A NEW FT8 with QSO and Rag Chew capabilities called FT8CALL

This is EXACTLY the point of FT8Call. ^^^^^^^^^ It was not intended to be "FT8 with ragchew" like it's being called in recent articles and YouTube videos.

 

I'm in Korea (HL1ZIX), and work people on SSB to Hawaii, this year. I'd have to think we could make a digital non-FT8Call contact with Olivia or at worst DominoExMicro or Thor Micro, should you wish to try 20m. Mail sent.

 

Thanks for the THOR QSO, first time I was able to get a contact with that, even with the lousy conditions tonight.

 

A very interesting derivative mode. I've played with it a bit and have a few observations:

If the goal was to have a conversational tool while maintaining high performance in terms of SNR, the software meets it goal sort of. Why "sort of" ?

The throughput is so very low, that I don't know how anyone could define what takes place as "an actual"conversation". When it takes 4 to 6 or more consecutive 15 sec. sequences to send a single short sentence, calling that even half of a conversation is a bit generous, don't you think? Therein lies the problem. It seems that one cannot have the throughput required for a "real" conversation at the low SNRs that software is trying to handle. You can't have both, without one or the other suffering. In this case, it's throughput.

I call what happens at the speed of PSK31 or RTTY, "conversation". What happens with FT8CALL, would be accurately described as "tedious" at best. If you want to DX, (but not chat), FT8 as it is, works much better. If you want to chat, PSK31 if far superior.

If you want both....well....you can' t get there from here with FT8CALL

I'm confused. If you can't carry on a "conversation" at more than sloth speed, then what's the point in "talking"? The rate of information exchange would test the patience of Job. One could argue that at least it's not a machine talking to a machine, but that is hardly a fitting definition of "conversation" between people.

What is the real purpose of this mode? It can't be timely information exchange, and if it's DX, there are other existing modes (FT8 et al) that do a far better job.

What I see as a bottom line for this mode as currently configured:

To achieve the longest distance with the weakest signal, (without regard to throughput) that maintains free form text capability (loosely called a conversation)

We get long distances (as it retains FT8 SNR), we get free form exchange, which FT8 can't easily provide. Yet, to call it a "conversational" tool, strains credulity, unless

1. one cannot type or;
2. one can only hunt and peck or;
3. has only one hand or;
4. is otherwise impaired.

So, one could argue that the design goals are being met, but the mode is not for me, because of my impatience.

On the positive side:

The feature set of the mode is impressive, and I'm sure will get even better. The front end is well designed. Installation is simple and the layout keeps a healthy amount of the WSJT-X Suite look. SNR performance is quite good. If one doesn't mind slow, really slow, throughput, it could be a perfect fit.

SUMMARY;

It does what it says or claims, but so slowly as to potentially defeat what appears to be the purpose of the mode. (an "actual" conversation)

I'll leave it installed, and continue to play now and then, as well as watch its development.

It is a curious mode that attempts to reconcile low SNR performance and "Conversational" capabilities. From here, it looks like that is going to be a real struggle, as actual throughput appears to severely limit meaningful information exchange.

Have fun and good luck with the project!

73, Hasan, N0AN

 

Well, if it was an FT8CALL QSO you probably should not log it as FT8, because it wasn't. And you should not be surprised that your QSO partners rejected the wrong mode. If your logging software allows registration of new modes (like HRD Logbook), you could register the FT8CALL QSOs with the new mode code. However, you should not upload anything anywhere until a formal ADIF definition has been approved and the various web-based logbooks (LoTW, QRZ.com, eQSL.cc, HRDLog, etc.) has updated their software to understand what the new mode code is telling them. Until then you will either receive no matches, or you will get a match for the incorrect mode you and your QSO partners upload, which is obviously not OK.

If you guessed wrong when you defined the new mode for your logging software, you will have to edit your logged mode code in your log to the approved ADIF code before you upload anywhere.

You should just keep working FT8CALL, and you can log the new mode any way you like, but there is no reason to hurry any uploads, as ADIF is used by "all" logging software and web-based logbooks, and nobody will receive any matches until the ADIF code is formally defined and in use. That will probably not happen until some time after the general release of FT8CALL, if last year's process for defining FT8 as the ADIF code is typical. Be patient, and get it right from the beginning.

73 Frode LA6VQ

 

I contacted the CEO for QRZ and asked to upload the FT8CALL, she has indicated the same, when ADIF accepts than all ok

About logging, I have been using just FT8 but the freq, is 14.080...Other Hams are doing the same, and this works well for obtaining the QRZ AWARDS...

C U on the bands, NN2X Tom

 

He logged it as FT8, which is wrong just like SSB is not PSK and THOR is not OLIVIA. The QSO will not be matched unless his QSO partner uploads with the same error, in which case nobody receives a match for FT8CALL.

See the response in my previous message (#320).

I read Jordan's earlier message like he is already in contact with the ADIF Committee to have a formal ADIF definition of FT8CALL.

73 Frode LA6VQ

 

Yes, other Ham operators are doing the same (Logging QSO for FT8CALL using FT8 option on QRZ), I have confirmed logged in on FT8CALL, using FT8 but at 14.080 (And others Hams have confirmed my input)

Petty stuff to be honest though...! I am sure QRZ will eventually upload! Cheers, NN2X

 

I think you're comparing it to other digital modes, though. If you're comparing it with Olivia which decodes at -11db at 30wpm, RTTY - 60wpm at -5db, or PSK31...supposedly 50wpm but probably 30wpm in practice at -10db... then you wonder if it's worth it to cut WPM in third to get -20db and lower.

