2.4 - Why Are They Failing?
01-16-2011, 11:55 AM
#276
Senior Member
My Feedback: (14)
RE: 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
Maybe they are failing because of the large number of devices now using 2.4 Ghz? It's not just for R/C. The AMA needs to petition the government to release a block of frequencies in the 75 Mhz band that are no longer being used as much. This includes beeper frequencies. I haven't seen anyone with a beeper in almost a decade. Then we could use that block for 75 Mhz spread spectrum. Those using those channels can move to other channels which are no longer in demand. Time to petition!
Maybe they are failing because of the large number of devices now using 2.4 Ghz? It's not just for R/C. The AMA needs to petition the government to release a block of frequencies in the 75 Mhz band that are no longer being used as much. This includes beeper frequencies. I haven't seen anyone with a beeper in almost a decade. Then we could use that block for 75 Mhz spread spectrum. Those using those channels can move to other channels which are no longer in demand. Time to petition!
You don't have the bandwidth available on 75 MHz, or any of the bands below 2.4 GHz, to run spread spectrum in the same fashion as that being ran on 2.4 GHz. The "overhead" of data required just to keep the receiver on the proper frequency would eat up all of the bandwidth available, not even counting any information from the transmitters encoder.
Ed Cregger
01-16-2011, 11:59 AM
#277
RE: 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?
ORIGINAL: TimBle
Yes the encoding provides protection from another TX. I t does NOT provide protection from a signal swamping the weaker signal from the Tx.
ORIGINAL: ram3500-RCU
You have to remember the ''ENCODING''. It is deeper than just finding a low 'noise' signal and binding to these two challels. Once bound, only those two ''encoded' channels are recognized by the RX, regardless of possibly 'stronger' signals on the same channel, but that do not contain that unique encoding placed within the signal at the time of, binding, as I understand it. Thus, stronger signals encountered during the flight, even on the same 'bound' channels, should have no effect on the control, as long as the transmitter and RX remain 'bound'. This the main leap forward in reliability with 2.4 technology over the 72mhz systems, aside from the shorted wave length and resulting RF resistance. It is in the unique 'encoding' process.
You have to remember the ''ENCODING''. It is deeper than just finding a low 'noise' signal and binding to these two challels. Once bound, only those two ''encoded' channels are recognized by the RX, regardless of possibly 'stronger' signals on the same channel, but that do not contain that unique encoding placed within the signal at the time of, binding, as I understand it. Thus, stronger signals encountered during the flight, even on the same 'bound' channels, should have no effect on the control, as long as the transmitter and RX remain 'bound'. This the main leap forward in reliability with 2.4 technology over the 72mhz systems, aside from the shorted wave length and resulting RF resistance. It is in the unique 'encoding' process.
Yes the encoding provides protection from another TX. I t does NOT provide protection from a signal swamping the weaker signal from the Tx.
Another thing that I have learned is to Bind the RX with the transmitter very close to it, bind it AT THE FIELD and in the environment you will be flying in, not at home, and re-bind if you change anything. An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I have had NO issues with 2.4 following these rules.
01-16-2011, 12:08 PM
#278
Senior Member
My Feedback: (14)
RE: 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?
ORIGINAL: ram3500-RCU
You have to remember the ''ENCODING''. It is deeper than just finding a low 'noise' signal and binding to these two challels. Once bound, only those two ''encoded' channels are recognized by the RX, regardless of possibly 'stronger' signals on the same channel, but that do not contain that unique encoding placed within the signal at the time of, binding, as I understand it. Thus, stronger signals encountered during the flight, even on the same 'bound' channels, should have no effect on the control, as long as the transmitter and RX remain 'bound'. This the main leap forward in reliability with 2.4 technology over the 72mhz systems, aside from the shorted wave length and resulting RF resistance. It is in the unique 'encoding' process.
You have to remember the ''ENCODING''. It is deeper than just finding a low 'noise' signal and binding to these two challels. Once bound, only those two ''encoded' channels are recognized by the RX, regardless of possibly 'stronger' signals on the same channel, but that do not contain that unique encoding placed within the signal at the time of, binding, as I understand it. Thus, stronger signals encountered during the flight, even on the same 'bound' channels, should have no effect on the control, as long as the transmitter and RX remain 'bound'. This the main leap forward in reliability with 2.4 technology over the 72mhz systems, aside from the shorted wave length and resulting RF resistance. It is in the unique 'encoding' process.
I'm not pointing a shot at anyone, so please stand down.
We have the old-timer radio crowd in here (me) and some of the new digital age techies (technicians and engineers), all scratching their heads in an effort to make others understand their point of view. That makes me smile with pleasure. We understand things in different ways, it appears, but that is no surprise.
We old timers know that if the basic conditions for good radio propagation aren't met, regardless of whether it is analog/digital or hi-band VHF/SHF frequencies, nothing will get through to the servos.
Some of the new folks give me the impression (and you don't know who you are) that they ignore the analog world of radio and place all of their eggs in the digital basket, as though it has replaced analog RF requirements entirely with its own digital magic.
Yet we somehow help each other understand what is going on in the end.
RF analog is good. Digital is good. Let's keep struggling by working together and figuring this stuff out.
