New Radio Technology ????? HELP!
#76
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
RE: New Radio Technology ????? HELP!
maybe they aren't programmable in the modern sense but the old futaba FG radios were built better than just about everything on the market today. good gimbals, good switches and nice metal cases. if all you want to do is go fly instead of playing the "my radio can do more than yours" game there is no reason not to use them as long as you change the batteries.
and since these more than likely have a removable module you could also upgrade them to 2.4GHz with no problems. hitec, futaba and sprectrum all make modules that will work. my fave is the hitec as they just seem to work and are the least expensive, something like $120 will get you a combo with a module and three receivers. there are also a bunch of super cheap low end module and receiver combos out of china that will work as well. all of these modules are based on the newer small futaba module but the pinout is the same so you just have to tape them in place in an old FG.
and since these more than likely have a removable module you could also upgrade them to 2.4GHz with no problems. hitec, futaba and sprectrum all make modules that will work. my fave is the hitec as they just seem to work and are the least expensive, something like $120 will get you a combo with a module and three receivers. there are also a bunch of super cheap low end module and receiver combos out of china that will work as well. all of these modules are based on the newer small futaba module but the pinout is the same so you just have to tape them in place in an old FG.
#78
RE: New Radio Technology ????? HELP!
With the last aluminum case radio I had, if one cell of the transmit pack failed... it was crunch time. If a servo needed reversing, one had to open up the servo, fire up the soldering iron and swap the motor leads and and move the pot wire to the other end of the pot. And... if one had two or more flight packs on the same transmitter, all controls had to be configured the same in each plane and every linkage had to be trimmed on the plane. Those are just for starters of the inconveniences.
No thanks... while I appreciated that transmitter in that day... I don't want to go back.
No thanks... while I appreciated that transmitter in that day... I don't want to go back.
#79
Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Burlington,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New Radio Technology ????? HELP!
How do you loose features by changing the module in a module based radio? Please explain how you will loose system speed also. Links to actual tests/data will help.
Thanks
Thanks
#80
My Feedback: (11)
RE: New Radio Technology ????? HELP!
You misunderstood (or I was unclear)
You loose features over using a native 2.4 radio.
The reason is pretty simple, you're converting to PPM and back again, and older module based radios are where near as fast as todays radios.
Features like servo synch (remapping the outputs so that things like dual ailerons, dual elevators, and 3 servo CCPM helis get their position updates at the same time no matter where they are physically plugged in instead of polling the channels 1 through 9 regardless)
Model Match on JR/Spektrum isn't available with most of the modules.
You loose features over using a native 2.4 radio.
The reason is pretty simple, you're converting to PPM and back again, and older module based radios are where near as fast as todays radios.
Features like servo synch (remapping the outputs so that things like dual ailerons, dual elevators, and 3 servo CCPM helis get their position updates at the same time no matter where they are physically plugged in instead of polling the channels 1 through 9 regardless)
Model Match on JR/Spektrum isn't available with most of the modules.
#82
My Feedback: (11)
RE: New Radio Technology ????? HELP!
Sure, the way model match works is when you bind a module the last two digits of the GUID are 00
When you bind it to a native system like an 11X or DX7 the 0's are replaced by the model memory number, effectively giving each model memory its own GUID
When you bind it to a native system like an 11X or DX7 the 0's are replaced by the model memory number, effectively giving each model memory its own GUID
#85
My Feedback: (41)
RE: New Radio Technology ????? HELP!
ORIGINAL: 1THEPALMER
I puchased a native 2.4 system for those exact reasons.
I puchased a native 2.4 system for those exact reasons.
#87
My Feedback: (41)
RE: New Radio Technology ????? HELP!
ORIGINAL: ZAGNUT
i would consider model match more of a hindrance than a ''feature''.
i would consider model match more of a hindrance than a ''feature''.
Now after playing with RC models for a number of years, my personal opinion is that those who deny ever having started a model with the wrong one up on the tx are either lying or only have one model. Oh wait, there is another type; those guys usually have orange T-shirts to go along with their opinion that Model Match isn't a good idea or worthwhile safety feature 'cause their radio manufacturer doesn't have it.
There; I've rekindled the age old argument.
#88
My Feedback: (2)
RE: New Radio Technology ????? HELP!
ORIGINAL: ZAGNUT
i would consider model match more of a hindrance than a ''feature''.
i would consider model match more of a hindrance than a ''feature''.
#90
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
RE: New Radio Technology ????? HELP!
ORIGINAL: BuschBarber
There is virtually no one who does not find the ''Model Match'' technology to be sound, regardless of which RC radio manufacturer they favor. You obviously do not have the capacity to understand it, or you are just a Troll trying to stir up some resentment.
