DMSS to DSM2
09-04-2015, 08:21 AM
#76
Andy, interesting... and good points! I can't really argue or have anything to add/counter that 
Although, I have to say... anything in inches throws me off a bit lol mm/cm/meters for me, though that's about .13mm which is ridiculously small. Hmmm
That certainly changes my perspective and expectations of equipment in terms of servo resolution at least with that "laid out" so-to-speak. There still of course are differences between two systems, hardware quality, etc. etc. all the factors the make up a brand, a specific piece of equipment and associated hardware etc. but it is certainly good for everyone (or at least guys like myself who would rather dig down to the *meat* of it) to have the basics, at least in my opinion, to understand "where" everything is at. The sum is greater than the parts as they say?
In my case, thankfully I didn't buy this JR 28x based purely on resolution specs thinking "wow my plane is going to be super duper accurate now".... though knowing that... As a whole those specifications allowed me to judge the radio as being a true high-end attempt at a radio system. In which case, DMSS is indeed more robust, the range of JR hardware is more robust (whether the servos can handle the increased accuracy or not!) with cleverly thought out systems etc. etc. and the hardware build quality of the radio itself is outstanding. The gimbals, switches, the ability to create endless mixes and "mode scenarios" etc. is definitely robust, and translates to higher physical and development cost (going back to previous points in the argument about trying to justify higher price points on equipment etc.) overall. The circuitry, soldering, boards, frame, gimbals, switches etc. are of very high quality. Outshining without a doubt the Spektrum stuff. I don't agree at all having opened up both radios side-by-side that the DX18 gimbals and hardware are in the same class as the JR 28x.
I don't really (back to the original argument to bring it full circle) doubt at all DMSS, and the associated equipment is of higher specification. But as you pointed out Andy, it only makes a difference up to a point strictly in terms of servo movement at least.
Good to know for sure in that sense. Again, a big BUT .... you can't tell me the DX18 itself, the range of receivers, and all of the associated equipment like servos etc. are aimed at the highest end of the market. It's simply just not true. Also the biggest piece of marketing fluff I've seen recently are your guys "Fly Pro. Class." ads. What the hell does that even mean?
lol I know you're not a marketing guy, and you take pride in your programming of the radio, but it'd be naive to say your guys flagship radio is as good as other high-end radio systems as a whole. Specific parts and features, sure I'd place some checkmarks on Spektrum's side. Especially true of course, if you compare price points. You could however point out that "For the price, it's a very practical radio system - has a lot of great features, and provides good value" - I'd go with that having owned a DX6, DX9 and DX18.
For as long as you guys remain a value brand though, I could never turn back. If you guys attempted a radio like a JR28x or Jeti radio etc. and could execute to that level, for sure I'd be interested. I'm not brand loyal, just quality following
Anyhow... enough of that, I really do appreciate and definitely learned something from your input Andy!
Although, I have to say... anything in inches throws me off a bit lol mm/cm/meters for me, though that's about .13mm which is ridiculously small. HmmmThat certainly changes my perspective and expectations of equipment in terms of servo resolution at least with that "laid out" so-to-speak. There still of course are differences between two systems, hardware quality, etc. etc. all the factors the make up a brand, a specific piece of equipment and associated hardware etc. but it is certainly good for everyone (or at least guys like myself who would rather dig down to the *meat* of it) to have the basics, at least in my opinion, to understand "where" everything is at. The sum is greater than the parts as they say?
In my case, thankfully I didn't buy this JR 28x based purely on resolution specs thinking "wow my plane is going to be super duper accurate now".... though knowing that... As a whole those specifications allowed me to judge the radio as being a true high-end attempt at a radio system. In which case, DMSS is indeed more robust, the range of JR hardware is more robust (whether the servos can handle the increased accuracy or not!) with cleverly thought out systems etc. etc. and the hardware build quality of the radio itself is outstanding. The gimbals, switches, the ability to create endless mixes and "mode scenarios" etc. is definitely robust, and translates to higher physical and development cost (going back to previous points in the argument about trying to justify higher price points on equipment etc.) overall. The circuitry, soldering, boards, frame, gimbals, switches etc. are of very high quality. Outshining without a doubt the Spektrum stuff. I don't agree at all having opened up both radios side-by-side that the DX18 gimbals and hardware are in the same class as the JR 28x.
