jmpdgs

My Feedback: (3)

Spektrum/JR upgrades seem to be a natural progression in the advancement of their business model. The patents on DSM2 have either come to an end or been so violated as to make them moot and in order to stay an industry leader, something has to happen. In the past, the TX models being replaced have been able to be upgraded and the new models have been backwardly compatible with the late model RXs. I'm relatively certain that such will be the case with the release of DSMX as well with the added benefits that DSM2 equipment will be available at greatly reduced prices which will make them tremendously popular/useful as the DSMX technology offers very little "real world" improvements over DSM2. Think of it as changing insurance companies or upgrading your policy. The benefit may be there, but you pray you'll never need to know or use it.

Interestingly that DX10 doesn't seem to be a DSMX radio, although I could be wrong.

jrb1

Will have rebind my 30+ models if I send my 9503 in for the upgrade?

Hope not!

Soem are a real PITA to do RX in 1/4 Cub under the seat, etc.

ka9fax

My Feedback: (9)

jrb1,
of course if u buy 30+ new RX you would have to bind them. but are u really planing on doing that?? I can see doing this for my two 100cc planes for insurance, but the rest of my 16 plane fleet will stay on DSM2. as far as rebinding, when i went from my 9309 to the 9503 i copyed everything from 1 tx to the other, but still had to rebind everything of corse. but its no big deal, what a min. or two for each model.
tony

ramcfarland

My Feedback: (44)

Looks like I stay with 72MHZ another year.

HarryC

My Feedback: (1)

I'm afraid you are deep in the ranks of the mis-informants.

1. What has Futaba got to do with it? If you think FHSS is owned by Futaba then you are deeply misinformed.
2. DSMX does hop using FHSS algorithms, it does not lock onto 2 channels, try reading Spektrum's website, here's the link - http://www.spektrumrc.com/DSMX/ and click on the "impressive agility" tab.

Believe what you want. The rest of us rely on evidence!

H.

jrb1

I've got 30 flyable models in hand already bound to my 9503!

So the question is when I get my TX back with the DSMX upgrade do I have to go back an re-bind each one again?

ka9fax

My Feedback: (9)

yep, the only concern i have with that is the kid down the block playing with his dads old 72. using it for his car or parkflyer or the young kid just playing with it. now that 2.4 is out i think 72 is getting tossed around to much, in hands that should not be in, but saying that, we have 2 guys still on 72 in our club and for the past 3 years that i know of never had a problem, and one of them flys 4 days a week all season long.
tony

ka9fax

My Feedback: (9)

good question, i would say yes after hearing what has to be done per the upgrade, but just thinking about this i think the big ques. is will it dump all my data for each plane, binding is no big deal, but the loss of all data is. so we need to find out if we need to back up our data before we send our TX in.
im waiting on a call back now so if no one ans. this ill let u know.
tony

karl hibbs

My Feedback: (6)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGYpn...eature=related

basimpsn

My Feedback: (5)

Same here

ram3500-RCU

My Feedback: (221)

I'm not going to open up that can of worms, other than to say, 2.4 is here to stay, and it is good technology. As for the DSM2 vs DSMx locking procedure, I'll stand corrected on the new agility of the updated DSMx. Apparently, the widening of the channels used, does indeed involve hopping, although it is done in a different way than Futaba. The RXs will continue to function as they have if they are not being controlled by a transmitter with DSMx capability.

To me, this is all good. Are equipment is not obsolete, like AM stuff, and the technology continues to be improved. Personally, I intend to keep abreast of this, and take advantage of it.

cavandish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGYpn...eature=related


So according to this guy, JR are admitting to their mistake, well thats great but whats not so good is that they are expecting nearly all of their previous customers to pay for this error.
I also see lots of DSM2 gear still on the shelf at many outlets, so have these poor retailers also been shafted by this ??? how would you feel as a retailer about being left with all the old DSM 2 stock ??? who's going to buy DSM2 now unless it;s heavily discounted ?

If DSM2 is so good, why was it deemed necessary to pull it from the shelves ? just saying that horizon/JR want its new customers to have the best that is available is total BULL

SCALECRAFT

My Feedback: (13)

Personally, I have not had any problems with my 2.4 spektrum/jr radios.

With less people on this format, I may have even a less chance of problems.

The bright side.

Steve

ram3500-RCU

My Feedback: (221)

First of all, that is THIS guys opinion. To me, this is preventative, rather than a patch. Again, the only time this would be needed, is if you were flying where hundreds of radios were being used at once. With this new add-on, it would still not be a problem, and you could fly safely. As it is, you would simply have to wait for more clear airways. How is that any different from now? For years we had to wait for our channel, and that may have been with only one other guy flying!!!

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Since experience has shown that the 40 (or 50, whatever) limit on DSM2 is bologna... and it has also shown that "frequency agile" systems can also have problems when "100's" of transmitters are on (which jibes with theory and experience in other applications besides RC), all of this discussion is interesting, but in my mind, missing the point. The real issue with the Spektrum-based systems, as I see it, is the *requirement* for multiple receivers that must be placed carefully around the aircraft and monitored for their performance (and moved if necessary) in order to obtain a reliable link. To really answer the compeition, JR needs to address that problem - which they appear to have done with DMSS. All the pictures of the DMSS receivers show one RX and two antenna, that's all.

My question is, how come a US customer can't take advantage of that? I like JR, but I'm not going to use their RF link when the one I use now provides a rock-solid link with one RX and two antennas-just like the other 2.4 GHz stuff (all except Spek) appears to.

