Is fully automated FT8 now acceptable?

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by WF4W, May 21, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Left-3
ad: Subscribe
  1. WF4W

    WF4W Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    RTTY Robots? I missed that one - must have been before my time.

    I am all for having multiple tools in the toolbox - I have a couple ATNO DX using FT8 - they count towards my DXCC totals; however, if FT8 continues on its path, those contacts will - if not already - have an astericks next to it.
     
  2. W4NNF

    W4NNF XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Who told you that? Most ops are not in favor of full-auto as you can see on the threads on the Zed. And I suspect as you will find out on the many pages this post of yours will stir up. ;)
     
  3. VA3VF

    VA3VF Ham Member QRZ Page

    Just a thought experiment. Let's say fully automated FT8, or any other digital mode for that matter, becomes the norm. What are you going to do a few months from now, after the bot has likely worked every station on earth? One may 'earn' all sorts of awards that way, now what?

    That said, automation of one form or another will always be available and/or used.

    I also have an interest in MW BCB DXing. Since the advent of good SDRs, some people have been recording the entire MW band overnight, and 'logging' the stations later. This is totally acceptable now, no disputes. I don't record anything, not my thing, the other reason being I would not have the time to 'analyze' the recording for the loggings.

    There is one MW BCB DXer that uses a tagline that I find funny, but true: Heard with my own receivers, in real time, with my own ears.
     
  4. WF4W

    WF4W Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    It was the 20+ pages of discussion I linked to...
     
  5. ND6M

    ND6M Ham Member QRZ Page

    I'm not in favor of fully automated FT8, but, why should YOU "asterisk" the QSO?

    You manually used your equipment and made a valid exchange, the issue of a live operator Vs a robot on the other end is moot.


    YMMV
     
  6. KA8NCR

    KA8NCR Ham Member QRZ Page

    Try it again on CW, SSB, SSTV, FAX yada yada yada?

    There is wspr, which is pretty much the definition of autonomous. For amateur radio, the bright spot isn't using the autonomous software to earn awards, it is in developing the autonomy. It isn't easy to get right.
     
  7. VA3VF

    VA3VF Ham Member QRZ Page

    Indeed, and that's assuming one is 100% sure a bot was on the other end of the contact.

    This 'asterisk' thing is happening on Topband, when the OP finds out that he/she did not really make it all the way to the other end, since the other OP was using a remote receiver in the US.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2019
  8. VA3VF

    VA3VF Ham Member QRZ Page

    That's true, but those inclined to setup a bot are less likely to use those modes, unless they can be automated as well.;)
    And this is why I support continuous developments, even if I don't use/like it. One never knows what the next development will be, it could be a good one. This is the reason we don't use spark anymore.
     
    ND6M likes this.
  9. W5LZ

    W5LZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Except for award chasers, why would anyone want an "automated" mode?
    That's an honest question...
     
  10. VA3VF

    VA3VF Ham Member QRZ Page

    Why would an award chaser want to automate? In this case I agree with those that say the computer earned the award, not the OP.
     

Share This Page