRM, QRN, QSB, that info is not received. How hard is it to send it twice?

Ok. Flame suit on!

73, David AD4TJ

RE : [RTTY] ARRL RTTY RU

Dimitri F4DSK
 

Hi David,

<<<<
1. Sometimes the other station does not include a call in their reply; to whom are they replying to if the call is not there?
>>>>

When I S&P, I send my reply without callsign. 

During a phone contest, it will not hurt you, I think, if there's something like : 
AD4TJ CQ
F4DSK 
F4DSK 59 VA
QSL 599 001
TNX AD4TJ CQ

So where is the difference during a RTTY contest with :
CQ AD4TJ AD4TJ CQ 
F4DSK F4DSK 
F4DSK 599 VA VA
TU 599 001 001
TU AD4TJ CQ

You already know YOUR callsign so why is it necessary to send it ?
If I have a callsign to send with the reply, it will be :
 TU 599 001 001 F4DSK (if you have my call incorrect)
In the same way, it's very boring to read, during a run :
F4DSK F4DSK DE XX1XX XX1XX PSE K
...... 😨 I know who I am ! Of course, we are maybe 2 stations running on the same frequency but 99.9 % of the time, such macros are due to bad practices.

Save your time to send the exchange twice (you right about that !!!)

73 de Dimitri F4DSK / TM3Z


Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy.

-------- Message d'origine --------
De : "David AD4TJ via Groups.Io" <ad4tj@...>
Date : 07/01/2020 14:02 (GMT+01:00)
À : Rttydigital Reflector <rttydigital@groups.io>, RTTY Reflector <rtty@groups.io>
Cc : RTTY@groups.io
Objet : [RTTY] ARRL RTTY RU

Some stations did not send a signal report as part of the exchange as the rules REQUIRE, not just suggested. Sigh. I guess I will still include them in my log.

Two Break Rule: who in the world thought that one up? Many people just operated as it is very hard to understand; even though there were some examples shown, it still remains a mystery as to how to handle it.

Pet Peeves:

1. Sometimes the other station does not include a call in their reply; to whom are they replying to if the call is not there?

2. Some stations only send their important info once, whether it is a State, Serial Number, whatever. If there is QRM, QRN, QSB, that info is not received. How hard is it to send it twice?

Ok. Flame suit on!

73, David AD4TJ

Re: ARRL RTTY RU

Rich VE3KI
 

No signal report? Agreed - refusing to log these guys to "teach them a lesson" after the fact won't work - they will never make the connection between their high NIL rate and the missing signal report in their sent exchange. Not logging them would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. If you really wanted to get the point across, you would have to refuse to complete the contact while it was still going on, i.e. keep on asking for repeats and maybe actually ask for a report before sending the final acknowledgment. Of course, that costs you time as well, but at least the message is clear.

Two break rule: Think of it this way. The primary rule is the 24-hour limit on operating time. What the two-break rule does is define what is or is not considered to be off time between your first and last QSOs. To me, there is nothing wrong with the idea that only two breaks should count towards your off time total of 6 hours, but IMHO it should be the two longest breaks that are counted, not the first two as stated in the rules. Consider this scenario:

You make one QSO at 1800Z Saturday. You are called away from the radio for some household matter, which takes just half an hour. Back to the radio at 1831Z, you make another QSO and get called away again, again for half an hour. Back again at 1902Z and finally away you go. Overnight you take a 12-hour break. By any rational standard, your total operating time can't be more than 18 hours (you took a 12-hour break out of the 30-hour total, after all). However, according the the "first two" rule, the two half-hour breaks you took early on, intentional or not, are the only ones counted as off time. The 12-hour break is considered to be operating time, and any contacts you made during the last 4 hours and 58 minutes of the contest are removed from your log because they came after 24 hours of "operating" time. Now, I don't know for sure whether the log scoring software would actually do that or not, but that is the way the published rules read ("...only the first two will be counted towards the 6 hours...").

I agree with your two pet peeves.

73,
Rich VE3KI


On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 08:02 AM, David AD4TJ wrote:
Some stations did not send a signal report as part of the exchange as the rules REQUIRE, not just suggested. Sigh. I guess I will still include them in my log.
 
Two Break Rule: who in the world thought that one up? Many people just operated as it is very hard to understand; even though there were some examples shown, it still remains a mystery as to how to handle it.
 
Pet Peeves:
 
1. Sometimes the other station does not include a call in their reply; to whom are they replying to if the call is not there?
 
