![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
![Cool 8)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
![Tongue In Cheek :J](./images/smilies/icon_tic.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Did I miss you?VK2ZRH wrote:Having arranged for good Hepburn charts and few clouds of sporadic E, I'm glad some of you Field Day guys had a "good time", after all.![]()
![]()
![]()
Hear hear !VK3PY wrote:Another VHF/UHF Field day has come and gone. At least this time we had some decent propagation to enjoy, with good tropo conditions as far away as VK6. Our team (VK3UHF) managed to work VK6LD on both 2m and 70cm, as did several other stations in VK3.
Which brings to mind the “distance” based scoring system introduced some time ago at the behest of those who felt hard done by with the traditional grid-square based scoring system. I believe it’s time to re-visit the distance-based system, and ask if it’s achieving what its protagonists said it would.
In particular, do the Division 2 rules really encourage long-distance contacts? Recall that the push for distance-based scoring was initiated by operators who felt disadvantaged by their distance from large population centres, and consequent scarcity of contacts. They hoped that rewarding distance would somehow improve their competitiveness, or at least give them more contacts. Instead, what has been the practical outcome? My observation is that the Division 2 rules overwhelmingly favour stations which are set up on a hill top, 50-100km from a large population centre and proceed to churn through heaps of contacts at what are mostly trivial distances. I remarked some time ago in a couple of posts on this topic that the average distance of contacts was less than 80km. So much for rewarding distance.......
I contend that the Division 2 rules actively discriminate against operators in remote locations. This is further compounded by the reduction of the repeat contact period from 3 hours to 2 hours (who asked for that one? It seems to have been slipped in without discussion). In fact, the practical effect of the Division 2 rules is to reward QUANTITY of contacts at trivial distances.
I am not against the concept of distance-based scoring. However, as the evidence shows, the simple “points-per-km” method currently in use does not properly reward long-distance contacts. It treats the first km of a contact as being worth as much as the last km. Ask yourself this: Is it as difficult to make 10 contacts on 2m at 100km as it is to make one contact at 1000km? Hardly!
If distance-based scoring is to be retained, then a progressive scoring system would be more appropriate, assigning a single point for contacts up to 100km and increasing from there in increments out to, say, 500 or 1000 km. Something along the lines of the VHF section of the John Moyle Contest would be a good starting point. Or just ditch Division 2 and retain Division 1 as the latter effectively has a built-in incentive to work greater distances by virtue of the bonus applied to each new grid square worked.
Chas
VK3PY
My personal experience and opinion differs.VK3QI wrote:
.
.
.
The issue that I have, with either Division for that matter, is the differing multiplication factors for each band.
I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE MULTIPLIER SHOULD BE THE SAME FOR EVERY BAND.
The concept that it is more difficult to work on higher bands is 20th century thinking!
.
.
.
.
It will be interesting to read responses from those who favoured a change and have actually participated in recent FD's and what their take on how the rules have operated.
Regards
Peter VK3QI
This is a far bigger issue than how to score it. I have stopped entering these contests as the activity is to low in the Sydney area to make it enjoyable. I used to get out and enter in all VHF/UHF Field days as it was great fun and good practise in setting up a portable station. The AR community in VK2 supported by the WIA and contest manager needs to find a way to get people reinvovled.VK2AVR wrote:
snip
General activity levels were very low for us in Sydney. Not much local traffic was heard on any of the bands compared with previous years.
snip
What a strange sentiment, Compton. Here we are discussing the merits or otherwise of distance-based scoring in a field day contest, yet it you have no greater expectation than to work locals. Why not try to work longer distances? It is possible! For a while now I've been pondering whether to continue my participation in these field day contests because it has become pretty boring to churn through piles of local contacts that I could make any time, with little or no effort.I have stopped entering these contests as the activity is to low in the Sydney area to make it enjoyable
..........yet it you have no greater expectation than to work locals........VK3PY wrote:VK2HRX wrote:
What a strange sentiment, Compton. Here we are discussing the merits or otherwise of distance-based scoring in a field day contest, yet it you have no greater expectation than to work locals. Why not try to work longer distances? It is possible! For a while now I've been pondering whether to continue my participation in these field day contests because it has become pretty boring to churn through piles of local contacts that I could make any time, with little or no effort.I have stopped entering these contests as the activity is to low in the Sydney area to make it enjoyable
Chas
VK3PY