Futaba balderdash
08-23-2009, 01:12 PM
#1
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Tan Valley,
AZ
Posts: 5,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Futaba balderdash
In one of the latest ads Futaba says:
"Other 2.4GHZ systems sit on one or two frequencies. If someone turns on a system that uses those two frequencies, the result can be devastating"
Hogwash.
SS systems do not sit on a frequency. They sit a channel of frequencies. Other systems will not interfere with them if they do not have the same code. Several systems can sit on the same channel in harmony.
Futaba should know about codes. They had to recode the first systems they put out.
Apparently the sales writers at Futaba don't know how SS works or they are counting on you not knowing.
"Other 2.4GHZ systems sit on one or two frequencies. If someone turns on a system that uses those two frequencies, the result can be devastating"
Hogwash.
SS systems do not sit on a frequency. They sit a channel of frequencies. Other systems will not interfere with them if they do not have the same code. Several systems can sit on the same channel in harmony.
Futaba should know about codes. They had to recode the first systems they put out.
Apparently the sales writers at Futaba don't know how SS works or they are counting on you not knowing.
08-23-2009, 02:24 PM
#2
Senior Member
RE: Futaba balderdash
Unfortunately Futaba is correct. While you will usually not get interference like in the 72 MHz units, you will get sluggishness and/or slow response and sometimes no response at all depending on the type and magnitude of interference. That is why the military uses FHSS such as Futaba and Airtronics use, it is more immune to interference. Note that none of the systems are absolutely immune proof.
08-23-2009, 04:11 PM
#3
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Tan Valley,
AZ
Posts: 5,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba balderdash
ORIGINAL: Rodney
Unfortunately Futaba is correct. While you will usually not get interference like in the 72 MHz units, you will get sluggishness and/or slow response and sometimes no response at all depending on the type and magnitude of interference. That is why the military uses FHSS such as Futaba and Airtronics use, it is more immune to interference. Note that none of the systems are absolutely immune proof.
Unfortunately Futaba is correct. While you will usually not get interference like in the 72 MHz units, you will get sluggishness and/or slow response and sometimes no response at all depending on the type and magnitude of interference. That is why the military uses FHSS such as Futaba and Airtronics use, it is more immune to interference. Note that none of the systems are absolutely immune proof.
As to which is better for interference rejection- neither! Check this out
http://sss-mag.com/primer.html#dsvfh
08-23-2009, 04:52 PM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Miramar,
FL
Posts: 958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba balderdash
This gentlemen is flying Futaba FASST, JR Spektrum and Corona 2.4, all with the same JR 9303.
Check this guy experiences at some large events.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showp...52&postcount=6
Interesting comments about latency.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showp...4&postcount=23
And of course, these links will be blocked by the firewall, so just go to r c g r o u p s . c o m
Doug.
Check this guy experiences at some large events.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showp...52&postcount=6
Interesting comments about latency.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showp...4&postcount=23
And of course, these links will be blocked by the firewall, so just go to r c g r o u p s . c o m
Doug.
08-23-2009, 05:24 PM
#5
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Tan Valley,
AZ
Posts: 5,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba balderdash
The reason FAST will lock up quickly is it does not do any prechecking of the band. It just turns on and starts working.
Spectrum has to check and find two noise free bands before it will lockup. In a heavy RF environment you might not get that. It should be OK once it locks up.
The reason the military prefers FHSS is the enemy must put noise power on the whole band in order to jam it. With DSSS they only have to find which channel is in use and jam that. It takes less power to jam DSSS than it does FHSS. But we are not talking about jamming here. I hope not anyway.
Spectrum has to check and find two noise free bands before it will lockup. In a heavy RF environment you might not get that. It should be OK once it locks up.
The reason the military prefers FHSS is the enemy must put noise power on the whole band in order to jam it. With DSSS they only have to find which channel is in use and jam that. It takes less power to jam DSSS than it does FHSS. But we are not talking about jamming here. I hope not anyway.
08-23-2009, 10:50 PM
#8
RE: Futaba balderdash
You dont need to have the same code as the the system you target to interfere with it, You do however have to have the same code to take over
and control said system.
If two systems end up on the same freq the rogue xmiter although it cant control the other receiver can block it from receiveing signals ment for
it thereby causing it to go into failsafe so Futaba is correct on this one.
and control said system.
If two systems end up on the same freq the rogue xmiter although it cant control the other receiver can block it from receiveing signals ment for
it thereby causing it to go into failsafe so Futaba is correct on this one.