Ed Cregger
01-16-2011, 12:09 PM
#279
RE: 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?
To answer the original question very simply, " 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?", I think the biggest reason is that many using this system have not studied the technology enough to know how to use it properly. There are do's and don'ts as with any system, and these are VERY important to know and understand.
We all came from an era (72mhz, 75mhz, 27mhz, ham band, whatever) when, after the radio equipment was installed, all we worried about was our batteries. This is NOT the case with 2.4. We need to understand how it works, and carefully and faithfully follow the procedures, and our equipment will be as reliable as it can be. Become complacent about things, and bad things will eventually happen, and we will read how unreliable 2.4 is again.
We all came from an era (72mhz, 75mhz, 27mhz, ham band, whatever) when, after the radio equipment was installed, all we worried about was our batteries. This is NOT the case with 2.4. We need to understand how it works, and carefully and faithfully follow the procedures, and our equipment will be as reliable as it can be. Become complacent about things, and bad things will eventually happen, and we will read how unreliable 2.4 is again.
01-16-2011, 12:38 PM
#280
Banned
RE: 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?
Red insert by Zor.
I do not think I have to mention some of the advantages of the 72 Mhz band.
They are well known having served us well for decades.
Most of the 72 Mhz problems were due to humans and not to the band properties.
Zor
Original ram3500-RCU,
A slightly stronger signal, not encoded, WILL be ignored. We already know that With good batteries, and equipment working properly, large signal strength differences should not be encountered.
Large signal strength differences has to do with the transmitting devices that radiate the signal. It has nothing to do with good batteries and our equipment working properly.
However, it is an imperfect world, and the impossible DOES happen, It often does as we all have seen. As noted, nothing is 100% bullet proof, but 2.4 is an improvement over what we have used in the past IMO.
The main improvement seems to be ___
Improved profits for the manufacuters,
Improved for not having to wait our turn to fly or have to change channel on synthesized rigs
improved by avoiding the risk of someone else coming on our channel while flying,
Can you think of other improvements ?
Another thing that I have learned is to Bind the RX with the transmitter very close to it, bind it AT THE FIELD and in the environment you will be flying in, not at home, and re-bind if you change anything. An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I have had NO issues with 2.4 following these rules.
I can see the necessity of dong a binding at home in order to do our setups.
Adjusting throws, servo reversals if needed, exponential response curves, mix channels setups, selection of memories, etc . . .
Nothing wrong to do a binding again at the flying field but flying field environment can change everytime we go flying.
A slightly stronger signal, not encoded, WILL be ignored. We already know that With good batteries, and equipment working properly, large signal strength differences should not be encountered.
Large signal strength differences has to do with the transmitting devices that radiate the signal. It has nothing to do with good batteries and our equipment working properly.
However, it is an imperfect world, and the impossible DOES happen, It often does as we all have seen. As noted, nothing is 100% bullet proof, but 2.4 is an improvement over what we have used in the past IMO.
The main improvement seems to be ___
Improved profits for the manufacuters,
Improved for not having to wait our turn to fly or have to change channel on synthesized rigs
improved by avoiding the risk of someone else coming on our channel while flying,
Can you think of other improvements ?
Another thing that I have learned is to Bind the RX with the transmitter very close to it, bind it AT THE FIELD and in the environment you will be flying in, not at home, and re-bind if you change anything. An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I have had NO issues with 2.4 following these rules.
I can see the necessity of dong a binding at home in order to do our setups.
Adjusting throws, servo reversals if needed, exponential response curves, mix channels setups, selection of memories, etc . . .
Nothing wrong to do a binding again at the flying field but flying field environment can change everytime we go flying.
They are well known having served us well for decades.
Most of the 72 Mhz problems were due to humans and not to the band properties.
Zor
01-16-2011, 12:44 PM
#281
Senior Member
My Feedback: (14)
RE: 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?
ORIGINAL: ram3500-RCU
To answer the original question very simply, '' 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?'', I think the biggest reason is that many using this system have not studied the technology enough to know how to use it properly. There are do's and don'ts as with any system, and these are VERY important to know and understand.
We all came from an era (72mhz, 75mhz, 27mhz, ham band, whatever) when, after the radio equipment was installed, all we worried about was our batteries. This is NOT the case with 2.4. We need to understand how it works, and carefully and faithfully follow the procedures, and our equipment will be as reliable as it can be. Become complacent about things, and bad things will eventually happen, and we will read how unreliable 2.4 is again.
To answer the original question very simply, '' 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?'', I think the biggest reason is that many using this system have not studied the technology enough to know how to use it properly. There are do's and don'ts as with any system, and these are VERY important to know and understand.
We all came from an era (72mhz, 75mhz, 27mhz, ham band, whatever) when, after the radio equipment was installed, all we worried about was our batteries. This is NOT the case with 2.4. We need to understand how it works, and carefully and faithfully follow the procedures, and our equipment will be as reliable as it can be. Become complacent about things, and bad things will eventually happen, and we will read how unreliable 2.4 is again.
I tend to agree with your hypothesis.