2. Some stations only send their important info once, whether it is a State, Serial Number, whatever. If there is QRM, QRN, QSB, that info is not received. How hard is it to send it twice?
 
Ok. Flame suit on!
 
73, David AD4TJ
 

ARRL RTTY RU

David AD4TJ
 

Some stations did not send a signal report as part of the exchange as the rules REQUIRE, not just suggested. Sigh. I guess I will still include them in my log.

Two Break Rule: who in the world thought that one up? Many people just operated as it is very hard to understand; even though there were some examples shown, it still remains a mystery as to how to handle it.

Pet Peeves:

1. Sometimes the other station does not include a call in their reply; to whom are they replying to if the call is not there?

2. Some stations only send their important info once, whether it is a State, Serial Number, whatever. If there is QRM, QRN, QSB, that info is not received. How hard is it to send it twice?

Ok. Flame suit on!

73, David AD4TJ

Re: More Musings on RTTY and the FT Modes in the ARRL RTTY Roundup

W0MU
 

I hope with some type of lock out.  I had so many busted contacts on FT4 I have to wonder if that was from people trying to SO2R  FT4 and stuck in a sequence on another band.

W0MU

On 1/6/2020 4:00 PM, Jamie WW3S wrote:
How did you work out the timing to prevent transmitting at the same time, being FT is hard coded as to when it switches from tx/rx ?


On Jan 6, 2020, at 4:38 PM, Tom Martin <tmartin@...> wrote:

I have used FT-8 and FT-4 during non-contest periods just to work someone. There are barely any RTTY signals on the bands, unless it's a contest weekend. 
I used FT-4 on the second radio. It was nice not to have to use filters and stubs on that radio. I ran just 80 watts watts on FT-4.

Tom W8JWN

Re: More Musings on RTTY and the FT Modes in the ARRL RTTY Roundup

Don Hill AA5AU
 

Yes! I just received another email today from a new ham, also licensed in 2017, that said he did only FT modes in the ARRL RTTY Roundup but now plans to do RTTY. So we just don't know how many new RTTY contesters we will get that come from the FT modes.

 

Don AA5AU

 

From: RTTY@groups.io [mailto:RTTY@groups.io] On Behalf Of Phil Snyder
Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 9:15 AM
To: RTTY@groups.io
Subject: Re: [RTTY] More Musings on RTTY and the FT Modes in the ARRL RTTY Roundup

 

So Don, are you saying the FT modes are "gateway" modes? 🤔😊

Thanks for the RU q's from LA this weekend!

Phil
N9LAH


Sent from Xfinity Connect Application


-----Original Message-----

From: aa5au@...
To: RTTY@groups.io
Sent: 2020-01-06 8:14:01 AM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] More Musings on RTTY and the FT Modes in the ARRL RTTY Roundup

Well said and I have to agree. When FT8 first came out I thought it would be "fun" to use it as a contest mode. Basically that is what we used it for during the ARRL Grid Chase in 2018. That whole year was like one big FT8 contest.

 

I was one, among several others, who pushed to get FT8 (and now FT4) into contests. I helped create the FT8 Roundup in 2018 and last month the FT Roundup. I thought it would be fun to have FT-only contests. I realize now that it doesn't come close to the fun I have in RTTY contesting. But I don't regret having FT contesting. I'm sure lots of people enjoy it more than I do.

 

The upside is that it has brought new operators into the contest fold and I think that's a good thing. Here's a good example. The winner of the 2018 FT8 Roundup was Ron, WV4P. Ron was first licensed in June 2017 and is new to contesting. This past weekend I saw Ron all over the place on RTTY. His 3830 post shows 1300 RTTY QSOs and no FT QSOs. Not sure that's correct but we now have a new RTTY contester in the ranks.

 

Don AA5AU

 

From: RTTY@groups.io [mailto:RTTY@groups.io] On Behalf Of Max NG7M
Sent: Sunday, January 5, 2020 10:10 PM
To: RTTY@groups.io
Subject: [RTTY] More Musings on RTTY and the FT Modes in the ARRL RTTY Roundup

 

When I compare 20 hours of operating in the WW Digi contest primarily running FT4 (yes I gave it an honest good old college try and made 579 QSOs in those grinding painful 20 hours) to the 12 hours (800 Q's in 12 hours) I put into the Roundup only running RTTY.  I'm not sure how I can even compare the two experiences.  I still kind of enjoyed the WW Digi because I knew everyone else was slugging out the same grinding experience running the same modes, locked into a universe of 7.5 or 15 second TX/RX timings synchronized across all stations.  But the 12 hours in the Roundup only running RTTY was simply orders of magnitude more enjoyable and fun in comparison.

