RC Jets Discuss RC jets in this forum plus rc turbines and ducted fan power systems

Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?

Reply
Old 05-19-2011, 04:31 AM
  #176
VF84sluggo
Thread Starter
 
VF84sluggo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL
Posts: 2,367
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: David Gladwin
You're behind the times Sluggo,...
You got that right...I'm so out of touch I still use cash to pay for a cup of coffee or a pack of gum
VF84sluggo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 06:58 AM
  #177
johnnyjet
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Prattville, AL
Posts: 413
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?

Here is a little food for thought.
How was the 4G cell phone reception at the event?
Johnny
johnnyjet is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 07:16 AM
  #178
Shaun Evans
 
Shaun Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 6,975
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: toprudder

Quote:
ORIGINAL: bigbaggy
The response time is faster, more cycles per second to transmit the data. Faster updates ect.
72 MHz and 2.4 GHz are merely the carrier frequency. It has nothing to do with response time. It is possible for a 72MHz analog PPM system (4ch) to have quicker updates (lower latency) than some 2.4GHz systems. The update rate is more a function of the modulation and encoding schemes.



I wonder if anyone in Alexandria is jonesing for a pork chop, LOL....
Shaun Evans is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 07:53 AM
  #179
Robart Mfg.
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: St. Charles, IL
Posts: 2
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?

To set the record straight regarding the crash of the Robart P-47 at Joe Nall.

First of all the rumor of the module falling out of the radio is completely false. I flew the aircraft Thursday morning with no issues. On my second flight after the noontime show is when the aircraft locked out. After my second lap the radio made a long beep and then the radio went into failsafe. The engine came back to idle, leveled out and headed for vendor row. I was trying to diagnose what was going on even with no control over the aircraft. I was flying the aircraft the whole time even though the radio was in lockout hoping the radio would respond. After the crash we checked the onboard flight battery which was good, the Transmitter battery which was at 10v, and checked the receiver by plugging it in to a servo and everything was working fine. Futaba determined that possibly every time I unplugged the module and plugged it back into the transmitter it could have loosened one of the pins in the module causing the loss of signal. Futaba is currently in the process of diagnosing the radio system and have not yet heard the results.

I have been flying Futaba radios for the last 22 years with no issues what so ever. I am currently flying my own and Robart’s airplanes on Futaba 10C and 12Z 2.4 radio systems.

So my recommendation if you own a radio with a module based 2.4 systems, is do not unplug and plug into the transmitter, modify your transmitter case so the radio and module fit without removing the module. If you remove your module every time like I have done, I would send your radio back to your radio manfacturer and have them check it just to be on the safe side.

Eric Karl
Robart Mfg.
Robart Mfg. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2011, 04:48 PM
  #180
ww2birds
 
ww2birds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Katonah, NY
Posts: 1,196
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?

Quote:
ORIGINAL: toprudder

Quote:
ORIGINAL: bigbaggy
The response time is faster, more cycles per second to transmit the data. Faster updates ect.
72 MHz and 2.4 GHz are merely the carrier frequency. It has nothing to do with response time. It is possible for a 72MHz analog PPM system (4ch) to have quicker updates (lower latency) than some 2.4GHz systems. The update rate is more a function of the modulation and encoding schemes.
Umm, no. Actually there is a connection. When a carrier is modulated it spreads out its frequency spectrum. Once the channel spacing on 72 MHz was set, it limits the rate at which it can be modulated, hence it restricts the update rate of PCM signals.

At 2.4 GHZ the available bandwidth is much larger, and much faster modulation is possible and the new radios take advantage of it. I suppose you could design a new 72 MHz radio with very fast modulation but it would not be compatible with the existing uses of 72 MHz for RC.

+1 for bigbaggy...

Dave


ww2birds is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2011, 05:01 PM
  #181
hyperdyne
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Superior, CO
Posts: 397
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?

Actually spread spectrum is used to widen the bandwidth of the signal only as a means for multiple users, security, etc. It doesnt have anything to do with "more bits".

hyperdyne is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2011, 05:06 PM
  #182
causeitflies
 
causeitflies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: EASTERN OHIO
Posts: 1,775
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?