Ed Cregger
01-16-2011, 12:48 PM
#282
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cape Town, SOUTH AFRICA
Posts: 2,744
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
RE: 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?
what has binding got to do with the RF environment? Is this a procedure specific to a certainbrand because the brand that I use binding takes polace once - when you power up the Rx for the first to marry it to the Tx. Thereafter, no further binding necessary. The Tx GUID code is now in the Rx memory. So why bind in an environment where there is a risk of binding to someone else's Tx?
Maybe this is just another area where a hopping system is superior to a non hopping system. It seems that the non hoppers relationship between Tx and Rx is fragile at best. Hoppers are like Mormans, the get married for life and they can marry as many Rx's are they like.
For the last time, the GUID has nothing, vokall, nadda, niks, nothing to do with the RF environment and higher signal strength from alternate sources other than a RC Tx. We're talking about the Tx being a liittle halogen flashlight while other sources could be the HID headlights of German auto's. It could aslo be liken to bringing a peashooter to a pistol fight
Maybe this is just another area where a hopping system is superior to a non hopping system. It seems that the non hoppers relationship between Tx and Rx is fragile at best. Hoppers are like Mormans, the get married for life and they can marry as many Rx's are they like.
For the last time, the GUID has nothing, vokall, nadda, niks, nothing to do with the RF environment and higher signal strength from alternate sources other than a RC Tx. We're talking about the Tx being a liittle halogen flashlight while other sources could be the HID headlights of German auto's. It could aslo be liken to bringing a peashooter to a pistol fight
01-16-2011, 01:10 PM
#283
RE: 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?
ORIGINAL: Zor
Red insert by Zor.
I do not think I have to mention some of the advantages of the 72 Mhz band.
They are well known having served us well for decades.
Most of the 72 Mhz problems were due to humans and not to the band properties.
Zor
Red insert by Zor.
Original ram3500-RCU,
A slightly stronger signal, not encoded, WILL be ignored. We already know that With good batteries, and equipment working properly, large signal strength differences should not be encountered.
Large signal strength differences has to do with the transmitting devices that radiate the signal. It has nothing to do with good batteries and our equipment working properly.
However, it is an imperfect world, and the impossible DOES happen, It often does as we all have seen. As noted, nothing is 100% bullet proof, but 2.4 is an improvement over what we have used in the past IMO.
The main improvement seems to be _ _ _
Improved profits for the manufacuters,
Improved for not having to wait our turn to fly or have to change channel on synthesized rigs
improved by avoiding the risk of someone else coming on our channel while flying,
Can you think of other improvements ?
Another thing that I have learned is to Bind the RX with the transmitter very close to it, bind it AT THE FIELD and in the environment you will be flying in, not at home, and re-bind if you change anything. An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I have had NO issues with 2.4 following these rules.
I can see the necessity of dong a binding at home in order to do our setups.
Adjusting throws, servo reversals if needed, exponential response curves, mix channels setups, selection of memories, etc . . .
Nothing wrong to do a binding again at the flying field but flying field environment can change everytime we go flying.
A slightly stronger signal, not encoded, WILL be ignored. We already know that With good batteries, and equipment working properly, large signal strength differences should not be encountered.
Large signal strength differences has to do with the transmitting devices that radiate the signal. It has nothing to do with good batteries and our equipment working properly.
However, it is an imperfect world, and the impossible DOES happen, It often does as we all have seen. As noted, nothing is 100% bullet proof, but 2.4 is an improvement over what we have used in the past IMO.
The main improvement seems to be _ _ _
Improved profits for the manufacuters,
Improved for not having to wait our turn to fly or have to change channel on synthesized rigs
improved by avoiding the risk of someone else coming on our channel while flying,
Can you think of other improvements ?
Another thing that I have learned is to Bind the RX with the transmitter very close to it, bind it AT THE FIELD and in the environment you will be flying in, not at home, and re-bind if you change anything. An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I have had NO issues with 2.4 following these rules.
I can see the necessity of dong a binding at home in order to do our setups.
Adjusting throws, servo reversals if needed, exponential response curves, mix channels setups, selection of memories, etc . . .
Nothing wrong to do a binding again at the flying field but flying field environment can change everytime we go flying.
They are well known having served us well for decades.
Most of the 72 Mhz problems were due to humans and not to the band properties.
Zor
Improvements......are not the ones you mentioned significant, however, hear are a few more, installation - how nice it is not to be as concerned with internal RF from gas ignition, vibration, or electrical power, or to deal with that long antenna. I fly a lot of war birds, so this is a big thing for me and scale looking airplanes. the radio antenna - personally, I like not having to worry about not pointing the antenna at the airplane. - at the field, being able to fire up and test without concerns about 'stepping' on someone. Being able to monitor my RX performance with on-board data recorder - I like the way I can keep track of each RX performance during each flight. Higher voltage use - I like the ability to use 6.3V without the need of a regulator.
The comment about improved 'profit' is very clinical. IMO. Do you think we would have ANY RC equipment if these companies were not profitable. I hope they keep on making 'profit' because they obviously reinvest in R&D, or we would still be using escapement.
Yes, binding at home is obviously necessary to install and adjust. But what is the reason for binding? To find Channels open for use. What good does it do to find clear channels at home? It is at the field that this must be ascertained. This is common sense.