I say we keep trying out new digital modes along side RTTY, maybe something better will come along that fits into the the contesting mold and allows for more rate and fun.  But as it stands now.. and we all concede that the FT modes are incredible weak signal modes (they are not low power modes) and they excel at what they were designed to do.  However, they were never designed for contesting exchanges... clearly.  It's a game of trading weak signal capabilities against long transmission times with redundancy.  I could be wrong but I think contesters want to use their radios and be in control of when and when not to transmit and be able to tune our exchanges and tweak things based on our station setup.  FT modes take a of that away... I personally don't find it fun as a contest mode at all.  It's pretty clear that RTTY isn't going away any time soon.

So let's see what happens... maybe it (FT modes) will bring new folks to the contesting world and introduce them to other possibilities with other modes.  Especially when they see scores posted on 3830. And the fact that one FT mode QSO puts you in an unlimited category is pretty serendipitous, where it's a multi channel decoder setup.  The decades old mode RTTY  with modern software decoders kicks it's fanny for rate and fun in my book.  So I see some irony in that fact... it's slower (FT modes)... it's not as fun and it forces an an unlimited entry by anyone that uses it???   You can't even tune around with the dial on your VFO?  Camp out on 3-4khz of bandwidth and sch-log it out at a whopping max rate of maybe 40 Q's per hour if you are lucky? (that was my experience in the WW Digi)  The theoretical rate should be much better... it wasn't for me.

So for now, I'll get much more excited to run stations with RTTY than I ever will with the FT modes (actually CW tops RTTY for to be honest by a mile for the fun factor but I digress).  Again, let's see what happens and at the same time, try new things out and continue to kick the tires with new modes like the FT modes.  Why not.  

Max NG7M

 

Re: More Musings on RTTY and the FT Modes in the ARRL RTTY Roundup

Tim Shoppa
 

I actually enjoy piecing together callsigns and serial numbers out of the noise and QRM in RTTY.

So I would be opposed to inventing an error-correcting mode. It would probably be just as low-productivity as FT4/FT8.

Tim N3QE

Re: More Musings on RTTY and the FT Modes in the ARRL RTTY Roundup

Ron K0IDT
 

I got caught during the transition from RTTY DXCC to Digital for my 40m RTTY DXCC. Stuck at 99 for a long time and when I finally got #100 my submission just happened to be when the switch to Digital was made. No numbered RTTY cert,
no fun, no longer a member.

I didn't play in this last RR as I was hoping to. I've been a little distracted with a certain project some of you are aware of and my heart just wasn't in it after the last minute flurry of activity.

73
Ron K0IDT

Re: Poll about RTTY awarding in DXCC #poll

Peter N5UWY
 

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 6:00 PM Rag LB-Three-RE Stein-Roar
<@LB3RE> wrote:

A new poll has been created:

Should ARRL reverse DXCC and LOTW award programme to have own RTTY mode award, like it was before it were merged into ONE digital award?
That horse has left the barn. I finally had enough credits to qualify
for DXCC RTTY (#2887) in July of 2011. This was right at the
transition. My certificate came with "DIGITAL" and I asked them to
please send me one that said "RTTY" ... and they did. Doubt they'd
still do that, but who knows?

The time to make a fuss was a decade ago.

--
Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!

Re: More Musings on RTTY and the FT Modes in the ARRL RTTY Roundup

Steve Bookout, NR4M
 

In recent years, it doesn’t look like the ARRL has not done anything right. 
Sure glad they always check with the membership to see what their feelings are. 
It’s just this kind of crap is the reason I haven’t renew my membership. It’s not that they’re not doing what I want but it seems like you’re doing things contrary to the wishes of almost everyone.

73 de Steve NR4M

On Jan 6, 2020, at 6:46 PM, Rag LB-Three-RE Stein-Roar <post@...> wrote:

ARRL ruins  the RTTY society Contests 🤬🤬 


ARRL : 

1th Removed RTTY from LOTW & DXCC Awards, whitout asking members or IARU


2nd Removed main RTTY mode contest, with mixing other main modes as FT4/FT8 


Should vote against it and reverse it all! 