I don't really (back to the original argument to bring it full circle) doubt at all DMSS, and the associated equipment is of higher specification. But as you pointed out Andy, it only makes a difference up to a point strictly in terms of servo movement at least.
Good to know for sure in that sense. Again, a big BUT .... you can't tell me the DX18 itself, the range of receivers, and all of the associated equipment like servos etc. are aimed at the highest end of the market. It's simply just not true. Also the biggest piece of marketing fluff I've seen recently are your guys "Fly Pro. Class." ads. What the hell does that even mean?
lol I know you're not a marketing guy, and you take pride in your programming of the radio, but it'd be naive to say your guys flagship radio is as good as other high-end radio systems as a whole. Specific parts and features, sure I'd place some checkmarks on Spektrum's side. Especially true of course, if you compare price points. You could however point out that "For the price, it's a very practical radio system - has a lot of great features, and provides good value" - I'd go with that having owned a DX6, DX9 and DX18.For as long as you guys remain a value brand though, I could never turn back. If you guys attempted a radio like a JR28x or Jeti radio etc. and could execute to that level, for sure I'd be interested. I'm not brand loyal, just quality following
Anyhow... enough of that, I really do appreciate and definitely learned something from your input Andy!
Last edited by chorner; 09-04-2015 at 08:32 AM.
09-04-2015, 08:45 AM
#77
I never said they were aimed at the highest end. Just because something is the current "flagship" doesn't mean it's the best we can do at the time, or in the future. We followed up the DX10T with the DX18G1, the DX18G1 with the DX18QQ, the DX18QQ with the DX18G2. Many times people ask me if I'm working on a new transmitter. I always say that "Spektrum never stops improving products, whether they're new or old." Just because those are the highest things we're selling today doesn't mean there won't be something "more better" down the road. In fact I'd be surprised if there weren't.
I think "Pro Class" is referring to the level of users using the radio. A large number of professional modelers. The most expensive turbines. Government agencies. People who are "pros" at what they do.
I forgot to answer a question a few back. You asked about latency on X-Plus channels. The X-Plus channels are broken down into 2 chunks of 4 channels each (X+1 to 3, X+4 to 8). Each RF frame transmits one X-Plus channel every 11ms. In a normal round-robin situation each X-Plus channel will be updated once every 88ms. However there is a priority queue in place, so that if a channel changes value, it will be pushed to the head of the line. That means that instead of being updated at 88ms, it would be updated at 22ms. There is an aging that occurs too, so that a channel which hasn't been updated in while (due to getting bumped by the priority change) would eventually get sent anyway.
Because you don't know if it will be exactly a particular rate, we don't recommend that primary flight controls (AER) go on it. Because those channels are hold-last failsafes only at this time, we don't recommend putting throttle on them. They're absolutely fantastic for lower precision, less critical functions like gear, doors, drag brakes, spoilers, drogue chutes, wheel brakes, canopy slides, lights, bomb drops, afterburner LEDs, etc. You have to admit, they're far more useful than the 2-position outputs that the other guys call channels!
Andy
I think "Pro Class" is referring to the level of users using the radio. A large number of professional modelers. The most expensive turbines. Government agencies. People who are "pros" at what they do.
I forgot to answer a question a few back. You asked about latency on X-Plus channels. The X-Plus channels are broken down into 2 chunks of 4 channels each (X+1 to 3, X+4 to 8). Each RF frame transmits one X-Plus channel every 11ms. In a normal round-robin situation each X-Plus channel will be updated once every 88ms. However there is a priority queue in place, so that if a channel changes value, it will be pushed to the head of the line. That means that instead of being updated at 88ms, it would be updated at 22ms. There is an aging that occurs too, so that a channel which hasn't been updated in while (due to getting bumped by the priority change) would eventually get sent anyway.
Because you don't know if it will be exactly a particular rate, we don't recommend that primary flight controls (AER) go on it. Because those channels are hold-last failsafes only at this time, we don't recommend putting throttle on them. They're absolutely fantastic for lower precision, less critical functions like gear, doors, drag brakes, spoilers, drogue chutes, wheel brakes, canopy slides, lights, bomb drops, afterburner LEDs, etc. You have to admit, they're far more useful than the 2-position outputs that the other guys call channels!