Yes 72mhz served us well for decades. So did the type writer, coal furnaces, the horse and buggy, the transistor radio, film cameras, the well, outhouses, and dry sinks. Want to go back?
01-16-2011, 01:11 PM
#284
Banned
RE: 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?
ORIGINAL: ram3500-RCU
To answer the original question very simply, " 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?", I think the biggest reason is that many using this system have not studied the technology enough to know how to use it properly. There are do's and don'ts as with any system, and these are VERY important to know and understand.
To answer the original question very simply, " 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?", I think the biggest reason is that many using this system have not studied the technology enough to know how to use it properly. There are do's and don'ts as with any system, and these are VERY important to know and understand.
We all came from an era (72mhz, 75mhz, 27mhz, ham band, whatever) when, after the radio equipment was installed, all we worried about was our batteries. This is NOT the case with 2.4. We need to understand how it works, and carefully and faithfully follow the procedures, and our equipment will be as reliable as it can be. Become complacent about things, and bad things will eventually happen, and we will read how unreliable 2.4 is again.
On the lower bands we still had to do our setups as I already mentioned.
I think most fliers that have acquired 2.4 Ghz equipment read the manual (If they have one) do the binding process and fiddle around with throws and servo reversals as needed and simply go and fly.
Many who installed a servo on each wing for the ailerons come to the forum to ask "how to set it up" because the manuals do not really or poorly cover such setups nor explain all that can be done with mixes of channels. That becomes part of the fun
.There is no need to understand how the sytem work.
In fact there is little differences as we can see for example between a 72 Mhz JR XP7202 and a Spektrum DX7.
There is also no difference when someone just change the RF module from lower frequency to 2.4 Ghz. All the programming remains the same being generated by the firmware and the non-RF part of the transmitter.
Zor
01-16-2011, 03:04 PM
#287
RE: 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?
ORIGINAL: swede47
Want to go back?
Want to go back?
Sounds like you're the one who wants 'to go back' by flying those old war birds.
s
[/quote]
Old war birds............................... with new technology.
BTW, I also have an EDF F-18 with a 90mm fan that does about 130 mph.
My passion is for the big piston powered planes of the 40s, but I do like many other types as well.
01-16-2011, 03:17 PM
#288
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cape Town, SOUTH AFRICA
Posts: 2,744
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
RE: 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?
ORIGINAL: ram3500-RCU
Yes, binding at home is obviously necessary to install and adjust. But what is the reason for binding? To find Channels open for use. What good does it do to find clear channels at home? It is at the field that this must be ascertained. This is common sense.
Yes 72mhz served us well for decades. So did the type writer, coal furnaces, the horse and buggy, the transistor radio, film cameras, the well, outhouses, and dry sinks. Want to go back?
ORIGINAL: Zor
Red insert by Zor.
I do not think I have to mention some of the advantages of the 72 Mhz band.
They are well known having served us well for decades.
Most of the 72 Mhz problems were due to humans and not to the band properties.
Zor
Red insert by Zor.
Original ram3500-RCU,
A slightly stronger signal, not encoded, WILL be ignored. We already know that With good batteries, and equipment working properly, large signal strength differences should not be encountered.
Large signal strength differences has to do with the transmitting devices that radiate the signal. It has nothing to do with good batteries and our equipment working properly.
However, it is an imperfect world, and the impossible DOES happen, It often does as we all have seen. As noted, nothing is 100% bullet proof, but 2.4 is an improvement over what we have used in the past IMO.
The main improvement seems to be ___
Improved profits for the manufacuters,
Improved for not having to wait our turn to fly or have to change channel on synthesized rigs
improved by avoiding the risk of someone else coming on our channel while flying,
Can you think of other improvements ?
Another thing that I have learned is to Bind the RX with the transmitter very close to it, bind it AT THE FIELD and in the environment you will be flying in, not at home, and re-bind if you change anything. An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I have had NO issues with 2.4 following these rules.
I can see the necessity of dong a binding at home in order to do our setups.
Adjusting throws, servo reversals if needed, exponential response curves, mix channels setups, selection of memories, etc . . .
Nothing wrong to do a binding again at the flying field but flying field environment can change everytime we go flying.
A slightly stronger signal, not encoded, WILL be ignored. We already know that With good batteries, and equipment working properly, large signal strength differences should not be encountered.
Large signal strength differences has to do with the transmitting devices that radiate the signal. It has nothing to do with good batteries and our equipment working properly.
However, it is an imperfect world, and the impossible DOES happen, It often does as we all have seen. As noted, nothing is 100% bullet proof, but 2.4 is an improvement over what we have used in the past IMO.
The main improvement seems to be ___
Improved profits for the manufacuters,
Improved for not having to wait our turn to fly or have to change channel on synthesized rigs
improved by avoiding the risk of someone else coming on our channel while flying,
Can you think of other improvements ?
Another thing that I have learned is to Bind the RX with the transmitter very close to it, bind it AT THE FIELD and in the environment you will be flying in, not at home, and re-bind if you change anything. An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I have had NO issues with 2.4 following these rules.
