ORIGINAL: 4*60
I agree with the OP. He actually made sense.A dsmx rx labelled as a dsm2 rx is NOT a dsm2 rx. It is a dsmx rx. This is plain logic. Not saying it won't act as a dsm2 rx, but it is clearly not simply a dsm2 rx. Anyone thinking otherwise should attend a logic course or confer with Spoc.
Putting Model A labelling and pinstriping on a Ferrari and driving it on the freeway at max 45 mph does not make it a Model A.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree...
I can bind my AR8000 to my DSM2 Only DX6i and it works fine.... So I can't comprehend how anyone can tell me it is not aDSM2 receiver.
A DSM2 reciever will be a device that receives DSM2 protocol (and works) Which the AR8000 definately DOES..
I really am trying to see your point of view.. but I just can't see it..
As for the Ferrari analogy...
Your analogy is more akin to putting DSM2 labelling on a Futaba Receiver, as it cannot and NEVER will receive and use the DSM2 Protocol...
Using that Analogy, the way I see it...
Ferrari builds a 328 Model and sells it like this for years..
They are working on a 330 model (with improvements to the suspension and engine computer) (just for example)
The last few models on the 328 production run incorporate the improvements slated for the 330 release..
It is Labelled as a 328.. you bought a 328 and you GOT a 328, but LUCKYYOU.. your 328 is better than the earlier versions ... it also has some improvements that will be available on the future model...
Who would complain about Mislabelling in this scenario?? Not me..
This is what you have in the AR8000.... You have a DSM2 capable reciever that is also DSMX capable, so either labelling is technically correct.
is this a boat or a car?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfy5o48T6Lo