Bob

ram3500-RCU

My Feedback: (221)

That is fine Bob, but why does that bother you? As far as it being a 'requirement', it is not. All of the JR receivers only have two antennas. And you don't need to use three or four to make the system work.

Many guys set up there expensive planes with more than one RX for redundancy. What is the problem? And if you do that with your system, you will be paying much more than 30 bucks for that redundancy.

I do monitor the reception of each RX, as well as battery health, servo health, engine performance, airframe integrity, mechanical devices, and more. No big deal to me. I want me planes to last, and be as safe as I can make them.

rcjetsaok

My Feedback: (7)

My question still stands unanswered..... Any takers ????

John Redman, Thanks for your last post !!!! I agree with Bobo, close the damn thread... It will all come out in the wash. Too many experts and not enough real information !!!!

Danno

Woketman

My Feedback: (6)

I completely agree with Bob. It appears to me (my opinion, obviously) that Horizon was a bit too fast to jump the gun and hook up with Spektrum, just to beat brand F to the 2.4 GHz wars. Now, as a result of that decision, they are still stuck with that multi RX configuration to obtain the best RF link. They clearly know that sooner or later they must end up with a DMSS system for the USA, like Futaba and Hitech. It obviously works rather well. So that means another "upgrade" in the coming years that will force JR users into another RX swap/TX update, and cost more.

I have flown JR in the past and I like their equipment. But this path Horizon has taken the US customers down is a bit bizarre. They should just go with JR's DMSS now.

ira d

Since DMSS is not compatible with DSM2 as DSMX is I think JR was afraid of the backlash from
their current cust base if they went with DMSS at this time. I do agree that JR needs to make it's
entire line along with DMSS available to it's world wide market including the USA

HarryC

My Feedback: (1)

You are still completely confusing your importer, Horizon Hobbies, with JR. They are totally separate. JR is making DMSS available to the world market, it has made no offer to make DSMX available outside the USA so it is not afraid of a backlash from its customers from going to DMSS, and it is your importer Horizon not JR that is blocking you getting DMSS.

BaldEagel

John Redman, Thanks for your last post !!!! I agree with Bobo, close the damn thread... It will all come out in the wash. Too many experts and not enough real information !!!!

Danno

Everything will come out in the wash, close RCU we don't need you any more.

Mike

ira d

I am not confused about Horizon and JR at all. If JR really wanted to make their entire line available to the
U.S. im sure they could find a way to do so. The fact is if DMSS suddely became available a lot of the
current JR customers would be reluctant to purchase because their current gear wouldn't work with it.

ram3500-RCU

My Feedback: (221)

I don't agree. Futaba already has 2.4 systems that won't work with each other. Nothing new here. I really don't think DMSS is necessary. How many guys do any of you actually know, who use DSM2, that have had problems. I know none. I have heard of cases, just as with any other system, but we are not talking about massive problems her. I think the percentages would be far less than with narrow band users, if the numbers could be compiled and made public. They will never be, but the fact it, time after time, I go and come from fields with no issues, as do the vast majority of us. What is the big deal?

BaldEagel

For someone with nearly 5000 posts on RCU I don't know where you have been if you don't know of anyone who has had problems with DSM2, "I'M ONE" I shouted in case you did not hear, talk about denial, there have been thousands of reports of problems with DSM2 my own have been unbinding without being demanded from the Tx etc, etc: ad infinitum

Please tell us what guys you know that have Futaba 2.4 systems that don't work with each other????????????????????????

Mike

blighty

just been on the JR MacGregor website and found this about the DMSS and DMSX, sorry if posted before.

When can I buy a new MacGregor/JR DSMX set?

We are waiting for information on whether JR will incorporate DSMX into their European specification sets. But such product development is sure to take some time, plus any additional CE testing that may be required.
In addition, all the shipments that JR have planned for the UK are either DSM2 or JR’s own 2.4 DMSS sets.
The combined effect is that CE approved JR DSMX sets are unlikely to be available for a considerable time. If you need a ‘frequency agile’ radio in the near future then it would be well worth considering JR’s new series of XG radios, which use JR DMSS. The XG7 will be available very soon, with the XG8 being released shortly later this year. For more information on JR DMSS radios, please click here:
MacGregor/JR XG7 DMSS Transmitter


no upgrade, but why not bin your over priced Tx and buy a new over priced Tx.


Will I be able to use DSMX receivers with my MacGregor/JR DSM2 transmitter?

Yes, JR DSM2 transmitters are forward compatible with DSMX receivers.
But DSM2 and DSMX Remote receivers are not interchangeable. So please use DSM2 remotes with a DSM2 receiver, and only use DSMX remotes with a DSMX receiver.
In summary, please continue to enjoy using your JR DSM2 set.


unless i read that wrong, that's not what it said on the Horizon link posted earlier. they said DSMX Tx will work with DSM2 Rx's.

quote from Horizon's web site

Should I purchase the DSMX add-on?

Before investing in the DSMX transmitter add-on, there are several important facts about DSMX you need to know:

* To realize the full benefits of DSMX technology you must have both a DSMX Transmitter and a DSMX Receiver
* DSM2 transmitters are compatible with DSMX receivers. Likewise, should you add-on to a DSMX transmitter, the DSM2 receivers you have now will be compatible with it.
* Because DSM2 and DSMX share the same wide-band DSSS foundation, all Spektrum users will enjoy superior range, speed and precision whether theyre using DSM2 equipment, DSMX equipment or a combination of both.
* The difference a DSMX system makes is only apparent when hundreds of 2.4GHz systems are in use at once.* DSM2 users who rarely, if ever, fly in big events or other exceptionally "noisy" 2.4GHz environments may find the DSM2 equipment they have now is all they will ever need.