I can see the necessity of dong a binding at home in order to do our setups.
Adjusting throws, servo reversals if needed, exponential response curves, mix channels setups, selection of memories, etc . . .
Nothing wrong to do a binding again at the flying field but flying field environment can change everytime we go flying.
They are well known having served us well for decades.
Most of the 72 Mhz problems were due to humans and not to the band properties.
Zor
Yes 72mhz served us well for decades. So did the type writer, coal furnaces, the horse and buggy, the transistor radio, film cameras, the well, outhouses, and dry sinks. Want to go back?
The reason for binding is for the transmitter to establish a basis for communication with the Rx, i.e. to embed the GUID code so the Rx knows what burst of data stream to respond to on the selected channels. The first time is conducted must be in an environement free of other similar signals i.e. NOTATTHEAIRFIELD.
On power up the Tx does not re-establish the GUIDin the Rx, it only tells it what channels to going for the Tx's commands after the Tx has scanned the RFenvironment ITCANSEE. This normal operation and is not part of the defined "Binding Process" which involves using a jumper plug on Spektrum kit inconjunction with other deliberate actions to ensure the GUIDis embedded in the Rx.
Lets be clear on definitions of actions here. Yo are confusing normal operation with a different deliberate action.
The question of whether 2.4 is "better than" FM is largely dependant on what the user defines as an improvement. Some people would consider a backward step in technology as an improvement in some other facet of life
01-16-2011, 04:00 PM
#290
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cape Town, SOUTH AFRICA
Posts: 2,744
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
RE: 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?
no problem, its is easy to understand why refering to certain technical terms correctly is important since we all like to develop short cuts in life and that includes language.
Now what you have described in previous posts about a Spektrum Tx scanning the band on power up and selecting the channels is correct. THat coupled to the GUID embedded in the Rx after the binding process (Done at home) SHOULD provide a level of security since the Rx should only respond to that signals prefaced by that GUID.
One of the scenario's I described where all is fine on the ground but once the plane rises above tree level suddenly things change has to do with swamping of the Rx eyesight.
We need to remember that most RC Flying is conducted within the relative of what RF engineers call the ground clutter where all signals are distorted by solid objects, local atmospheric conditions and other sources of interference. Above the tree line, the 2.4Ghz traffic is pretty busy and from that height, strongers sources come int view from the Rx perspective. Yes the GUIS should still sort it out but the possibly exists that the Rx will not see the signal at all (from the Tx)
One brand gets around this through speed and multiple transmissions of the same command.
I am not sure how many times DSSS systems retransmit the commands in a time frame but if it is low then that could a potential weakness.
Even in radio transmission, speed is your friend
Now what you have described in previous posts about a Spektrum Tx scanning the band on power up and selecting the channels is correct. THat coupled to the GUID embedded in the Rx after the binding process (Done at home) SHOULD provide a level of security since the Rx should only respond to that signals prefaced by that GUID.
One of the scenario's I described where all is fine on the ground but once the plane rises above tree level suddenly things change has to do with swamping of the Rx eyesight.
We need to remember that most RC Flying is conducted within the relative of what RF engineers call the ground clutter where all signals are distorted by solid objects, local atmospheric conditions and other sources of interference. Above the tree line, the 2.4Ghz traffic is pretty busy and from that height, strongers sources come int view from the Rx perspective. Yes the GUIS should still sort it out but the possibly exists that the Rx will not see the signal at all (from the Tx)
One brand gets around this through speed and multiple transmissions of the same command.
I am not sure how many times DSSS systems retransmit the commands in a time frame but if it is low then that could a potential weakness.
Even in radio transmission, speed is your friend
01-16-2011, 04:14 PM
#291
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (195)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Duluth,
GA
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?
Guys,
Just so you'll know I am following this thread closely and am getting a good education on 2.4 but I just need to let you know that the two fellas at our field who experienced the issues had done evreything right! There were no power issues, no receiver placement issues, no servo binding issues. Our field is so rural they have to occasionally pipe sunlight in! The mear fact that they both were flying 2.4 and they both had link, bind, whatever you want to call it probelms is where I came up with the thread name! I have had issues and a friend of mine has lost two planes at the field due to loss of signal on 2.4. Yes, I agree that some of the issues are caused by the user but there are enough of these instances flying around (or not flying) excuse the pun, that I thought I'd start the thread. I cannot bring myself to seriously fly anything larger than my foamies and park flyers with my 2.4 and will be changing all of my larger planes back to PCM. If that means that I am reverting back in time, so be it but it's my choice and it should be respected and not ridiculed.
Happy Flying (On Whatever System You Have)
Loopman
Just so you'll know I am following this thread closely and am getting a good education on 2.4 but I just need to let you know that the two fellas at our field who experienced the issues had done evreything right! There were no power issues, no receiver placement issues, no servo binding issues. Our field is so rural they have to occasionally pipe sunlight in! The mear fact that they both were flying 2.4 and they both had link, bind, whatever you want to call it probelms is where I came up with the thread name! I have had issues and a friend of mine has lost two planes at the field due to loss of signal on 2.4. Yes, I agree that some of the issues are caused by the user but there are enough of these instances flying around (or not flying) excuse the pun, that I thought I'd start the thread. I cannot bring myself to seriously fly anything larger than my foamies and park flyers with my 2.4 and will be changing all of my larger planes back to PCM. If that means that I am reverting back in time, so be it but it's my choice and it should be respected and not ridiculed.