08-24-2009, 10:23 AM
#10
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Tan Valley,
AZ
Posts: 5,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba balderdash
ORIGINAL: ira d
You dont need to have the same code as the the system you target to interfere with it, You do however have to have the same code to take over
and control said system.
If two systems end up on the same freq the rogue xmiter although it cant control the other receiver can block it from receiveing signals ment for
it thereby causing it to go into failsafe so Futaba is correct on this one.
You dont need to have the same code as the the system you target to interfere with it, You do however have to have the same code to take over
and control said system.
If two systems end up on the same freq the rogue xmiter although it cant control the other receiver can block it from receiveing signals ment for
it thereby causing it to go into failsafe so Futaba is correct on this one.
08-24-2009, 10:35 AM
#11
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lyndonville, VT
Posts: 3,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba balderdash
You mean like Spektrum equating remote receivers to the redundancy provided by multiple engines on a plane?
When it comes to simplistic half truth advertising hype, all parties are guilty of balderdash
Pete
When it comes to simplistic half truth advertising hype, all parties are guilty of balderdash
Pete
08-24-2009, 01:38 PM
#13
My Feedback: (61)
RE: Futaba balderdash
I've always wondered why if FASST is so much better that the GPS satellites use direct sequence spread spectrum with pseudo-random codes for spreading?
I'm not saying FASST isn't good, they've had too much success to say that. Heck, I even own one. Own Spektrum, too, and haven't had any in-flight issues with either.
I'm not saying FASST isn't good, they've had too much success to say that. Heck, I even own one. Own Spektrum, too, and haven't had any in-flight issues with either.
08-24-2009, 02:20 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 2,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba balderdash
ORIGINAL: taildragger21
Sorry, but fasst has the upper hand in technology and safety. To bad Jr had the marry spektrum. Now there stuck.lol
Sorry, but fasst has the upper hand in technology and safety. To bad Jr had the marry spektrum. Now there stuck.lol
I think we ALL would like to see your data.
The best RF guys I converse with have told me that to lay out a "this" is better than "that" on FHSS and DSSS is impossible. Now introduce the hybrids and it is even more complicated
You apparently have proof they are wrong. Right?
You need to share it with us, please.
08-24-2009, 03:28 PM
#15
RE: Futaba balderdash
ORIGINAL: dirtybird
Not if both of the systems are observing the legal rf output limit. Several systems can co-exist on the same channel.
ORIGINAL: ira d
You dont need to have the same code as the the system you target to interfere with it, You do however have to have the same code to take over
and control said system.
If two systems end up on the same freq the rogue xmiter although it cant control the other receiver can block it from receiveing signals ment for
it thereby causing it to go into failsafe so Futaba is correct on this one.
You dont need to have the same code as the the system you target to interfere with it, You do however have to have the same code to take over
and control said system.
If two systems end up on the same freq the rogue xmiter although it cant control the other receiver can block it from receiveing signals ment for
it thereby causing it to go into failsafe so Futaba is correct on this one.
work on.
08-24-2009, 11:13 PM
#16
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Tan Valley,
AZ
Posts: 5,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba balderdash
ORIGINAL: ira d
Not as I understand it and that is why Spktrum scans for free channels to
work on.
ORIGINAL: dirtybird
Not if both of the systems are observing the legal rf output limit. Several systems can co-exist on the same channel.
ORIGINAL: ira d
You dont need to have the same code as the the system you target to interfere with it, You do however have to have the same code to take over
and control said system.
If two systems end up on the same freq the rogue xmiter although it cant control the other receiver can block it from receiveing signals ment for
it thereby causing it to go into failsafe so Futaba is correct on this one.
You dont need to have the same code as the the system you target to interfere with it, You do however have to have the same code to take over
and control said system.
If two systems end up on the same freq the rogue xmiter although it cant control the other receiver can block it from receiveing signals ment for
it thereby causing it to go into failsafe so Futaba is correct on this one.
work on.
read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-...pread_spectrum
Here is a quote from the link:
Benefits (Of DSSS)
* Resistance to intended or unintended jamming
* Sharing of a single channel among multiple users
* Reduced signal/background-noise level hampers interception (stealth)
* Determination of relative timing between transmitter and receiver
[edit]
08-25-2009, 07:56 AM
#17
RE: Futaba balderdash
Despite the rather aggressive and "shilly" tone of the first post on this thread, it's been a pretty interesting conversation, and the first poster has included a lot of good information links. A few observations .. my two cents:
1) In the "balderdash" department, the JR/Spektrum marketing guys are amazing, and generate all sorts of "FUD" (Fear, uncertainty and doubt) just as they are employed to do. Examples include poking fun at Futaba for the temperature problem (that was classic .. they had ads out making fun of the competition before the competition even admitted there was a problem), the nonsense suggesting that multiple receivers are better, and the latest "Faster than Fast" ads (which they are not ... now that the Futaba HS equipment is out... but how long will that last?!). Each one great marketing. Many not based in fact.
