BaldEagel

Well guys this has turned into the normal Futaba is best no it isn't Spektrum is best no its not, change them around if you wish, its just not worth carrying on this thread, the anologies are getting more and more abserd with only a few technical anecdotes and details, I suggest we all take a step back and look to our motives and alegensies, and stop posting nonsence, keep to the facts that you know, not what you guess at.

Mike

Woketman

My Feedback: (6)

OK, that sounds reasonable. What method of transmission do these tactical military radios use???

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

SINCGARS, EPLARS and HAVE QUICK all use FHSS... I'm not currently aware of any tactical radios that exclusively use DSSS...

Bob

ps. since Mr. Hyperdyne from "Superior" CO has degenerated to name calling to make his argument, I'll leave him to his opinions...

psuguru

Definately not the case at our field. I haven't seen a new Spektrum set in ages, all Futaba 6's 7's and 10's

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

That was one of my points, from what I've been able to gather, FASST has a much bigger market share in other parts of the world vs. the US so I wouldn't be surprised if the total number of 2.4 GHz systems sold by both are fairly close.

Bob

grbaker

My Feedback: (29)

Not the case at the fields I fly at here in Texas either. Almost all of the prop guys I know fly Futaba and a few of the jet guys do. I currently fly 2 JR 10Xs but my next high end radio purchase will be a Futaba FASST.

George

My Feedback: (57)

Removed by me: Not relevant.

Srewinkel

i have read thru most of the post here, and as always you get Spektrum is better, no Futaba is.  people making examples of toasters compared to computers booting, which makes no sense at all. my ipod boots pretty darn fast after i shut it off.  for the argument that there are more spektrums out there, so they must be better, is like saying there are more fords than lexus cars. Spektrum is cheaper, so it attracts the consumer with a budget, which is 98% of em, if not more. 

gruntled

Wow - reading comprehension in this thread is just dismal.

Dan M

My Feedback: (1)

hey brother .. if you think this is bad ... go check out a car thread

Srewinkel

post was influenced by jack daniels, but point is still there. matter of personal prefrence in radios.  Just because you know of no problems using a certain brand does not make it better than the other.  just because the DOD uses a certain type of mudulation doesn't make it the best choice for Rc use. 

Roger Pham

I have exactly the same problem with my DX6i while flying a 450-size heli. I've been flying this heli for the past 2 months without a single glitch. Then, when I tried to set up revo mixing since I use rate gyro, the heli became less responsive, and 2 minutes into the flight, the heli did not respond to command at all,and and flew very stably into the ground at a 45-degree angle. Right after the crash, all controls responded again, except for the motor, which perhaps, was turned off by the receiver once signal was momentarily loss.

hyperdyne

My Feedback: (6)

Again, come up with an example to deflect the real issue. I have trouble seeing your point, 2 way comms is just like RC (really?). And I suppose you think guiding a cruise missile in real time to a target using GPS is a really bad example of remote control?

Hey, you guys starting in with how FHSS is "proven" for industrial apps where DSSS has not been proven. I counter argued that your history of DSSS is incomplete (GPS or space comms dont count I guess). Don't shoot the messenger, maybe go read up some more first.

Hedy Lamarr is probably spinning in her grave about now...

BTW, my credentials are out there as well. What would you like to know? www.dspdude.com

Dave ESPI

This is all very interesting, entertaining and also informative..... How the hell did we manage the tripple lindy on RCU of this Is beyond me, but thanks!
It explains why my dx6i would not bind and lock to my Blade 400 lastweek in my living room when I had my laptop nearby and yet after messing with it for nearly an hour tryig to see if somethign was damaged by a minor crash I had when a servo stripped on me, and it bound just fine @ the hobby shop later that day when I was exasperated and pissed beyond my last nerve.

jetflyr

Ya know, the first few pages of this were good......then the typical BS started (I know thousands, 12 times as many yada, yadaa, yada).
Seveal years ago, there was a long thread of JR vs. Fut.....and it was found that some places wee friendly to one brand, and not the other. Did it mean one was clearly superior than the other.....? Nope, just that there are some areas with garbage in the air that affected one, more than the other.
Some of the folks seem to thing that 2.3 is the Holy Grail, when in reality it is just a large improvement over what we had before.

The name calling on here has become absolutely rediculous, so...children, please grow up before some mod shuts this down for the very clear violations of RCU policy going on. There WAS too much good info going on (2.4 over wet ground for instance...!) for this thread to get shut down.
Greg
(My real name!)

c/f

My Feedback: (1)

Heres a FASST scenario on rebooting times that may be of interest. I was setting up a 50" profile 3D plane. I put in a Fasst 6 channel rx that had the micro plugs I then used a small genderbendr leads to go from the micro to normal plugs. plane was electric powered and using the internal 3 amp BEC.

Problem was, all flight controls had 75oz torq digital servos @ .10 sec (4) and I could wiggle both sticks rapidly and get it to go failsafe hold, what was cool was as soon as it would halt the servos with a lockout hold , control would immediately return since the peak demand stopped. So fast return that the stick command was still at point of hold. Not really having an available Fasst receiver I went and did my test trim/flying. I definatley had no concerns that I would lose a model, its since been replaced, but it's my own expeirance that none of my Spektrums will return control that immediate.