Happy Flying (On Whatever System You Have)
Loopman
01-16-2011, 04:44 PM
#292
RE: 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?
You are correct. Your choice and your right. No issues there.
I don't have that 'luxury', I guess. I choose to attend flying events beyond our local clubs. These are more and more, 2.4 events only. Overall, I believe it has proven to be a safer (not perfect, but better) system at larger events, or this decision would not have been made. I was a hold out as well, having invested heavily in top shelf 72mhz when guys started dumping it at the onset of 2.4. I still have much high end 72mhz, and fly it in planes that won't see these larger events. I don't have problems with my 72 stuff because it is properly installed and maintained, and I know where and where not to fly curtain channels.
One thing guys were telling me all along was the 'connected feeling' they experienced with 2.4 over 72mhz. I didn't fully understand this until I tried it for myself. This improvement control response has not been addressed. It is real. 2.4 coupled with digital servos is more smooth in response. May not be an issue with many, but it is real.
Please don't take my reference to 'going back' out of context. If you read what I was responding to, you will not be offended by it, or shouldn't be anyway.
All my electric stuff, and all my giant scale stuff flown at events or in competition, is on 2.4 with absolutely no issues to date. I continue to convert other planes as I can afford to, but am still enjoying trouble free 72mhz use as well.
I don't have that 'luxury', I guess. I choose to attend flying events beyond our local clubs. These are more and more, 2.4 events only. Overall, I believe it has proven to be a safer (not perfect, but better) system at larger events, or this decision would not have been made. I was a hold out as well, having invested heavily in top shelf 72mhz when guys started dumping it at the onset of 2.4. I still have much high end 72mhz, and fly it in planes that won't see these larger events. I don't have problems with my 72 stuff because it is properly installed and maintained, and I know where and where not to fly curtain channels.
One thing guys were telling me all along was the 'connected feeling' they experienced with 2.4 over 72mhz. I didn't fully understand this until I tried it for myself. This improvement control response has not been addressed. It is real. 2.4 coupled with digital servos is more smooth in response. May not be an issue with many, but it is real.
Please don't take my reference to 'going back' out of context. If you read what I was responding to, you will not be offended by it, or shouldn't be anyway.
All my electric stuff, and all my giant scale stuff flown at events or in competition, is on 2.4 with absolutely no issues to date. I continue to convert other planes as I can afford to, but am still enjoying trouble free 72mhz use as well.
01-16-2011, 06:15 PM
#293
Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Grinnell,
IA
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?
ORIGINAL: ram3500-RCU
Please don't take my reference to 'going back' out of context. If you read what I was responding to, you will not be offended by it, or shouldn't be anyway.
Please don't take my reference to 'going back' out of context. If you read what I was responding to, you will not be offended by it, or shouldn't be anyway.
S
01-16-2011, 06:51 PM
#294
RE: 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?
ORIGINAL: swede47
Explain that to us.
S
ORIGINAL: ram3500-RCU
Please don't take my reference to 'going back' out of context. If you read what I was responding to, you will not be offended by it, or shouldn't be anyway.
Please don't take my reference to 'going back' out of context. If you read what I was responding to, you will not be offended by it, or shouldn't be anyway.
S
I responded to a specific post in attempting to make this point. I would belabor that. Who in the hobby does not desire to improve the safety and reliability of their precious fleet. If something comes one that potentially does that, I'm all for it. I may not be able to afford it right away, like when 2.4 first came out. I'm glad I was able to give it a try, and now I see what many of my friends and guys on the net were talking about.
01-16-2011, 07:03 PM
#295
Banned
RE: 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?
ORIGINAL: ram3500-RCU
You are correct. Your choice and your right. No issues there.
>
>
>
One thing guys were telling me all along was the 'connected feeling' they experienced with 2.4 over 72mhz. I didn't fully understand this until I tried it for myself. This improvement control response has not been addressed. It is real. 2.4 coupled with digital servos is more smooth in response. May not be an issue with many, but it is real.
>
>
>
You are correct. Your choice and your right. No issues there.
>
>
>
One thing guys were telling me all along was the 'connected feeling' they experienced with 2.4 over 72mhz. I didn't fully understand this until I tried it for myself. This improvement control response has not been addressed. It is real. 2.4 coupled with digital servos is more smooth in response. May not be an issue with many, but it is real.
>
>
>
My outlook is this ____If the servos respond and move in both direction following my stick motion and I am moving the stick(s) as fast as my hand, wrist or arm can move the sticks to their full mechanical limits, I figure that this so called "feeling" guys are talking about is just so much ??^#* whatever.
Just think for a moment ___moving a control surface is one thing but the airstream pass this surface is what creates the force that rotates the airplane around its CG. There is mass involved in the model and this mass has to be accelerated by the torques of the airstrem reaction on the surface.
Even if the control surface moved a few milisecond faster, the airstream action on the model is not going to change.