Andy
09-04-2015, 10:30 AM
#78
RE: X-Plus channel setup... That's definitely a smart way of working around the channel/bandwidth limitations of your guys hardware & software setup! Very cool
I will definitely admit that's far more useful than 2-position outputs being counted as a "channel", but if we're doing a comparison... it's definitely not *the* best solution on the market. One of the many reasons I chose my current radio and setup, is that each and every channel up to 28 are fully proportional. No resolution drop or loss of functionality. After 16 channels, each channel (say channel 16) can be converted to a group of 4, 56ms channels. So with all 28 channels completely filled you'd have twelve 14ms channels, and sixteen 56ms channels. Also, each channel's failsafe can be set and changed at anytime from the transmitter during operation. This is a combination of the 28x feature set in specific, but more importantly an inherent part of the DMSS protocol in conjunction with serial bus style communication. Higher bandwidth, matched with serial communication is a nice setup indeed
Be cool to see you guys go for a really high-end product then. Though I'm only surmising you'd have to upgrade DSMX, and all of your receivers and equipment etc. to operate in a completely serial fashion. You'd have to come out with a "whole new" system from the ground-up I would figure. Definitely nice to have options, and nice to have high-end options not coming out of Japan too.
I will definitely admit that's far more useful than 2-position outputs being counted as a "channel", but if we're doing a comparison... it's definitely not *the* best solution on the market. One of the many reasons I chose my current radio and setup, is that each and every channel up to 28 are fully proportional. No resolution drop or loss of functionality. After 16 channels, each channel (say channel 16) can be converted to a group of 4, 56ms channels. So with all 28 channels completely filled you'd have twelve 14ms channels, and sixteen 56ms channels. Also, each channel's failsafe can be set and changed at anytime from the transmitter during operation. This is a combination of the 28x feature set in specific, but more importantly an inherent part of the DMSS protocol in conjunction with serial bus style communication. Higher bandwidth, matched with serial communication is a nice setup indeed
Be cool to see you guys go for a really high-end product then. Though I'm only surmising you'd have to upgrade DSMX, and all of your receivers and equipment etc. to operate in a completely serial fashion. You'd have to come out with a "whole new" system from the ground-up I would figure. Definitely nice to have options, and nice to have high-end options not coming out of Japan too.
09-04-2015, 10:45 AM
#79
What does "completely serial fashion" mean?
I guess I don't get why you think that DSMX has some overwhelming bandwidth limit that's somehow stifling things. Every system has limitations (so does your JR) but I think you're confusing "this is how it is implemented right now and so it must be all it's capable of" vs. what it's truly capable of. And why would you think we need a "whole new" system when the system we have can do so much more than what you see right now? The only thing I can think to explain your position is that you're not seeing the potential yet, and you assume that what it is is all it can be. That's not the case...
For instance, our Marketing guys mentioned "Forward Programming" without telling anybody what it is. Do we need to change anything to make it work with existing equipment? Is it going to be incompatible with DSMX? What is it, really?
Andy
I guess I don't get why you think that DSMX has some overwhelming bandwidth limit that's somehow stifling things. Every system has limitations (so does your JR) but I think you're confusing "this is how it is implemented right now and so it must be all it's capable of" vs. what it's truly capable of. And why would you think we need a "whole new" system when the system we have can do so much more than what you see right now? The only thing I can think to explain your position is that you're not seeing the potential yet, and you assume that what it is is all it can be. That's not the case...
For instance, our Marketing guys mentioned "Forward Programming" without telling anybody what it is. Do we need to change anything to make it work with existing equipment? Is it going to be incompatible with DSMX? What is it, really?
Andy
09-04-2015, 02:16 PM
#80
By "completely serial fashion" (clearly poorly explained on my part) I was referring to how I *think* your guys X-Plus system works. I assume that between the main receiver and the X-Plus expansion, you're communicating back and fourth via serial bus? Or am I mistaken?
Again, you guys are using Cypress CRYF6936 chips, tuned to 1Mhz of bandwidth. Can you guys modify DSMX, based on your current hardware to expand capability? Could DSMX be used in it's current implementation to create Spektrum's version of X/S.Bus? Can you obtain more bandwidth out of your system for driving up to 28 fully proportional channels at full resolution? How about 16, 18? JR is using the latest Texas Instruments CC2520 transceiver to 'drive' their DMSS protocol. JR has a distinct advantage in bandwidth and performance in some areas over other hardware implementations alone, never mind the associated range of hardware (i.e - S.Bus receivers, Hubs, HD power hubs, PWM hubs, their new S.Bus servos with programmable stall thresholds and warnings etc.).