Turbotronic

The debate about DSSS vs FHSS is futile in itself. The important factors are:
1> What the laws alows you to do using either scheme in the ISS band as laid out in sect 15
2> The priority of bandwidth VS Range in any particular application.

So for RC use:
1> We need Range not multimedia bandwidth as in WiFi
2> We dont care about stealth so our signals can be way above noise levels.

When reading section 15 and then taking a clean sheet of paper this is what you should come up with ( And 100% of RF modem designers for long range comms agree with their designs, as least the ones I know about)
1> Hop 50 channels a second and you are good for 1W of output power. FHSS
2> Hop less than 50/sec and the permissible power output comes down. (its a complicated read in sect 15) FHSS
3> Pick DSSS and you are limited to 100mW but you can use a high data througput.

I am a JR fan but I have less than adequate faith in Spectrum, FASST looks promising but both of these have power management issues by design and poorly implimented servo line driver circuitry. This was the case with PCM as well but the profiliration of high power digitals have unmasked this in the 2.4 era.
Andre Baird

hyperdyne

My Feedback: (6)

c/f, that has been my experience as well. The Futaba reacquires quickly, an important feature. Spektrum, not so much. I prefer the faster re-acq during these type of issues, since it is most likely what will happen in the air. As I said before, both systems are adequate. I like Futaba's acq speed, I dont care for FHSS as much. I like Spektrum's DSSS, but their acq speed stinks.

David Gladwin

Its rather amusing albeit a little sad to hear some of you guys laying into each other about which is the better system DSSM or FAAST. In fact both systems are clearly very good indeed, I have been flying both Spektrum and JR12X on 2,4 DSSM for over two years (only) on jets without a hitch, or single failsafe frame BUT these systems have been left WAY behind by Weatronics 2.4 Dual FHSS.
FAAST gives you a very solid link but thats it, at least Spektrum and JR DSSM , with a data logger tells you min. voltage, fades and failsafe frames.

Now just look at what you get with Weatronics system, which has been working perfectly for me since May :
DUAL rf circuits in both the tx (with twin patch antennae, looks a little odd at first but function defines its form) and rx with one aerial per circuit.

Data downlink with programmable warnings of range , battery voltage and rx temperature., logging of EVERY parameter in both Tx and Rx at .1 second intervals with graphic or tabular presentation for later analysis, all logged in the transmitter, safe from crash damage !(unless you crash your tx !), free user upgradable firmware, Spectrum monitor, automatic range checking, one touch binding.

Programmable failsafe (and servo failsafe) for every channel, mixing of up to 5 channels, upto 3 gyros, all programmable, programmable servos with 35 adjustment points each with 4096 steps and if you go for the larger receiver, 40 amps current capacity for the 8 regulators, GPS recording, plus several other most useful functions.

Worried about the ability of you batteries to supply the current needed without significant voltage drop ? Just look at the log file. its ALL recorded for your perusal, you can even plot voltage, current and servo positions to see where your high current is being created. Interference at Dunsfold, or anwhere else ? Easy, just fly a Weatonics with GPS and the recorded data will tell you where and how RF performance was affected. (thats exactly what I did at the JWM in Northern Ireland. Dave Shulman's Futaba radio was constantly causing engine shutdowns due to interference, my Hawk with Weatronics on 35 with GPS found the exact spot where Dave had his problems, which were fixed by installing a Wea receiver ). My Hawk didn't miss a beat, the Dual receiver sorted it all out so that nothing was noticed in flight.

Yep, you get all this in a 12 channel Micro for about the same price as a top line Futaba 2.4 rx and less than a JR 1221 2.4 receiver.

This equipment is so far ahead of the parade that it can't even hear the band !

Now, if JR were to move to a FHSS system using the Weatronics system we really would have a marriage made in heaven !

(Based on personal experience, not hearsay !!)

Regards, David Gladwin.

BaldEagel

Ist also ammusing that whenever a debate concerning radios comes onto RCU, you appear and change the subject to Weatronics, did you mention "Rock Solid" on this occasion? for my two penith, as Weatronics use a FHSS system Futaba are much closer to the utopia you speak of, but that is not the debate here.

Mike

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Greg,

There is no problem with FASST over wet ground. I have flown a turbine-powered Nortstar seaplane with FASST ([link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAOx8SqheG0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAOx8SqheG0[/link]) without any issues at all. In fact, during the last flight at the 2009 Joe Nall, the takeoff took so long (turns out there was some water inside the plane ) that at lift off, I was almost at the other end of the pond - more than 2000' away - and FASST never missed a beat...

Bob

Bugalooob

I gave up on 2.4 when I lost two planes because of it (spectrum), I never had a problem before with 72 mhz but I gave the new technology a shot and sorry I did...I went back to my futaba 9 cap which I should have never left

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

You should spend $150 on a TM-7 module and a 6017 RX for your 9CAP and give FASST a try. If you do, you will never go back to 72 MHz...

Bob

gruntled

It would seem that limited anecdotal evidence can, in fact, be conclusive evidence that a problem does not exist when it suits us.

Xairflyer

My Feedback: (1)

Been using a Corona DSSS 2.4 module in a JR9X for nearlly a year now in 8 different models and never had a glitch, still get the odd glitch in the same known spot at our field on 35mhz PPM although not on PCM.