Better leave ARRL & IARU !!! As they dont follow their values members choice of mode!!! 


Many of us hunted RTTY dxcc award, and it were deleted in ONE single shot....


What next ? FT4 into CQ WW CW????? 😡😡😡


Best Regards,
Stein-Roar Brobakken
LB3RE K3RAG 
Skype: lb3re.rag

6. jan. 2020 kl. 20:48 skrev Jeff AC0C <keepwalking188@...>:



I hope this is the case.  It would blow my mind if RTTY contesting grows thanks to FTx guys wanting something more competitivie and interactive.  Definitely would not have predicted that - should it come to pass.  Hope so!  My dream is that the RTTY RU would have about 2x the participation level it has now.  Rates on the 2nd day are always pretty slow especially in the afternoon.

73/jeff/ac0c
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
www.ac0c.com


On 1/6/20 9:17 AM, Phil Snyder wrote:
So Don, are you saying the FT modes are "gateway" modes? 🤔😊

Thanks for the RU q's from LA this weekend!

Phil
N9LAH


Sent from Xfinity Connect Application


-----Original Message-----

From: aa5au@...
To: RTTY@groups.io
Sent: 2020-01-06 8:14:01 AM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] More Musings on RTTY and the FT Modes in the ARRL RTTY Roundup

Well said and I have to agree. When FT8 first came out I thought it would be "fun" to use it as a contest mode. Basically that is what we used it for during the ARRL Grid Chase in 2018. That whole year was like one big FT8 contest.

 

I was one, among several others, who pushed to get FT8 (and now FT4) into contests. I helped create the FT8 Roundup in 2018 and last month the FT Roundup. I thought it would be fun to have FT-only contests. I realize now that it doesn't come close to the fun I have in RTTY contesting. But I don't regret having FT contesting. I'm sure lots of people enjoy it more than I do.

 

The upside is that it has brought new operators into the contest fold and I think that's a good thing. Here's a good example. The winner of the 2018 FT8 Roundup was Ron, WV4P. Ron was first licensed in June 2017 and is new to contesting. This past weekend I saw Ron all over the place on RTTY. His 3830 post shows 1300 RTTY QSOs and no FT QSOs. Not sure that's correct but we now have a new RTTY contester in the ranks.

 

Don AA5AU

 

From: RTTY@groups.io [mailto:RTTY@groups.io] On Behalf Of Max NG7M
Sent: Sunday, January 5, 2020 10:10 PM
To: RTTY@groups.io
Subject: [RTTY] More Musings on RTTY and the FT Modes in the ARRL RTTY Roundup

 

When I compare 20 hours of operating in the WW Digi contest primarily running FT4 (yes I gave it an honest good old college try and made 579 QSOs in those grinding painful 20 hours) to the 12 hours (800 Q's in 12 hours) I put into the Roundup only running RTTY.  I'm not sure how I can even compare the two experiences.  I still kind of enjoyed the WW Digi because I knew everyone else was slugging out the same grinding experience running the same modes, locked into a universe of 7.5 or 15 second TX/RX timings synchronized across all stations.  But the 12 hours in the Roundup only running RTTY was simply orders of magnitude more enjoyable and fun in comparison.

I say we keep trying out new digital modes along side RTTY, maybe something better will come along that fits into the the contesting mold and allows for more rate and fun.  But as it stands now.. and we all concede that the FT modes are incredible weak signal modes (they are not low power modes) and they excel at what they were designed to do.  However, they were never designed for contesting exchanges... clearly.  It's a game of trading weak signal capabilities against long transmission times with redundancy.  I could be wrong but I think contesters want to use their radios and be in control of when and when not to transmit and be able to tune our exchanges and tweak things based on our station setup.  FT modes take a of that away... I personally don't find it fun as a contest mode at all.  It's pretty clear that RTTY isn't going away any time soon.

So let's see what happens... maybe it (FT modes) will bring new folks to the contesting world and introduce them to other possibilities with other modes.  Especially when they see scores posted on 3830. And the fact that one FT mode QSO puts you in an unlimited category is pretty serendipitous, where it's a multi channel decoder setup.  The decades old mode RTTY  with modern software decoders kicks it's fanny for rate and fun in my book.  So I see some irony in that fact... it's slower (FT modes)... it's not as fun and it forces an an unlimited entry by anyone that uses it???   You can't even tune around with the dial on your VFO?  Camp out on 3-4khz of bandwidth and sch-log it out at a whopping max rate of maybe 40 Q's per hour if you are lucky? (that was my experience in the WW Digi)  The theoretical rate should be much better... it wasn't for me.