I don't see it particularly valuable for emcomm, where you can send forms, etc. via winlink, use ALE, PACTOR, etc. It becomes "part of the toolkit" that never gets utilized because it never encounters a situation where it fulfills a need that the other modes cannot fulfill at a faster rate and more conveniently.

HOWEVER, if you're looking for a mode it can match where people commonly communicate at 10 wpm but don't have the snr of FT8, then look no further than CW. FT8CALL can't replace the other digital modes, but it can offer an alternative to CW for those not averse to communicating at such a rate of speed in exchange for the SNR ratio it provides.

 

I see it as useful for people would need communications of important information in a poor situation... something like the Puerto Rico disaster was, or someone stranded in a remote location.

FT8Call is a fun toy, but in the end -- that's all these modes are anymore... toys, for MOST of us. Communications in disaster situations has been pretty much taken over by cell technology, anyway. Let's not kid ourselves. Poor countries in remote areas being the exception in terms of equipment, any developed nation needs only throw up a few portable cell towers, or balloons and everyone and their neighbor can use their smartphone to communicate world-wide.

I will mention that OH8STN called me a "dick" on Facebook for suggesting that people with poor antennas will benefit from this mode. Wow, there sure seems to be some emotion about this.... not sure why I'm being called a dick and a hater for saying that in another forum.

I had a pretty positive opinion of this mode, but if the people advertising it are calling others "dicks" and "haters" for mentioning any potential negative... geesh.

 

Yes, that is precisely it. The trade off for sensitivity is throughput. Such low throughput is not worth any distance to me, if I'm looking for a "conversation"

..and CW is a LOT more fun that watching FT8CALL send what I already have typed, loaded into a que. ...as it breaks it into multiple stacked 15 sec sequences.

As I said, an interesting mode, a WIP, but I find it mislabeled as "conversational".

73, N0AN

 

I wish Hams would try this first before commenting...Let me explain, if you are using FT8CALL, and you want need a country for DXCC, you can see the "List active" on the left side of the Window, and select that DX country and requet to connect (All over HF of course),

ANd if you wish to see what your signal is like, enter ALLCALL? and you will get a SNR report from those Ham that are on the band (FT8CALL) which has AUTO feature on...
It is more than an efficient modulation scheme...It truly is, I think the feature set is as important as the ability to have at QSO, at 10WPM

Here are the numbers for the digital modes

Mode SNR Threshold Power Equivalence

WSPR -27 dB 5 W (Only exchange Signal Report. etc..)

JT65 -24 dB 10 W (Only exchange Signal Report.etc..)

FT8 - 24 dB 10W (Only exchange Signal Report. etc..)

FT8CALL -24dB 10 W @ 10 wpm (Rag Chew)

Olivia -17 dB 50 W (Rag Chew Mode) / this is for 500 / 8 (Spec say -13, but it can work at -17db, if filters are adjusted) @ 30wpm

PSK31 -7 dB 500 W (Macro / Some Rag chew) @ 50wpm

CW -1 dB 2,000 W (Rag Chew)

RTTY +5 dB 8,000 W (Rag Chew)

SSB +10 dB 25,000 W (Rag Chew)

Source: by Dr. Carol F. Milazzo, KP4MD (Interpreting WSPR Data for Other Communication Modes – Aug 2013)

 

I don't know about the potential value of this mode for EMCOMM, but relying on Cell Phones for local emergencies is a disaster waiting to happen. The cell companies typically sell ten times the bandwidth they can support, because use is somewhat randomly distributed (time vs connection requirements). That all goes in the dump when there is a local emergency. Everyone gets on their cell and we get "All circuits are busy" messages from our cell phones.

There will always be a place for Emergency Comms, whether it be portable repeaters, line of sight with H/Ts, etc. ..Ham Radio does what no cell company can: provide a group of trained ops in difficult situations, with at least a little discipline.

As far as being called names: the name belongs to the caller, not the called.

73, N0AN

 

Oh, I don't know... yeah... it's conversational, but not ragchewable. I have been messing with some scheduled QSO's using DominoEXMicro and Thor Micro. DomEXMicro is the same speed as FT8Call, and it's possible to have a slooow conversation. You just get up and use the toilet, browse the web, or whatever, between sends. Haha. Had a Thor Micro Qso with Hawaii at 4,500 miles, today, and it was painfully slow (at least 2x slower than FT8Call and DominoEXMicro) but we did manage to exchange callsigns and say a few short things.

I've just begun putting some more serious work into learning CW, this past week. If I can handle it, and stick to it, I'm pretty excited that i"ll one day I'll be out and about with a $15 pixie radio at QRP, making contacts around here in Asia. I jokingly responded to some guy in Siberia about 3,000 miles out by sending my callsign to him at 1w. He heard me, and I got embarrassed/flustered. Had to send him a garbled mess at about 3wpm, as I looked at the printed CW list on the wall, but he got it.

Should have remembered that I was hooked-up to a 2-el yagi pointed his way.

 

I agree, the feature set is impressive, that's what makes it somewhat interesting. There are those of us, however, who do not find "conversing" at 10 wpm to be even remotely attractive.

The key point, and the only reason I have commented, is that FT8CALL is being touted as a "conversational" mode....it is anything but conversational at the current throughput rates. It doesn't matter how rich the feature set is, if communicating with it is tedious.

Are beacons neat? Yes
Are Auto-Mode Functions Impressive: Yes
Is interrogation a neat function?: Yes!

Is it really "conversational" when a single short sentence has to be broken into several 15 seconds sequences. No, it is not....and no number of impressive features will make it so.

FT8CALL has impressive elements. It has its uses. Carrying on a "real" conversation just doesn't happen to be one of them....so it should NOT be advocated for on that basis.