Also he was referring to PPM and not PCM systems. And as we know some versions of 2.4 had issues with latency. That's about all I know about it LOL
causeitflies is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2011, 06:23 PM
  #183
ww2birds
 
ww2birds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Katonah, NY
Posts: 1,196
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?

Sorry, it can be so inconvenient to bring basic science into these conversations .. back to the techno babble... please proceed :-)
ww2birds is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2011, 07:17 PM
  #184
rhklenke
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,436
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: ww2birds

Sorry, it can be so inconvenient to bring basic science into these conversations .. back to the techno babble... please proceed :-)
+1 [sm=thumbs_up.gif]
rhklenke is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2011, 08:15 PM
  #185
hyperdyne
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Superior, CO
Posts: 397
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?

LOL. Yeah, backpeddle as necessary.

hyperdyne is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 12:29 AM
  #186
Moerig
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: , NAMIBIA
Posts: 303
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: ww2birds

Sorry, it can be so inconvenient to bring basic science into these conversations .. back to the techno babble... please proceed :-)
Reminds me of the saying "Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument".....
Moerig is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 04:11 AM
  #187
ww2birds
 
ww2birds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Katonah, NY
Posts: 1,196
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?

if you think that was backpedaling, then I believe you've made my point, so thanks!

and HD, you know enough about this to understand that the question was about rate of modulation broadening the bandwidth of a signal, it was not about SS techniques specifically ... it was referring to the ratio of modulation rate to carrier freq.

oh, and while we are at it (since I put the spoon in to stir the pot here), I wonder if the JR gang have a "rewards points" program for their loyalists bumping threads with titles that reflect badly on their competitors. I wonder how many points you need to get some extra satellite receivers? and, it is very thoughtful of them to state right up front that their new DSMX was introduced to fix all the problems they were having at large flyins.

:-)

ww2birds is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 08:31 AM
  #188
hyperdyne
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Superior, CO
Posts: 397
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?

I am not part of a JR gang. I just state facts. If you didnt know, I was the one who discovered the problem with JR/Spektrum radios sometimes picking adjacent channels. So yeah, I guess that makes me biased. Duh.

I just call it like I see it. No agenda here. But time and time again the same old Futaba goons usually come in and muddy the waters with nebulous statements and misinformation. Bravo to you.

Anyway, if you dont like answers to these questions then dont ask them or better yet dont spread misinformation. You can argue with me but you cant argue with physics. Well, you can but you will always lose. I guess this is all just "techno babble" for those who just dont understand advanced comm theory. That doesnt make it any less true.

BTW, rate of modulation can be increased without bandwidth spread. It's called M-PSK. Or even QAM. How about Trellis modulation? Look it up, read more, understand.



hyperdyne is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 12:54 PM
  #189
VF84sluggo
Thread Starter
 
VF84sluggo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL
Posts: 2,367
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: hyperdyne
...the problem with JR/Spektrum radios sometimes picking adjacent channels.
I'll be totally blunt here: I switched to Futaba back in September due to this very reason. I was moving into turbines then, I simply did not feel comfortable with this reality.

Now, to be even more frank, I am also very uncomfortable with the Futaba antenna setup, but felt that having FASST technology was an acceptable tradeoff. However, I still do not have complete peace-of-mind with it. Having various remote antenna locations with various planes of orientation seems logically to be a better 'receptive' arrangement. But, again based on the above quote, it is moot if a bad channel selection is made by the radio.

With DSMX, IMHO, it's a whole new ballgame. Had DSMX been a little sooner in coming to market, I would have stayed with JR, dumped DSM2, and gone with DSMX. FHSS technology (DSMX) coupled with a diverse receiver antenna array sure looks like the best way to go (I know, I know, look at Weatronics), understanding that nothing man-made will ever be 100% reliable.
VF84sluggo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2011, 09:21 AM
  #190
ww2birds
 
ww2birds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Katonah, NY
Posts: 1,196
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?

Ok, HD, I was trolling on the JR thing ... You got me!

Now, since we all know that you have some actual technical knowledge, can you please explain to everyone if my original comment that the 72 MHz RC frame rates are limited by the channel spacing is correct or not? You will note that was the idea that started this conversation. See if you can manage without using any fancy technical jargon ... I am sure you can! Just simple physics or communication theory as you prefer.

