Gene Chernosky

My Feedback: (182)

Polk's Hobby has done it again...introduced a 'new and improved' Tracker system. If you believe things like "THE ULTIMATE COMPUTER RADIO" or "Any other way is out of date" you are simply their fool. It does have some limitations that most modelers would find objectionable...see a few threads here and on RC GRoups about it...read what 'end-users' have to say about it. DON'T believe the line Polk's wants you to believe...you'll get ripped-off like I did.

I'm sure this post will last about 10 minutes since Polk's Hobby is one of the advertisers on RCU. I guess the truth isn't something to be told here.

heli001

My Feedback: (5)

Gene,

I don't know how long this will last either, as I do not moderate this forum.....

If you stated some "facts" rather than just a general statement maybe it would open a discussion up. What has caused you to make this statement, and what are the limitations that "most modelers would find objectionable"

No one likes to get sucked in, but any information that would help a modeler make an "informed" decision about what radio system to purchase, is valuable to the community.

CWLWL

Potential customers may judge that statement by simply go through various threads. I personally have nothing more to say until its return from UPDATES.

Eugene, did you buy one too?

Glad to see this thread here.

Gene Chernosky

My Feedback: (182)

Yes, I bought one...just the TX. After I sent my money and was waiting for it to arrive I saw two threads, one here on RCU and one on RC Groups, both of which go over, in great detail, the various limitations of this TX. I was very disappointed in myself that I didn't read up on this TX before committing to buying one. Fortunately Polk's is offering a refund in my case since I never used it.

Sure, it might do well for some modelers, but ANYONE who is spoiled by the likes of Futaba or JR computer radios won't give a hoot for the Tracker II. The only things it has going for it are the scanner, changeable frequencies and a built-in 99 model memory...after that the 'pros' are over.

MikeL

My Feedback: (3)

I haven't used a Tracker II, but I've followed the threads a bit. I don't know diddly squat about the workings of the industry. I do know what I expect as a consumer, and I don't think the Tracker II is at that point for me yet.

The frequency technology seems very cool, and if I flew at a busy field or competitions it would be a real plus for me. I'm much more interested in a radio's features and refinement, which I think JR and Futaba have a lead in when it comes to 8+ channel radios. I've gotten spoiled, and expect certain features implemented in a certain way.

I want to see more competition in radios, and I think Polk is pushing things in the right way. I don't think they're large enough to do it on their own. Hitec is continually improving their product line and seems to be evolving into a real competitor for the big two. They still need to fill out their product line, but their Multiplex acquisition certainly is a step in that direction. Airtronics seems to be fading fast, which is too bad. I've always liked their products, but their marketing is abysmal and has failed them completely. I could design better advertisements in my sleep. They had a real gem in the Stylus years ago, but they've allowed that fine product to stagnate. They're not refreshing their other products much--if they offer a gyro anymore it's still mechanical.

I do wonder if Mr. Polk considered licensing his radio technology or partnering with another manufacturer that had more experience in designing a computer radio. Something like that could have produced a real knock-out of a product that would have forced the rest of the industry to innovate more.

AJF--2

My Feedback: (119)

I do think the "up and coming" company is Multiplex. I have been using their products for years. They really needed a marketing and distribution strategy here in the US-- Now they got it. The future will indeed be interesting.......

HarryC

My Feedback: (1)

Hmmmm! For starters, Futaba doesn't even make a radio with more than 8 channels.

JR's PCM10 has 8 full resolution and two half resolution channels.

Yet Multiplex makes not one but two different 12 channel radios, all fully proportional channels, all of full resolution, all of full refresh rate and in fact uses time compression in 12 channel mode to improve refresh rates.

Graupner makes a 12 channel radio of similar spec though they don't have time compression and accept a slightly reduced refresh rate.

The Multiplex and Graupner programming are hugely superior to Futaba/JR.

So are you quite so sure that Futaba/JR lead the way in 8+ channel radios?

H

MikeL

My Feedback: (3)

Yes, Harry, I am. Multiplex hasn't established itself well in the marketplace. They've failed thus far to reach guys like me. Perhaps that'll change with Hitec at the helm.

causeitflies

Polk's advertising is somewhat lacking and kind of hokey. But I don't think it is misleading at all. I think they could actually sell more of these with proper advertising.

Unlike some, I have been "using" the Polks radio and I like it. Is it limited? Somewhat, but I don't know what people expect for this price. No other manufacturer listens and makes changes as fast as Polks. "Most" modelers are just content to live with the deficiencies of other radios.

I think it will meet the needs of "most" modelers. Of course everyone that is complaining thinks they are "most" modelers. Maybe they are. Out of most modelers I know (only a few hundred), half are just getting into a computer radio. For the features offered I know I got a good deal.