So for now, I'll get much more excited to run stations with RTTY than I ever will with the FT modes (actually CW tops RTTY for to be honest by a mile for the fun factor but I digress).  Again, let's see what happens and at the same time, try new things out and continue to kick the tires with new modes like the FT modes.  Why not.  

Max NG7M



Poll about RTTY awarding in DXCC #poll

Rag LB-Three-RE Stein-Roar
 

Should ARRL reverse DXCC and LOTW award programme to have own RTTY mode award, like it was before it were merged into ONE digital award?

Before we had:
- CW
- Phone
- RTTY 

Just add:
- Digi like PSK/FT/JT/MSK modes as own!!

Many people lost their RTTY DXCC with a pen stroke by ARRL, and not asked RTTY society!!!

Results

See Who Responded

Re: More Musings on RTTY and the FT Modes in the ARRL RTTY Roundup

Rag LB-Three-RE Stein-Roar
 

ARRL ruins  the RTTY society Contests 🤬🤬 


ARRL : 

1th Removed RTTY from LOTW & DXCC Awards, whitout asking members or IARU


2nd Removed main RTTY mode contest, with mixing other main modes as FT4/FT8 


Should vote against it and reverse it all! 


Better leave ARRL & IARU !!! As they dont follow their values members choice of mode!!! 


Many of us hunted RTTY dxcc award, and it were deleted in ONE single shot....


What next ? FT4 into CQ WW CW????? 😡😡😡


Best Regards,
Stein-Roar Brobakken
post@...
LB3RE K3RAG 
Skype: lb3re.rag

6. jan. 2020 kl. 20:48 skrev Jeff AC0C <keepwalking188@...>:



I hope this is the case.  It would blow my mind if RTTY contesting grows thanks to FTx guys wanting something more competitivie and interactive.  Definitely would not have predicted that - should it come to pass.  Hope so!  My dream is that the RTTY RU would have about 2x the participation level it has now.  Rates on the 2nd day are always pretty slow especially in the afternoon.

73/jeff/ac0c
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
www.ac0c.com


On 1/6/20 9:17 AM, Phil Snyder wrote:
So Don, are you saying the FT modes are "gateway" modes? 🤔😊

Thanks for the RU q's from LA this weekend!

Phil
N9LAH


Sent from Xfinity Connect Application


-----Original Message-----

From: aa5au@...
To: RTTY@groups.io
Sent: 2020-01-06 8:14:01 AM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] More Musings on RTTY and the FT Modes in the ARRL RTTY Roundup

Well said and I have to agree. When FT8 first came out I thought it would be "fun" to use it as a contest mode. Basically that is what we used it for during the ARRL Grid Chase in 2018. That whole year was like one big FT8 contest.

 

I was one, among several others, who pushed to get FT8 (and now FT4) into contests. I helped create the FT8 Roundup in 2018 and last month the FT Roundup. I thought it would be fun to have FT-only contests. I realize now that it doesn't come close to the fun I have in RTTY contesting. But I don't regret having FT contesting. I'm sure lots of people enjoy it more than I do.

 

The upside is that it has brought new operators into the contest fold and I think that's a good thing. Here's a good example. The winner of the 2018 FT8 Roundup was Ron, WV4P. Ron was first licensed in June 2017 and is new to contesting. This past weekend I saw Ron all over the place on RTTY. His 3830 post shows 1300 RTTY QSOs and no FT QSOs. Not sure that's correct but we now have a new RTTY contester in the ranks.

 

Don AA5AU

 

From: RTTY@groups.io [mailto:RTTY@groups.io] On Behalf Of Max NG7M
Sent: Sunday, January 5, 2020 10:10 PM
To: RTTY@groups.io
Subject: [RTTY] More Musings on RTTY and the FT Modes in the ARRL RTTY Roundup

 

When I compare 20 hours of operating in the WW Digi contest primarily running FT4 (yes I gave it an honest good old college try and made 579 QSOs in those grinding painful 20 hours) to the 12 hours (800 Q's in 12 hours) I put into the Roundup only running RTTY.  I'm not sure how I can even compare the two experiences.  I still kind of enjoyed the WW Digi because I knew everyone else was slugging out the same grinding experience running the same modes, locked into a universe of 7.5 or 15 second TX/RX timings synchronized across all stations.  But the 12 hours in the Roundup only running RTTY was simply orders of magnitude more enjoyable and fun in comparison.