Oh, and I didn't think I was arguing with you ... Actually I believe I acknowledged your insight. I suppose that it is good not to be arguing since such an argument looks like it would not have many facts in it, just boastful statements and invocations of fields of study as you just did.

Have a nice weekend!

Dave
ww2birds is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2011, 10:37 AM
  #191
hyperdyne
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Superior, CO
Posts: 397
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?

sluggo, I concur with your thoughts exactly! I am still on JR but have a Futaba radio for my RC cars. Do I think Spektrum is trying to play the marketing angle with their new DSMX? Surely. If I had the cash to convert all my stuff I would go to Weatronics. They appear to have addressed many of these issues and have what I would call a superior solution.

ww2, hey man I agree that your 72MHz argument on channel spacing is correct - that is if they keep with FM/FSK. My point wasnt to debunk what you said, rather if modulation scheme was open, then 72MHz with a PSK scheme *could* yield higher bit rates (i.e. faster frame updates as you put it). Keeping things all the same, 72MHz would hit the wall whereas 2.4G obviously has more bandwidth to play with. Believe me, I am not trying to argue with you but simply discuss other technical aspects (sometimes that gets me into trouble).

As many have already said, I think 72M is really a backwards step. You cannot get passed radio impound and single channel operation. Nothing fixes that problem other than going to a SS scheme capable of a large number of users. And you need more bandwidth to accomplish this. As someone stated here before, a dual frequency band Tx/Rx utilizing SS would be a nice solution. Maybe 900M/2.4G or 2.4G/5.8G. Sort of the same principle which GPS/Galileo works. Think of all the fading/multipath issues that could be solved with this sort of setup along with a hopping scheme or use of longer DS codes.

hyperdyne is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2011, 11:41 AM
  #192
VF84sluggo
Thread Starter
 
VF84sluggo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL
Posts: 2,367
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?

For sure I was not trying to re-kindle ANY brand war with this thread. It was simply to get info on what went on at Nall with Futaba and/or 2.4g, and hopefully identify any potential gremlins lurking out there. While there is always risk of losing a plane, to lose one due to something that was totally preventable with the proper setup is especially painful. And while this is strictly my opinion, I agree with those here that have stated the 2.4 issues at Nall were highly, highly likely due to the sheer number of 2.4 transmitters in use at any given time.

I further agree, as some very knowledgeable and experienced rc-ers have stated, that the vast majority of 2.4g users, whether it be JR, Futaba, Weatronics, Hitec, etc., as long as the radio gear is installed properly and used in accordance with the manufacturers instructions, will have no issues at your rank-and-file club field, or standard 'rally' where there aren't a hundred or more radios on at one time...with the understanding that nothing man-made is fool-proof.

Quote:
ORIGINAL: hyperdyne
sluggo, I concur with your thoughts exactly! I am still on JR but have a Futaba radio for my RC cars. Do I think Spektrum is trying to play the marketing angle with their new DSMX? Surely. If I had the cash to convert all my stuff I would go to Weatronics. They appear to have addressed many of these issues and have what I would call a superior solution.
VF84sluggo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2011, 01:00 PM
  #193
ww2birds
 
ww2birds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Katonah, NY
Posts: 1,196
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?

So, back to the original topic (and sorry for the diversion). Believe it or not, I dont see this as a brand thing either. At some point in a large flyin with multiple flight stations, we are going to have signal to noise issues. It may come from too many radios on in the band, even with good rf schemes like DSMX and FASST, or from flying too far from your own tx and too close to a cluster of others, or both.

What I would like to see is for both of the big radio mfrs start showing up at large events with some of their engineers and good test equipment. I do not know how else we are going to learn the limits and find ways around them.

And now that JR has stepped up and fixed their RF link, Futaba should offer some tools to evaluate their link performance. Up to now their position has been that 'it just works' which is pretty much true ... But again, with what margin? Now that the other guys have what I expect will be an equivalent link, they'd better get going!

Dave
ww2birds is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2011, 01:07 PM
  #194
siclick33
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: York, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 3,548
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?

Quote:
And now that JR has stepped up and fixed their RF link, Futaba should offer some tools to evaluate their link performance.
Note translated from some info posted on the Robbe German website about the S-Bus II telemetry:

Automatically when connecting the receiver is receiver battery voltage, an external voltage (up to 60 V) and the antenna signal strength the main telemetry data radioed to the ground.

