Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

120Re: [dxatlas] Re: Morse Runner

Expand Messages
  • Alex, VE3NEA
    Nov 22, 2004
      Hi Patrick,

      Thank you for the suggestions. My to-do list is already two pages long, and
      keeps growing. I did not realize that so many people used callsign
      completion when sending. Personally I think this is a bad habit and should
      be avoided, but since most users want it, I will see if I can implement this

      73 Alex VE3NEA

      > Alex
      > Many thanks for releasing Morse-runner...
      > I have been a PED-freak for years, and it's really nice to have
      > something running under XP, which emulates modern contest software.
      > Sound is great and flutter / fading really realistics....
      > A few remarks/suggestions, after having spent quite a few hours with
      > it along the weekend:
      > 1- the main problem I face with MR is the lack of "type ahead
      > buffer": this is implemented in all major contest software since CT,
      > and it is one of the main tip to improve pileup rate... intensive
      > training with morse-runner is a bit "counter-productive" in this
      > aspect.
      > 2- The ESM mode behavior is not N1MM-like (not even WL-like)- Don't
      > like the cursor auto-jumping in report field when "enter" is pressed -
      > In my opinion field change should happen only with spacebar. (this is
      > linked to a/m point - it should be possible to finish typing the
      > call, while the call is already transmitted - meaning you have
      > pressed enter)
      > 3- In major contest software which implement ESM, the message sent
      > depends on cursor position and if the field is empty or not - it is
      > not always the case with morse-runner (ie when you erase a call: the
      > next message sent will always be "agn" though the call is new, and
      > the cursor in call field)
      > 4- Though ctrl-W also works in N1MM, I do prefer alt-W... would be
      > good to also have F11 (ie for CT, WL and Wintest users). In any case
      > alt-W should reset ESM message (as mentionned above)
      > 5- The score obtained depends for a part on a "luck" factor (the WPX
      > multipliers)- Think that the PED notation was better, as the points
      > were given in relation with the call complexity: ie VP8/SM7OQO would
      > give far more points than P3F or D4B. On top of that the UBN notation
      > was applied (3 QSO's penalty for a "Bad" ), which is also a good
      > point for training (ie you don't log a call if you are not 100% sure)
      > 6- The activity "setting" progression is not "smooth" enough - ie
      > going from 2 to 3 makes a huge difference (to make a score 2 is
      > almost the only position, as the pile becomes too heavy on 3)
      > 7- When setting a keying-speed to 36 for example, I get the
      > impression that the average of stations replying is somewhat above
      > 36, and many stations far above this speed (ie >50)
      > 8- Would be nice to have real time rate-meter -ie 10 QSO rate and
      > hour-rate
      > 9- Think you need to differenciate the competition mode, from the
      > training mode:
      > a-In competition mode the master.dta should be locked (or content
      > checked ) - otherwise cheating is too easy and the high score table
      > meaningless ;-)
      > b-In training mode, it should be possible to enter also the given
      > report in the call DB - this would allow to emulate major contests
      > like CQWW (waz) or ARRLDX(state for non-US stations)
      > 10- bad report is just theoretical - never got anything but 5NN -
      > dupe also (in any case if you implement dupe, you need an indication
      > that's a dupe before logging ). Anyway as no penalty is associated
      > with dupes, it is a non-issue...
      > 11- Think too many "lids" and no way to correct logged report (when
      > you are too fast)-for ex. would be nice to have the N1MM ctrl-Q
      > function emulated (calls back last logged QSO in entry windows).
      > 12- for the fun - would be nice to have (sorry once more - like in
      > PED-) a few non-computer keyed stations (i.e bug-vibro-double contact)
      > and a few old-rig C or D signals... (piou piou piou piiioooouuu...)
      > 13- Using narrow bandwidth - ie 200hz- just make handling the pile
      > more difficult (as the same number of station is within 200hz rather
      > than within 600). Think to make it more realistic, you need stations
      > to be spread always on the same bandwith - let say +/-300 - and a RIT
      > function to be implemented....
      > 14- making sure a call is correct is a bit too easy: sends the call
      > and the report -if the "guy" comes back with NR only you are sure you
      > are right - if the "guy" comes back with call+NR you are sure you are
      > wrong ...
      > 15- Finaly - but this one may not be that easy to implement - would
      > be great to have signal strength and quality function of the "home
      > call" versus "distant call" - ie for a EU station having US west-
      > coast stations sounding different from east-coast...
      > OK - already makes quite a few point ! If I had to keep only one it
      > would obviously be the -1- above
      > Best regards- Patrick
      > F6IRF
      > PS: also take this opportunity to thank you for "hamcap" - was a
      > ioncap user, but hamcap really makes the things far simpler and
      > usable during SO-operation !
    • Show all 5 messages in this topic