ORIGINAL: ZAGNUT
i would consider model match more of a hindrance than a ''feature''.
i would consider model match more of a hindrance than a ''feature''.
if they have changed it then that's a step in the right direction.
#91
My Feedback: (2)
RE: New Radio Technology ????? HELP!
ORIGINAL: ZAGNUT
have they changed it to allow the binding of more than one receiver to a single memory slot? if not then it's still a hindrance and unusable for a lot of what i do.
if they have changed it then that's a step in the right direction.
ORIGINAL: BuschBarber
There is virtually no one who does not find the ''Model Match'' technology to be sound, regardless of which RC radio manufacturer they favor. You obviously do not have the capacity to understand it, or you are just a Troll trying to stir up some resentment.
ORIGINAL: ZAGNUT
i would consider model match more of a hindrance than a ''feature''.
i would consider model match more of a hindrance than a ''feature''.
if they have changed it then that's a step in the right direction.
#92
My Feedback: (3)
RE: New Radio Technology ????? HELP!
ORIGINAL: BuschBarber
There is virtually no one who does not find the ''Model Match'' technology to be sound, regardless of which RC radio manufacturer they favor. You obviously do not have the capacity to understand it, or you are just a Troll trying to stir up some resentment.
ORIGINAL: ZAGNUT
i would consider model match more of a hindrance than a ''feature''.
i would consider model match more of a hindrance than a ''feature''.
For instance a few weeks ago during an indoor flying session one of my control surfaces failed to operate after a mid air. The servos we use are inexpensive and sometimes fragile. It was quite easy to check by simply turning on a second model that was bound to that transmitter. It worked fine confirming what we suspected that the servo was shot. With model match from my understanding this would not have been possible.
Dennis
#95
RE: New Radio Technology ????? HELP!
ORIGINAL: ZAGNUT
and both operate at the same time?
ORIGINAL: BuschBarber
As long as the Rx is the same Type (DSM2 and DSM2 or DSMX and DSMX) then more than one Rx can be bound to the same Model Memory.
As long as the Rx is the same Type (DSM2 and DSM2 or DSMX and DSMX) then more than one Rx can be bound to the same Model Memory.
When Spektrum brought 2.4 to the fliers - I was lucky enough to get one of the first batch of DSM (the DX6) and since then -like others -have tried to find what it would would not do.
There are specific types of rx - DSM DSM2 DSMX and there are some versions of DSM2 which were default 1024 and others 2048
. A s long as all the rx in question are SAME rx default - you can bind a thousand at a time - (to one tx)
Real world testing shows it works easily and is used by more than a few fliers .
If you think you are careful enough to never start a model unintentionally- good for you -
Looks like you haven't flown long enough to enter the world of encountering a brain fart.
It will happen sooner or later .
My own requirements in selecting a new sysem start with "does it have Model Match?"
If not - Not Interested .
#96
My Feedback: (2)
RE: New Radio Technology ????? HELP!
ORIGINAL: ZAGNUT
and both operate at the same time?
ORIGINAL: BuschBarber
As long as the Rx is the same Type (DSM2 and DSM2 or DSMX and DSMX) then more than one Rx can be bound to the same Model Memory.
As long as the Rx is the same Type (DSM2 and DSM2 or DSMX and DSMX) then more than one Rx can be bound to the same Model Memory.
I have been flying RC for 35 years and I have never had a need to use Redundant receivers. I have never had a receiver fail in the air. On 72Mhz I have had glitches caused by RF Noise. I have used Redundant Rx batteries on occasion. I fly Giant Scale Gassers, Turbine Jets, and everything else. I realize that many pilots who have expensive aircraft do use multiple receivers in the same aircraft. Some are for Redundancy and others just to simplify assembly at the field.
#97
RE: New Radio Technology ????? HELP!
Done this quite a few times - that is why I note that the default must be the same - on early 1024 rx and later 2048 types - I found you got a confused set of rx!
Ask Andy -
Or try it yourself - -Ue a 2048 TX - see what happens.
Ask Andy -
Or try it yourself - -Ue a 2048 TX - see what happens.
#98
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Posts: 2,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New Radio Technology ????? HELP!
at my field, guys try to fly with the wrong model regularly. I call it flight line rodeo.
Lol! I'll remember that one.
I have a selectable freq module for my transmitters. I call it dial-a-crash.
#100
My Feedback: (2)
RE: New Radio Technology ????? HELP!
I have Synthesized 72Mhz RF Modules on a Futaba 9CAP and a JR XP9303. I always check the Tx to see what channel the module is set to and obtain the appropriate Frequency Pin before turning on the Tx. No Dial a Crash possible if that procedure is followed. I have since abandoned 72Mhz and use a Spektrum module in the XP9303. I also have a DX8.