Although information is scarce at the moment, it looks like S-Bus II will give indication of signal strength via telemetry.
siclick33 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2011, 02:24 PM
  #195
rhklenke
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,436
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: ww2birds

What I would like to see is for both of the big radio mfrs start showing up at large events with some of their engineers and good test equipment. I do not know how else we are going to learn the limits and find ways around them.

And now that JR has stepped up and fixed their RF link, Futaba should offer some tools to evaluate their link performance. Up to now their position has been that 'it just works' which is pretty much true ... But again, with what margin? Now that the other guys have what I expect will be an equivalent link, they'd better get going!

Dave
+1 on the comment about seeing what's going on at Joe Nall - I mentioned that previously. Heck, even I have a spectrum analyzer that gives you a 1/2 way decent picture of what's going on in the 2.4 GHz band. Why aren't some of the JR and/or Futaba guys checking that out? Back in the 72 MHz days, they has a spectrum analyzer in the radio impound at Joe Nall and were watching what was going on, why not now?

I'm not sure I would say that the JR/Spek link is "fixed" - just one possible limitation of it. BTW, as I see it, DSM2 picking two channels that were too close to each other was really only a problem in the face of a broad band noise source - like a 2.4 GHz FM video link. If all of the emitters in the band were DSM2 or FASST, why would it even matter where the two channels that a DSM2 link picked were?

To me, I have reservations about the selectivity and gain of the Spek RX's and their software still seems a bit flaky to me - I haven't yet heard that the "re-bind it and it will work" type stuff is gone for good...

Bob
rhklenke is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2011, 03:01 PM
  #196
gruntled
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Anytown
Posts: 1,052
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: ww2birds

And now that JR has stepped up and fixed their RF link, Futaba should offer some tools to evaluate their link performance. Up to now their position has been that 'it just works' which is pretty much true ... But again, with what margin? Now that the other guys have what I expect will be an equivalent link, they'd better get going!

Dave
Now Dave, you posted last year that you have never seen anyone at your club ever have a problem on Spektrum, so why would you try to imply their link was 'broken'? If it because some Spektrum equipped planes had issues at events like Joe Nall last year, then I would say that means Futuaba's link must be "broken' as well since some Futaba-guided planes went in last year and more notably this year.

In any event, if I were flying Futaba gear I would sure want to be able to evaluate the performance of my radio just like Spektrum and Weatronics have offered for some time.

gruntled is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2011, 04:29 PM
  #197
ww2birds
 
ww2birds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Katonah, NY
Posts: 1,196
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?

I did post that, because it is what I have observed .. no problems at a club field with DSM2. Still true today. But this is not where the problems have been observed.

There were lots and lots of reports over the last few years (e.g. SEFF, Joe Nall) of issues with DSM2, and lots of engineering reports here of evidence of bad design on picking "incorrect" or "non-optimal" frequency pairs that might explain problems with lots of transmitters on at once.

Then, when DSMX came out the post ON JR's OWN WEBSITE (!) said it was to address problems flyers were having at large events, so it ain't hard to connect the dots. Of course if you quote JR's website here, you get accused of being a Futaba "goon", and posting "nebulous statements misinformation". Sigh.

So I'll stand by "broken" .. just my opinion. You may not agree. I was never impressed by it from day one. I do have a DX-7 and fly it in a bunch of non-jet stuff and it works just fine.

But, you make a good point, no one is saying Futaba's link is perfect either, and we have no tools to monitor it. Clearly it's a better design than DSM2, but maybe DSMX is better than FASST .. we'll see. Heck, the JR gang can count frame losses and fades while flying via their telemetry on the new DX-8. I have maintained all along that if the Spek radios come with multiple RXs and fade counters, they must require it ... otherwise no serious engineering team would provide them.

My point is simply that we really don't know enough about the performance and failure characteristics of the 2.4 systems yet, especially at very crowded venues.

I would be very concerned to fly DSM2, DSMX or FASST at Joe Nall... but would trust any of my planes to any of them at a club field.

BTW, I love the idea of the Weatronics stuff, it's just too much of an aftermarket "kludge" to be attractive to me now.