I say we keep trying out new digital modes along side RTTY, maybe something better will come along that fits into the the contesting mold and allows for more rate and fun.  But as it stands now.. and we all concede that the FT modes are incredible weak signal modes (they are not low power modes) and they excel at what they were designed to do.  However, they were never designed for contesting exchanges... clearly.  It's a game of trading weak signal capabilities against long transmission times with redundancy.  I could be wrong but I think contesters want to use their radios and be in control of when and when not to transmit and be able to tune our exchanges and tweak things based on our station setup.  FT modes take a of that away... I personally don't find it fun as a contest mode at all.  It's pretty clear that RTTY isn't going away any time soon.

So let's see what happens... maybe it (FT modes) will bring new folks to the contesting world and introduce them to other possibilities with other modes.  Especially when they see scores posted on 3830. And the fact that one FT mode QSO puts you in an unlimited category is pretty serendipitous, where it's a multi channel decoder setup.  The decades old mode RTTY  with modern software decoders kicks it's fanny for rate and fun in my book.  So I see some irony in that fact... it's slower (FT modes)... it's not as fun and it forces an an unlimited entry by anyone that uses it???   You can't even tune around with the dial on your VFO?  Camp out on 3-4khz of bandwidth and sch-log it out at a whopping max rate of maybe 40 Q's per hour if you are lucky? (that was my experience in the WW Digi)  The theoretical rate should be much better... it wasn't for me.

So for now, I'll get much more excited to run stations with RTTY than I ever will with the FT modes (actually CW tops RTTY for to be honest by a mile for the fun factor but I digress).  Again, let's see what happens and at the same time, try new things out and continue to kick the tires with new modes like the FT modes.  Why not.  

Max NG7M



Re: More Musings on RTTY and the FT Modes in the ARRL RTTY Roundup

Jamie WW3S
 

How did you work out the timing to prevent transmitting at the same time, being FT is hard coded as to when it switches from tx/rx ?


On Jan 6, 2020, at 4:38 PM, Tom Martin <tmartin@...> wrote:

I have used FT-8 and FT-4 during non-contest periods just to work someone. There are barely any RTTY signals on the bands, unless it's a contest weekend. 
I used FT-4 on the second radio. It was nice not to have to use filters and stubs on that radio. I ran just 80 watts watts on FT-4.

Tom W8JWN

Re: More Musings on RTTY and the FT Modes in the ARRL RTTY Roundup

jeff stai wk6i
 

First, I will state that I really enjoyed the two recent FT only events, much more than I thought I would. But I agree that we would be richer for keeping the modes in their own events on different weekends. 

I wish I had not given away my well worn ECC text from my SSD days.... there are fairly simple to implement codes that would add bits for one and maybe two bit error correction to a single Baudot character such that your 75 baud idea would work. But whether that would be better than some of things G3YYD is doing in 2tone to "correct" errors is an interesting thing to look into.

73 jeff wk6i


On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 2:14 PM Jeff AC0C <keepwalking188@...> wrote:

I wonder if something like a 75 baud RTTY - but with ECC added - so that the net speed is about the same as 45.45 and maybe would be more robust from the ECC.  It's not FT1 but would be a technologically incremental approach to keeping the man in the middle while adding some tech into the mix.

73/jeff/ac0c
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
www.ac0c.com


On 1/6/20 2:06 PM, W0MU wrote:
RTTY is where the rate is at until they create FT1.

On 1/6/2020 12:48 PM, Jeff AC0C wrote:

I hope this is the case.  It would blow my mind if RTTY contesting grows thanks to FTx guys wanting something more competitivie and interactive.  Definitely would not have predicted that - should it come to pass.  Hope so!  My dream is that the RTTY RU would have about 2x the participation level it has now.  Rates on the 2nd day are always pretty slow especially in the afternoon.

73/jeff/ac0c
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
www.ac0c.com


On 1/6/20 9:17 AM, Phil Snyder wrote:
So Don, are you saying the FT modes are "gateway" modes? 🤔😊

Thanks for the RU q's from LA this weekend!

Phil
N9LAH


Sent from Xfinity Connect Application


-----Original Message-----

From: aa5au@...
To: RTTY@groups.io
Sent: 2020-01-06 8:14:01 AM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] More Musings on RTTY and the FT Modes in the ARRL RTTY Roundup

Well said and I have to agree. When FT8 first came out I thought it would be "fun" to use it as a contest mode. Basically that is what we used it for during the ARRL Grid Chase in 2018. That whole year was like one big FT8 contest.