Can the Tracker be improved? There are some extra features I would like, quite a few as a matter of fact. Some improvements have been made just in the past few months. Many of these improvements were implemented because of threads on this board. For me it's not a perfect radio by any means and I could spend two or three times as much and still not have the perfect radio.

What I know is that the Tracker has been rock solid on all the different receivers I have used it with on electric, glow, and gas, and this is the most important thing to me.

tetons9

My Feedback: (8)

H,

I guess I'm confused and don't know how to count or read specs correctly.

Larry

JWN

My Feedback: (42)

Eh? Exactly how many channels does the Futaba 9C have?

And your point here is what? It's still "8+"

In the American market where the majority of us are located and the thread starter is from, yes.

John

HarryC

My Feedback: (1)

The Futaba radios with a 9 in the name are 8 channel radios. In PPM they have 8 channels.

In PCM they add a 1-bit thingy which allows a 2 position switch, there is no adjustable end points, travel etc. Even the rubber band escapements used on single channel push button radio in the 60s had 3 positions. By the early 1970s MacGregor were selling a radio with a proportional stick for rudder and a button for 3 position elevator. Thirty years ago they did not have the cheek anymore to call that a 2 channel radio, it was called the 1+1 and that +1 had one more position than Futaba's 9th "channel". Futaba's 9th "channel" is fine for something like retracts, in those situations it does the job as well as a proper proportional channel would do. But if you allow Futaba to call that a channel, then they can give you any number of those and call them channels - a box with 4 switches could be a 4 channel radio. Or a "9 channel" radio could be 4 proportional channels and 5 of Futaba's extra channels which would be useless for having a second aileron servo, flaps, spoilers and so on. Don't let them get away with calling it a 9 channel radio.

H

tetons9

My Feedback: (8)

Harry,

What is the technical definition of a channel?

Larry

Gene Chernosky

My Feedback: (182)

When it is said: "Polk's advertising is somewhat lacking and kinda hokey. But I don't think it is misleading at all." ...I am confused. When Polk's says in their ads for the Tracker II system: "THE ULTIMATE COMPUTER RADIO" & "Any other way is out of date"...those are conclusive, broad statements that are somewhat misleading/deceiving. I realize that they are trying to sell their product, but to blatantly LIE about it is false advertising IMO. OK, they are supposed to be good about keeping up with what modelers want...they missed the boat on this system though.

Multiplex offers great TX's from what I have read...but they are barely available here in the states, so I don't consider them to be a 'player' in this arguement. Futaba and JR clearly 'rule' the 8(+) channel computer radio market here in the states.

causeitflies

Gene,
I must not be as naive as you. So when McDonald's says they have the ultamate combo for $1.99, do you think it's the best meal in town?

Gene Chernosky

My Feedback: (182)

People puff, gloat and basically lie about a LOT of things in order to try to sell their products. That is where the term "buyer beware" comes in. That is why I said in a previous reply to this thread that I wish I had done my homework before buying the Tracker II system...I guess human nature got the best of me...and Polk's counts on that to happen to others.

In reference to McDonald's...I'd rather starve before eating what they call food.

MikeL

My Feedback: (3)

I think there's enough info out there to be able to fairly easily make a good decision on the Tracker II. Anytime I see an ad that claims to be the best at this or that, I know I'm going to have to do some research on my own to find out for myself.

joedydrulia

I agree that Multiplex has been perceived as the 'elitist' brand for a long time here in the states. Expensive, difficult to program and no local support from the fellas at the field for those quirky radio configurations, but the Royal Evo brand has changed all of that.

If you really want an honest unbiased opinion of the Royal Evo, download the PDF manual and read about it. No marketing gimmicks - just the real deal.

Ironically, the Royal Evo (and multiplex programming in general) is much simplier to program, but is much more able and adept than the asian radios.

I had a JR8103, but there is NO comparison to the flexiblity of the Royal Evo 9. In fact, one cannot honestly do a fair comparison between these two radios; they are two different levels of transmitters.

-joedy

Gene Chernosky

My Feedback: (182)

OK, So far I do like what I see with this unit other than the FACT that it isn't available...at least in the states. Yea, I might even get one when it is available...until then I'll stick with what I have. I was a bit put off by the fact that I emailed Multiplex for some information and they NEVER replied...that left me with a not so comfortable feeling about them.

joedydrulia

True, the supply line is the bigest impediment for the time being. This will get better. The best part is that now Multiplex items will be able to be sold at any local hobby shop as well as major mail-order lines such as Towerhobbies.com.

In the meantime, downloading the manual from multiplexusa.com will give you a real sense of what the capabilites of this radio are without all of the marketing hype.