Dave

ww2birds is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2011, 04:57 PM
  #198
afterburner
 
afterburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New City, NY
Posts: 2,893
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Robart Mfg.

To set the record straight regarding the crash of the Robart P-47 at Joe Nall.

First of all the rumor of the module falling out of the radio is completely false. I flew the aircraft Thursday morning with no issues. On my second flight after the noontime show is when the aircraft locked out. After my second lap the radio made a long beep and then the radio went into failsafe. The engine came back to idle, leveled out and headed for vendor row. I was trying to diagnose what was going on even with no control over the aircraft. I was flying the aircraft the whole time even though the radio was in lockout hoping the radio would respond. After the crash we checked the onboard flight battery which was good, the Transmitter battery which was at 10v, and checked the receiver by plugging it in to a servo and everything was working fine. Futaba determined that possibly every time I unplugged the module and plugged it back into the transmitter it could have loosened one of the pins in the module causing the loss of signal. Futaba is currently in the process of diagnosing the radio system and have not yet heard the results.

I have been flying Futaba radios for the last 22 years with no issues what so ever. I am currently flying my own and Robart’s airplanes on Futaba 10C and 12Z 2.4 radio systems.

So my recommendation if you own a radio with a module based 2.4 systems, is do not unplug and plug into the transmitter, modify your transmitter case so the radio and module fit without removing the module. If you remove your module every time like I have done, I would send your radio back to your radio manfacturer and have them check it just to be on the safe side.

Eric Karl
Robart Mfg.
Eric,
When I purchased my 12FG almost four years ago, the 2.4 module was not available and when it did come out and I bought one, I realized after a few months of swapping modules that I was asking for trouble. For two reasons. One was that I might become to complacent and forget to acquire a frequency pin when going from 2.4 to 72 and end up shooting someone down and the other was that constantly swapping modules every weekend seemed like there could be connection issues over time. At that time I decided to change all the planes I fly regularly to 2.4. Sorry for the loss of your plane and I hope when and if you radio is diagnosed, you'll share the results here.

Marty
afterburner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2011, 05:51 PM
  #199
VF84sluggo
Thread Starter
 
VF84sluggo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL
Posts: 2,367
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?

Quote:
ORIGINAL: ww2birds
My point is simply that we really don't know enough about the performance and failure characteristics of the 2.4 systems yet, especially at very crowded venues.

I would be very concerned to fly DSM2, DSMX or FASST at Joe Nall... but would trust any of my planes to any of them at a club field.

Dave
Dave - What you state above sums it up nicely: Was this a Futaba issue, a 2.4g at the Nall issue, or some combo of the two.

I am a Futaba newbie. Got a 12FG to replace my x9303 when I made the move to 12 channels. But, I have never been comfortable with the "you don't need a data logger with Futaba because it just works" mindset.

However, as you say about club fields, just as DSM2 worked just fine for me, so has FASST. Barring a bad setuo/installation, seems like the worry with 2.4g technology has more to do with the size of the event than with the method of sending/receiving the signal.

Randy
VF84sluggo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2011, 08:30 PM
  #200
hyperdyne
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Superior, CO
Posts: 397
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Futaba, or just 2.4, problems at Joe Nall?

It never stops, eh? Ok, I'll bite. So when you question technical matters that arent exactly true you get labeled part of the "JR gang". See how that works?

Hell, I focus on the technical issues* and you guys still have to throw barbs. I guess no olive branch is big enough for you to toss in the garbage.

Back to reality for me**, some of this is too deep for me to wade in.


* I am sure C/No meters are no good in the real world. Why would anyone use one since the link should just work? End users shouldnt worrry about stuff like that.

** Designing DSSS systems during the day and talking techno babble to the uneducated in my spare time.


Quote:
ORIGINAL: ww2birds
...

But, you make a good point, no one is saying Futaba's link is perfect either, and we have no tools to monitor it. Clearly it's a better design than DSM2, but maybe DSMX is better than FASST .. we'll see. Heck, the JR gang can count frame losses and fades while flying via their telemetry on the new DX-8. I have maintained all along that if the Spek radios come with multiple RXs and fade counters, they must require it ... otherwise no serious engineering team would provide them.
...

Dave

hyperdyne is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:59 AM.