 

I was one, among several others, who pushed to get FT8 (and now FT4) into contests. I helped create the FT8 Roundup in 2018 and last month the FT Roundup. I thought it would be fun to have FT-only contests. I realize now that it doesn't come close to the fun I have in RTTY contesting. But I don't regret having FT contesting. I'm sure lots of people enjoy it more than I do.

 

The upside is that it has brought new operators into the contest fold and I think that's a good thing. Here's a good example. The winner of the 2018 FT8 Roundup was Ron, WV4P. Ron was first licensed in June 2017 and is new to contesting. This past weekend I saw Ron all over the place on RTTY. His 3830 post shows 1300 RTTY QSOs and no FT QSOs. Not sure that's correct but we now have a new RTTY contester in the ranks.

 

Don AA5AU

 

From: RTTY@groups.io [mailto:RTTY@groups.io] On Behalf Of Max NG7M
Sent: Sunday, January 5, 2020 10:10 PM
To: RTTY@groups.io
Subject: [RTTY] More Musings on RTTY and the FT Modes in the ARRL RTTY Roundup

 

When I compare 20 hours of operating in the WW Digi contest primarily running FT4 (yes I gave it an honest good old college try and made 579 QSOs in those grinding painful 20 hours) to the 12 hours (800 Q's in 12 hours) I put into the Roundup only running RTTY.  I'm not sure how I can even compare the two experiences.  I still kind of enjoyed the WW Digi because I knew everyone else was slugging out the same grinding experience running the same modes, locked into a universe of 7.5 or 15 second TX/RX timings synchronized across all stations.  But the 12 hours in the Roundup only running RTTY was simply orders of magnitude more enjoyable and fun in comparison.

I say we keep trying out new digital modes along side RTTY, maybe something better will come along that fits into the the contesting mold and allows for more rate and fun.  But as it stands now.. and we all concede that the FT modes are incredible weak signal modes (they are not low power modes) and they excel at what they were designed to do.  However, they were never designed for contesting exchanges... clearly.  It's a game of trading weak signal capabilities against long transmission times with redundancy.  I could be wrong but I think contesters want to use their radios and be in control of when and when not to transmit and be able to tune our exchanges and tweak things based on our station setup.  FT modes take a of that away... I personally don't find it fun as a contest mode at all.  It's pretty clear that RTTY isn't going away any time soon.

So let's see what happens... maybe it (FT modes) will bring new folks to the contesting world and introduce them to other possibilities with other modes.  Especially when they see scores posted on 3830. And the fact that one FT mode QSO puts you in an unlimited category is pretty serendipitous, where it's a multi channel decoder setup.  The decades old mode RTTY  with modern software decoders kicks it's fanny for rate and fun in my book.  So I see some irony in that fact... it's slower (FT modes)... it's not as fun and it forces an an unlimited entry by anyone that uses it???   You can't even tune around with the dial on your VFO?  Camp out on 3-4khz of bandwidth and sch-log it out at a whopping max rate of maybe 40 Q's per hour if you are lucky? (that was my experience in the WW Digi)  The theoretical rate should be much better... it wasn't for me.

So for now, I'll get much more excited to run stations with RTTY than I ever will with the FT modes (actually CW tops RTTY for to be honest by a mile for the fun factor but I digress).  Again, let's see what happens and at the same time, try new things out and continue to kick the tires with new modes like the FT modes.  Why not.  

Max NG7M






--
Jeff Stai ~ WK6I ~ wk6i.jeff@...
RTTY op at W7RN
Twisted Oak Winery ~ http://www.twistedoak.com/

Re: More Musings on RTTY and the FT Modes in the ARRL RTTY Roundup

Jeff AC0C
 

I wonder if something like a 75 baud RTTY - but with ECC added - so that the net speed is about the same as 45.45 and maybe would be more robust from the ECC.  It's not FT1 but would be a technologically incremental approach to keeping the man in the middle while adding some tech into the mix.

73/jeff/ac0c
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
www.ac0c.com


On 1/6/20 2:06 PM, W0MU wrote:

RTTY is where the rate is at until they create FT1.

