Hi PhiliPat

Though your assumptions on how Heng Long and Taigen do their RC stuff would seem logical - It is not quite the case. There are no "Channels" to speak of at all. The information from the sticks and buttons on the radio are converted into a SINGLE data stream and this data stream is then received by the MFU and covered into the required actions. For example the data stream would follow a format like this
7E FF 06 12 00 00 01 FE E8 EF
With header info at the front of the message (7E FF) the data on what should be doing what (06 12 00 00 01) a checksum for date integrity (FE E8) and an end of message (EF). So there can be as many "channels" as you could want within the data stream. Because this data is sent in a particular order it is the reason the RC5HL/RC2TG are so particular with how you plug in the receiver channels. Both these units need to see the data in the order expected. Both the new HL and Taigen 2.4gHz units use common 2.4ghz transceivers that you can buy for $3-$4 off eBay. There is nothing 'special' about them

My point is that HL and Taigen are not really limited by what you might view as separate channels but rather the cost of implementation of the extra switches and components required to do what you would like. So you are completely correct it would not be hard at all to put more data (channels) into the stream. Which could instead be like this

7E FF 06 12 00 00 13 10 01 00 00 20 21 13 00 21 00 01 12 FE E8 EF

Pretty much all that you guys want is already available on other boards - and these boards cost $$ - There is a reason for it - The actual process of putting an extra switch on a radio to access that function/generate the control data costs. Likewise the cost of improving operation -The cost of proportional /directional control of the elevation is 4x more than the existing solution. Only 1 FET is reguired at present to operate the gun elevation- at least 4 are required for proportional /directional control (or a single more expensive driver chip). At some point HL/TGN have struck a compromise between function and cost.

There is one point missed in this debate and I think it is important - It is a bad idea to promote proprietary control - It would be far nicer for HL to adopt the existing RC protocols (Hobby grade). By doing so opens the development of user innovations and makes a HUGE range of existing products available for use. Look at the nightmare of IR battle to see why proprietary systems are a bad idea for the end user.

Finally, Asp does ALL of the points on your list AND more that you may not have even though of.

BUT (pt1.) It is Hobby Grade - it does require a programmable 8 channel radio - because you need lots and lots of switches to turn on/off all the functions, activate the user sounds and adjust volume.

BUT (pt2.) the parts cost alone for an ASP board is more than the cost of a RX18. And I am sure that it is the same for El Mod and others. I've tried putting cheaper components on the design but when I told Gary what this would mean he baulked at getting the board. And you know what Gary is totally correct and some point the sacrifice of quality for a cheaper board makes that board not worth it.

I have tried with ASP to bring all those features you have listed onto a single solution with the most simple installation possible for the lowest cost possible. And if Gary didn't convince me the change to bigger output motor drivers then ASP would be available now There are far too many on this forum that bag RCTA stuff and I suspect that ASP will probably get bagged for not being able to "make coffee" or "take the dog out for a walk". But hey - at least my M1Abrams starts up with the proper gas turbine engine sound and I didn't have to buy an El Mod to do it. NOR have I have to change ANY of the existing wiring (admittedly without rewiring the elevation motor I don't have prop control).

Oh yeah and NO DARN TRACK RECOIL

Cheers
Kevin G