I think this is another claim similar to the servo resolution. I experimented with that resolution and posted results observed. It was far from the claim of plus or minus 512 positions of the servo regardless of the resolution used in the digital part of the circuitry.
Another similar situation is the resolution increase from 1024 to 2048 claimed by some manufacturer.
I have no reason to doubt this electronic resolution but I have doubts about anyone is really feeling the results in actual flight. I think it is "phychological reaction just like the claim intended to produce" .
By the time the generated command signal is initiated by a DC voltage in the transmitter, is processed by ADC converter, goes through the sequencing and is formated and then the receiver extract the pulse width and feed it to a servo ___I just cannot see a servo responding to such improved speed and the model mass inertia to feedback a visual observation to the pilot of much improved response.
You may tell me to try it myself but such statement would not prove anything soon to anyone.
I am happy at this moment to have checked the resolution obtained with a Spektrum DS821 (posted results).
This is just my conclusion. Anyone can have its own.
Just enjoy your flying with the system you are using.
Zor
01-16-2011, 07:34 PM
#296
Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Grinnell,
IA
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?
ORIGINAL: ram3500-RCU
This is the second time you have fixated on this. I assumed the first time is was in a lighthearted way. Apparently it was not. My point was simply that we continue to re-invent, innovate, and improve how we do almost everything in life. Why should our hobby be any different. Most of these leaps in advancement, like proportional control, composite construction, electronic ignition on our engines, even the four stroke, were embraced by some, and not by others. This new spread spectrum technology is no different. To read how it works compared to the narrow band equipment we have used for decades helps one see why it is superior to the narrow band systems. Now even more than ever.
I responded to a specific post in attempting to make this point. I would belabor that. Who in the hobby does not desire to improve the safety and reliability of their precious fleet. If something comes one that potentially does that, I'm all for it. I may not be able to afford it right away, like when 2.4 first came out. I'm glad I was able to give it a try, and now I see what many of my friends and guys on the net were talking about.
ORIGINAL: swede47
Explain that to us.
S
ORIGINAL: ram3500-RCU
Please don't take my reference to 'going back' out of context. If you read what I was responding to, you will not be offended by it, or shouldn't be anyway.
Please don't take my reference to 'going back' out of context. If you read what I was responding to, you will not be offended by it, or shouldn't be anyway.
S
I responded to a specific post in attempting to make this point. I would belabor that. Who in the hobby does not desire to improve the safety and reliability of their precious fleet. If something comes one that potentially does that, I'm all for it. I may not be able to afford it right away, like when 2.4 first came out. I'm glad I was able to give it a try, and now I see what many of my friends and guys on the net were talking about.
We all know that ... you aren't telling us anything that we don't already know.... It's not a matter of going back. I inferred that you were condescending and insulting all of us who still use 72. Now we find out you use 72. We know all about the things you list that are obsolete, then the insult"want to go back"...Well NO. No one wants to go back and that's not the point. Most of us are getting along with 72 very nicely, thank you and you admit that you still have 72 in some planes. Does anyone want to go back the AM pre-1991 wide channel? NO. So way the smart mouth?
S
01-16-2011, 08:00 PM
#298
RE: 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?
In response to Zor..........Problem is, You are talking about something you, apparently have not tried. I can say, from personal experience, that 2.4 control is faster and more precise. The amount of information transmitted by spread spectrum vs narrow band can be compared to what you would move on a super highway vs down a narrow mountain pass.
Yes, perhaps to the beginner, or Sunday flier of sport planes this isn't even a determining factor in using 2.4. The added safety may be more than enough of a reason. But to claim it isn't real, when you haven't tried it? Look in on the helicopter and 3D threads, if want more information about how 2.4 'feels'.
Look, think of it in terms of our computers. Hard drives have continued to be developed and aren't we glad? This is what has made 2.4 possible, this ongoing development of the microprocessor and miniaturization of memory. In each 2.4 RX several tiny computers decoding millions of bits of data each second to get the most precise control available. Without the spread spectrum of signal, and all the information it can deliver, all this data would not be available, as it isn't with narrow band. Like comparing the floppy disk to the USB memory stick, able to hold 8 gig or more. No comparison.
This all comes at a cost. Energy. For that reason, good batteries are even more imperative than with the narrow band system, the reason why I mentioned batteries in an earlier post. 6V (5 cell) or even the new 2 cell a 123 at 6.4 volts are desirable. Low batteries could rob the system of the power it needs to keep all those tiny computers 'on line'. This may look like interference to the pilot, when it is really the system struggling to decode the data on time. All preventable with good strong batteries of sufficient voltage.
Yes, perhaps to the beginner, or Sunday flier of sport planes this isn't even a determining factor in using 2.4. The added safety may be more than enough of a reason. But to claim it isn't real, when you haven't tried it? Look in on the helicopter and 3D threads, if want more information about how 2.4 'feels'.
Look, think of it in terms of our computers. Hard drives have continued to be developed and aren't we glad? This is what has made 2.4 possible, this ongoing development of the microprocessor and miniaturization of memory. In each 2.4 RX several tiny computers decoding millions of bits of data each second to get the most precise control available. Without the spread spectrum of signal, and all the information it can deliver, all this data would not be available, as it isn't with narrow band. Like comparing the floppy disk to the USB memory stick, able to hold 8 gig or more. No comparison.