Also, if you're interested in some of the unique abilities of this radio, there is a good thread going on at rcgroups.com. Some of the mixing capabilities that the RE can do is just not possible to do with the asian radios: servo slowing, mirror inverted controls for upside down flying, any control function can be assisgned to any widget, digi adjusters for in-flight tuning of most all mixing functions.

-joedy

jimlynn

I couldn't decide If I really wanted to jump into this.....

I bought a Tracker II after years of using Futaba radios.
I looked at the features.
I called Polk and talked to John. It's his radio basically.
I had a problem with the scanner being "too sensitive" and called for support. I was told that John was at a show and wouldn't be getting back in town until 3 that afternoon. At 4:30 I rcvd a call from John. He had stopped at the office before going home after a two day trip.
It may not be a perfect radio, but I know better than to call Futaba and ask if something can be changed in the radio and find out that because of a few calls like mine, that they would be adding it to the next "chip" and I can send my radio in this winter and have it upgraded.

HarryC

My Feedback: (1)

I guess if one is absolutley strict and pedantic it is something along which information can be sent. To that extent Futaba's 9th channel in PCM only is a channel.

But that is not what a channel means in common usage, and Futaba clearly infers that you are getting something which you are not getting. Nowadays a channel is not just a 1960's bang-bang affair, it is something you can mix to, set travels etc. You can't do that on Futaba's 9th channel in PCM only. If I sold you a 4 channel radio and when you got home and took it out of its carton and found a box with 4 switches you would be straight back to me claiming it is not a 4 channel radio because that is not what 4 channels means. But if you accept that Futaba's 9th channel in PCM only is a valid channel, then you can't complain.

Futaba is misleading. There are occasionally questions from people asking why they can't get the 9th channel on things like travel menus, only to be told it is an 8 channel radio with their PPM Rx, and if they use it in PCM they still won't get things like travel or mixing for channel 9. About 18 months ago a thread was started by Peter Berg of Berg receivers, because he had bought a 9C to be the signal source to design a 9 channel Rx. He wondered why he wasn't getting 9 channels out of it. He was not happy when he was told it is an 8 channel radio. It is advertised as a 9 channel radio. The carton has a huge 9 on it. It doesn't state on the carton that this is 8 channels in PPM and in PCM you can't drive any proportional control on the 9th channel. The shop he bought it from did not mention "are you aware this is an 8 channel radio if you use it with a PPM RX?" If someone in the model radio industry can be misled by Futaba then I think shame on Futaba for what they are doing. Why not be honest and call it an 8 channel radio with an added retract switch in PCM or something like that.

H

dant-RCU

My Feedback: (3)

I bought a Tracker II Memorial day. I had researched somewhat and Mr. Polk had e-mailed me a copy of the manual so I was aware of some of the limitations except the "trim does not follow mix" issue which has subsequently been fixed and the "frequency not saved with model number" issue which has also been corrected. At that time I also had a HiTec Eclipse w/Spectra and a Futaba 9C with four Tx modules. I had also researched the 9C and had downloaded the manual so I was aware of the "8 vs 9" channel discussion which was not a biggie for me.

I sold the HiTec and kept the 9C. This spring I will get the synth module for the 9C when Futaba releases it. I don't fly PCM and am replacing all of my receivers with Polks Seeker synth receivers. I will use both radios. I do like the scanning feature of the Tracker II but I, like others, have gotten by fine for years without a scanner. I do like the fact that the transmitter will not transmit when I turn it on if it senses something is on my channel.

That being said, I will use the 9C for any complicated mix setups I might have (currently have one). Since I fly all year here I will still be able to fly anywhere on any channel if either of my two radios are out for repair, tune-up or upgrade.

As far as advertising, I would certainly have to agree that a lot of it is hype and I guess that is necessary to get our attention considering how many companies are competing for our dollars. No matter what, it is still the responsibility of the consumer (us) to sift through and try to separate the wheat from the chaff and make an educated decision. This, of course, assumes that a companies ads are not just out-and-out lies - then all bets are off. This forum is just one of many sources of information - again - we still must separate the wheat from the chaff but I don't mind doing a little research and work before I spend my money.

My .10 on this - y'all keep the change

Dan

JWN

My Feedback: (42)

I personally don't care whether the channel is proportional or not. If it handles a seperate function on it's own, such as retracts, it's a channel as far as I'm concerned.

Besides, it's 8 channels plus a "1-bit thingy" still qualifies as 8+ channels. Your history lesson does nothing to change the fact that both the 9C and PCM10 are radios in the 8+ channel catagory.

John

HarryC

My Feedback: (1)

John, I look forward to making a fortune by selling you 6 channel computer radios which have 4 proportional and 2 two position channels so that you can't have 2 aileron servos on separate channels, can't do flaperon mixing and so on. You won't have any grounds for complaint!

H