All I'm saying, is you guys would have to play a large game of "catch up" to move your base technology to a level playing field with the higher end, higher price point equipment. Regardless of how easy that job may or may not be from your standpoint coding radio firmware, there would have to be massive changes and additions to the product offerings and current direction. I wanted one of your 9 channel AS3X receivers too btw... waiting now for almost a year for it Before I switched over anyhow.
Again, you guys are using Cypress CRYF6936 chips, tuned to 1Mhz of bandwidth. Can you guys modify DSMX, based on your current hardware to expand capability? Could DSMX be used in it's current implementation to create Spektrum's version of X/S.Bus? Can you obtain more bandwidth out of your system for driving up to 28 fully proportional channels at full resolution? How about 16, 18? JR is using the latest Texas Instruments CC2520 transceiver to 'drive' their DMSS protocol. JR has a distinct advantage in bandwidth and performance in some areas over other hardware implementations alone, never mind the associated range of hardware (i.e - S.Bus receivers, Hubs, HD power hubs, PWM hubs, their new S.Bus servos with programmable stall thresholds and warnings etc.).
All I'm saying, is you guys would have to play a large game of "catch up" to move your base technology to a level playing field with the higher end, higher price point equipment. Regardless of how easy that job may or may not be from your standpoint coding radio firmware, there would have to be massive changes and additions to the product offerings and current direction. I wanted one of your 9 channel AS3X receivers too btw... waiting now for almost a year for it
Before I switched over anyhow.
09-05-2015, 12:06 PM
#83
Appreciate the discussion Andy, enjoy your weekend as well
For the rest of us... I'm pretty sure that's "case closed" as to whether or not you should be considering Spektrum gear high-end or not
It's decent... but not in the same class. Could they potentially release one in the future? Sure, if they upgrade their hardware, increase development costs and sell equipment at a higher price point.
Again, to bring it back around... my entire point was based around the "guess again" comment made by Andy. DSMX and associate hardware is not as robust, or high quality as JR, or Futaba without a doubt. Servo resolution as Andy pointed out... clearly is a limiting factor in terms of resolution output at this point, which limits real world benefits strictly in terms of servo resolution. I definitely learned something there, and went ahead and did a couple hours of good research after reading his post. However... don't gloss over the benefits of sending multiple signals at the same time, with less overall latency, higher quality gimbals, higher quality RF equipment, higher quality circuitry .... the list goes further, between a Spektrum radio and obviously more expensive radios. There are benefits, beyond servo resolution limits.
One thing for sure is that I do like a few of Spektrum's features and ideas found in their radios. The idea of remote satellites, I actually think is a great idea. I know Futaba guys will try to bash this... but it makes it a lot easier to ensure you have the best chance possible at obtaining a solid signal when you can move your remotes to a "better" spot in your plane; the menu systems I still say, are really well thought out and can have a user setup and ready to go without ever touching a manual very quickly. Definitely like the software aspect.
Unfortunately as a whole guys these days are focused on "cheap", and cramming as much feature set into a "$400 radio" as possible. It's unfortunate more guys don't realize that focusing on cheap & affordable costs "everyone" in the long run. But that's a whole separate topic... I very much enjoy, applaud, and support companies who care more about trying to make a really good radio and not BS'ing about the component quality inside or glossing over it. Rant over
For the rest of us... I'm pretty sure that's "case closed" as to whether or not you should be considering Spektrum gear high-end or not
It's decent... but not in the same class. Could they potentially release one in the future? Sure, if they upgrade their hardware, increase development costs and sell equipment at a higher price point. Again, to bring it back around... my entire point was based around the "guess again" comment made by Andy. DSMX and associate hardware is not as robust, or high quality as JR, or Futaba without a doubt. Servo resolution as Andy pointed out... clearly is a limiting factor in terms of resolution output at this point, which limits real world benefits strictly in terms of servo resolution. I definitely learned something there, and went ahead and did a couple hours of good research after reading his post. However... don't gloss over the benefits of sending multiple signals at the same time, with less overall latency, higher quality gimbals, higher quality RF equipment, higher quality circuitry .... the list goes further, between a Spektrum radio and obviously more expensive radios. There are benefits, beyond servo resolution limits.