This all comes at a cost. Energy. For that reason, good batteries are even more imperative than with the narrow band system, the reason why I mentioned batteries in an earlier post. 6V (5 cell) or even the new 2 cell a 123 at 6.4 volts are desirable. Low batteries could rob the system of the power it needs to keep all those tiny computers 'on line'. This may look like interference to the pilot, when it is really the system struggling to decode the data on time. All preventable with good strong batteries of sufficient voltage.
01-16-2011, 08:02 PM
#299
RE: 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?
"I inferred that you were condescending and insulting all of us who still use 72."
Now it is you that can explain. How did I do this by anything I said, in context? certainly meant no such insult.
As we progress in technology an over lap always exists. As we moved from the horse to the auto, most people with cars, even early ones, would not 'go back'. Some people waited till the cars got better and then left their horses. Again, these people then would not 'go back'. and so forth. I'm saying that this is the normal progression of human advancement in the modern age. I see this as no different. Once a person does make the leap to 2.4, it has been my experience that they 'don't go back. The planes I have on 2.4 will definitely remain such. they will be added to as funds are available. I suspect that those who haven't tried it yet will also find this to be true. As with other advancements, you will not want to 'go back'. It is an observation from experience, not an insult.
Now it is you that can explain. How did I do this by anything I said, in context? certainly meant no such insult.
As we progress in technology an over lap always exists. As we moved from the horse to the auto, most people with cars, even early ones, would not 'go back'. Some people waited till the cars got better and then left their horses. Again, these people then would not 'go back'. and so forth. I'm saying that this is the normal progression of human advancement in the modern age. I see this as no different. Once a person does make the leap to 2.4, it has been my experience that they 'don't go back. The planes I have on 2.4 will definitely remain such. they will be added to as funds are available. I suspect that those who haven't tried it yet will also find this to be true. As with other advancements, you will not want to 'go back'. It is an observation from experience, not an insult.
01-16-2011, 08:06 PM
#300
Senior Member
My Feedback: (23)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Punta Gorda,
FL
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 2.4 - Why Are They Failing?
ORIGINAL: ram3500-RCU
In response to Zor..........Problem is, You are talking about something you, apparently have not tried. I can say, from personal experience, that 2.4 control is faster and more precise. The amount of information transmitted by spread spectrum vs narrow band can be compared to what you would move on a super highway vs down a narrow mountain pass.
Yes, perhaps to the beginner, or Sunday flier of sport planes this isn't even a determining factor in using 2.4. The added safety may be more than enough of a reason. But to claim it isn't real, when you haven't tried it? Look in on the helicopter and 3D threads, if want more information about how 2.4 'feels'.
Look, think of it in terms of our computers. Hard drives have continued to be developed and aren't we glad? This is what has made 2.4 possible, this ongoing development of the microprocessor and miniaturization of memory. In each 2.4 RX several tiny computers decoding millions of bits of data each second to get the most precise control available. Without the spread spectrum of signal, and all the information it can deliver, all this data would not be available, as it isn't with narrow band. Like comparing the floppy disk to the USB memory stick, able to hold 8 gig or more. No comparison.
This all comes at a cost. Energy. For that reason, good batteries are even more imperative than with the narrow band system, the reason why I mentioned batteries in an earlier post. 6V (5 cell) or even the new 2 cell a 123 at 6.4 volts are desirable. Low batteries could rob the system of the power it needs to keep all those tiny computers 'on line'. This may look like interference to the pilot, when it is really the system struggling to decode the data on time. All preventable with good strong batteries of sufficient voltage.
In response to Zor..........Problem is, You are talking about something you, apparently have not tried. I can say, from personal experience, that 2.4 control is faster and more precise. The amount of information transmitted by spread spectrum vs narrow band can be compared to what you would move on a super highway vs down a narrow mountain pass.
Yes, perhaps to the beginner, or Sunday flier of sport planes this isn't even a determining factor in using 2.4. The added safety may be more than enough of a reason. But to claim it isn't real, when you haven't tried it? Look in on the helicopter and 3D threads, if want more information about how 2.4 'feels'.
Look, think of it in terms of our computers. Hard drives have continued to be developed and aren't we glad? This is what has made 2.4 possible, this ongoing development of the microprocessor and miniaturization of memory. In each 2.4 RX several tiny computers decoding millions of bits of data each second to get the most precise control available. Without the spread spectrum of signal, and all the information it can deliver, all this data would not be available, as it isn't with narrow band. Like comparing the floppy disk to the USB memory stick, able to hold 8 gig or more. No comparison.
This all comes at a cost. Energy. For that reason, good batteries are even more imperative than with the narrow band system, the reason why I mentioned batteries in an earlier post. 6V (5 cell) or even the new 2 cell a 123 at 6.4 volts are desirable. Low batteries could rob the system of the power it needs to keep all those tiny computers 'on line'. This may look like interference to the pilot, when it is really the system struggling to decode the data on time. All preventable with good strong batteries of sufficient voltage.