On 1/6/2020 12:48 PM, Jeff AC0C wrote:

I hope this is the case.  It would blow my mind if RTTY contesting grows thanks to FTx guys wanting something more competitivie and interactive.  Definitely would not have predicted that - should it come to pass.  Hope so!  My dream is that the RTTY RU would have about 2x the participation level it has now.  Rates on the 2nd day are always pretty slow especially in the afternoon.

73/jeff/ac0c
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
www.ac0c.com


On 1/6/20 9:17 AM, Phil Snyder wrote:
So Don, are you saying the FT modes are "gateway" modes? 🤔😊

Thanks for the RU q's from LA this weekend!

Phil
N9LAH


Sent from Xfinity Connect Application


-----Original Message-----

From: aa5au@...
To: RTTY@groups.io
Sent: 2020-01-06 8:14:01 AM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] More Musings on RTTY and the FT Modes in the ARRL RTTY Roundup

Well said and I have to agree. When FT8 first came out I thought it would be "fun" to use it as a contest mode. Basically that is what we used it for during the ARRL Grid Chase in 2018. That whole year was like one big FT8 contest.

 

I was one, among several others, who pushed to get FT8 (and now FT4) into contests. I helped create the FT8 Roundup in 2018 and last month the FT Roundup. I thought it would be fun to have FT-only contests. I realize now that it doesn't come close to the fun I have in RTTY contesting. But I don't regret having FT contesting. I'm sure lots of people enjoy it more than I do.

 

The upside is that it has brought new operators into the contest fold and I think that's a good thing. Here's a good example. The winner of the 2018 FT8 Roundup was Ron, WV4P. Ron was first licensed in June 2017 and is new to contesting. This past weekend I saw Ron all over the place on RTTY. His 3830 post shows 1300 RTTY QSOs and no FT QSOs. Not sure that's correct but we now have a new RTTY contester in the ranks.

 

Don AA5AU

 

From: RTTY@groups.io [mailto:RTTY@groups.io] On Behalf Of Max NG7M
Sent: Sunday, January 5, 2020 10:10 PM
To: RTTY@groups.io
Subject: [RTTY] More Musings on RTTY and the FT Modes in the ARRL RTTY Roundup

 

When I compare 20 hours of operating in the WW Digi contest primarily running FT4 (yes I gave it an honest good old college try and made 579 QSOs in those grinding painful 20 hours) to the 12 hours (800 Q's in 12 hours) I put into the Roundup only running RTTY.  I'm not sure how I can even compare the two experiences.  I still kind of enjoyed the WW Digi because I knew everyone else was slugging out the same grinding experience running the same modes, locked into a universe of 7.5 or 15 second TX/RX timings synchronized across all stations.  But the 12 hours in the Roundup only running RTTY was simply orders of magnitude more enjoyable and fun in comparison.

I say we keep trying out new digital modes along side RTTY, maybe something better will come along that fits into the the contesting mold and allows for more rate and fun.  But as it stands now.. and we all concede that the FT modes are incredible weak signal modes (they are not low power modes) and they excel at what they were designed to do.  However, they were never designed for contesting exchanges... clearly.  It's a game of trading weak signal capabilities against long transmission times with redundancy.  I could be wrong but I think contesters want to use their radios and be in control of when and when not to transmit and be able to tune our exchanges and tweak things based on our station setup.  FT modes take a of that away... I personally don't find it fun as a contest mode at all.  It's pretty clear that RTTY isn't going away any time soon.

So let's see what happens... maybe it (FT modes) will bring new folks to the contesting world and introduce them to other possibilities with other modes.  Especially when they see scores posted on 3830. And the fact that one FT mode QSO puts you in an unlimited category is pretty serendipitous, where it's a multi channel decoder setup.  The decades old mode RTTY  with modern software decoders kicks it's fanny for rate and fun in my book.  So I see some irony in that fact... it's slower (FT modes)... it's not as fun and it forces an an unlimited entry by anyone that uses it???   You can't even tune around with the dial on your VFO?  Camp out on 3-4khz of bandwidth and sch-log it out at a whopping max rate of maybe 40 Q's per hour if you are lucky? (that was my experience in the WW Digi)  The theoretical rate should be much better... it wasn't for me.

So for now, I'll get much more excited to run stations with RTTY than I ever will with the FT modes (actually CW tops RTTY for to be honest by a mile for the fun factor but I digress).  Again, let's see what happens and at the same time, try new things out and continue to kick the tires with new modes like the FT modes.  Why not.  

Max NG7M