One thing for sure is that I do like a few of Spektrum's features and ideas found in their radios. The idea of remote satellites, I actually think is a great idea. I know Futaba guys will try to bash this... but it makes it a lot easier to ensure you have the best chance possible at obtaining a solid signal when you can move your remotes to a "better" spot in your plane; the menu systems I still say, are really well thought out and can have a user setup and ready to go without ever touching a manual very quickly. Definitely like the software aspect.
Unfortunately as a whole guys these days are focused on "cheap", and cramming as much feature set into a "$400 radio" as possible. It's unfortunate more guys don't realize that focusing on cheap & affordable costs "everyone" in the long run. But that's a whole separate topic... I very much enjoy, applaud, and support companies who care more about trying to make a really good radio and not BS'ing about the component quality inside or glossing over it. Rant over
Last edited by chorner; 09-05-2015 at 12:27 PM.
09-08-2015, 07:44 AM
#84
I hope you had as great a holiday weekend as I did!
You're still wrong on the "DSMX is not as robust" comment, but I refuse to be trolled by it any more. You won't listen, and I can't divulge more without getting in trouble.
Andy
You're still wrong on the "DSMX is not as robust" comment, but I refuse to be trolled by it any more. You won't listen, and I can't divulge more without getting in trouble.
Andy
09-08-2015, 11:29 AM
#87
lol I will give him -Andy- that too.
Really, honestly... not trying to troll. I think perhaps just our definitions of "robust" are not 100% in line. By robust I don't just mean the ability to hold and maintain a signal. I guess you cannot divulge more to prove otherwise... but simply looking at what's available for us to see at least, JR and Futaba have more bandwidth to play with in terms of sending high-resolution channel data and you cannot argue the IC quality of Spektrum is the same. I've opened all of the radios to take a peak. I don't know that you'd get in trouble by saying how much bandwidth you have available to you, unless it put Spektrum in a position to look 'inferior'
Separating the DSMX protocol itself from everything else... it quite possibly is every bit as robust in terms of creating, and maintaining a solid signal that's able to work in a noisy environment. I know it's robust on those terms... after DSM2 it better be! DSM2 isn't nearly as "robust" on that front, and DSMX strictly on those terms I'm sure is every bit as good if not better. There's more to it than just that, and I think that's really the *only* thing that all the name brand radios share today ... a solidly reliable RF connection.
Anyways... again, I appreciate the convo. I'm a programmer/software developer myself, and in general (not programming radios obviously!) I know exactly how it feels to have something you've worked on be called "not as good" or lacking in any way. I've been there, done that. Came out improving every time
p.s - just to note, you can knock out DSM2 fairly easily by sending a 2.4ghz video stream
I will give him -Andy- that too.Really, honestly... not trying to troll. I think perhaps just our definitions of "robust" are not 100% in line. By robust I don't just mean the ability to hold and maintain a signal. I guess you cannot divulge more to prove otherwise... but simply looking at what's available for us to see at least, JR and Futaba have more bandwidth to play with in terms of sending high-resolution channel data and you cannot argue the IC quality of Spektrum is the same. I've opened all of the radios to take a peak. I don't know that you'd get in trouble by saying how much bandwidth you have available to you, unless it put Spektrum in a position to look 'inferior'
Separating the DSMX protocol itself from everything else... it quite possibly is every bit as robust in terms of creating, and maintaining a solid signal that's able to work in a noisy environment. I know it's robust on those terms... after DSM2 it better be!
DSM2 isn't nearly as "robust" on that front, and DSMX strictly on those terms I'm sure is every bit as good if not better. There's more to it than just that, and I think that's really the *only* thing that all the name brand radios share today ... a solidly reliable RF connection.Anyways... again, I appreciate the convo. I'm a programmer/software developer myself, and in general (not programming radios obviously!) I know exactly how it feels to have something you've worked on be called "not as good" or lacking in any way. I've been there, done that. Came out improving every time
p.s - just to note, you can knock out DSM2 fairly easily by sending a 2.4ghz video stream
Last edited by chorner; 09-08-2015 at 11:37 AM.