Recently, however, the "death star" over at Futaba seems to have revved up and is getting a little frisky with its marketing, though as far as I can see at least the statements they are making are based (mostly) in fact, if a bit edgy. So the premise of post #1 is incorrect, as has been established here pretty well, being balderdash itself ... but only partially ... see below.
Its fun to watch the two companies go at it .. after all, they both want to build market share, and this competition will bring us better products.
2) What we really need if we are going to make any progress is some of the actual knowledgable designers from Futaba and JR to weigh in here. I applaud one of the Spektrum engineers who joined a discussion of an RF-hostiile environment at a Calif Jet event post-mortem a few months ago. The reason we need this is simple ... you can't make a categorical statement about either DSSS of FHSS being better unless you know the details of the implementation.
It is tempting to say FHSS is better because it hops the carrier around and spreads the signal energy over the entire band uniformly, while DSSS spreads the energy in a "haystack" shape around each of the two carrier frequencies selected at startup. This explains, btw, why two Spektrum sets can select the same frequencies and still coexist, since each will likely have a different pseudonoise code and spread their signals differently. As one of the links above says, this works, but performance is compromised a little. In any case, the devil is in the details, and unfortunately, we don't know them, and I am not sure the mfrs will want to tell us.
On the issue of multiple Receivers .. it seems to me this is a system design philosophy issue. Futaba went with an RF link derived from high-end industrial control (e.g. controlling construction cranes from the ground), and used only one RX and they get good performance from that. JR/Spektrum went with a chipset designed for portable phones, and had to use multiple RXs to get the system performance where they needed it. Both approaches are valid, both work, and probably have different strengths and weaknesses that we will observe over time. It made me suspicious at first that the JR stuff had multiple RXs and signal monitoring accessories .. after all, engineers only include stuff like that if its needed .. but again, field experience has been good.
3) In the end it is clear that both systems work well in actual use, and both have limitations that people are starting to observe in actual use. Time will tell us more.
But debates on deep technical issues without the supporting technical details and engineering expertise probably won't do much but make for recurring flame wars, which is actually kind of fun :-)
Dave
1) In the "balderdash" department, the JR/Spektrum marketing guys are amazing, and generate all sorts of "FUD" (Fear, uncertainty and doubt) just as they are employed to do. Examples include poking fun at Futaba for the temperature problem (that was classic .. they had ads out making fun of the competition before the competition even admitted there was a problem), the nonsense suggesting that multiple receivers are better, and the latest "Faster than Fast" ads (which they are not ... now that the Futaba HS equipment is out... but how long will that last?!). Each one great marketing. Many not based in fact.
Recently, however, the "death star" over at Futaba seems to have revved up and is getting a little frisky with its marketing, though as far as I can see at least the statements they are making are based (mostly) in fact, if a bit edgy. So the premise of post #1 is incorrect, as has been established here pretty well, being balderdash itself ... but only partially ... see below.
Its fun to watch the two companies go at it .. after all, they both want to build market share, and this competition will bring us better products.
2) What we really need if we are going to make any progress is some of the actual knowledgable designers from Futaba and JR to weigh in here. I applaud one of the Spektrum engineers who joined a discussion of an RF-hostiile environment at a Calif Jet event post-mortem a few months ago. The reason we need this is simple ... you can't make a categorical statement about either DSSS of FHSS being better unless you know the details of the implementation.
It is tempting to say FHSS is better because it hops the carrier around and spreads the signal energy over the entire band uniformly, while DSSS spreads the energy in a "haystack" shape around each of the two carrier frequencies selected at startup. This explains, btw, why two Spektrum sets can select the same frequencies and still coexist, since each will likely have a different pseudonoise code and spread their signals differently. As one of the links above says, this works, but performance is compromised a little. In any case, the devil is in the details, and unfortunately, we don't know them, and I am not sure the mfrs will want to tell us.
On the issue of multiple Receivers .. it seems to me this is a system design philosophy issue. Futaba went with an RF link derived from high-end industrial control (e.g. controlling construction cranes from the ground), and used only one RX and they get good performance from that. JR/Spektrum went with a chipset designed for portable phones, and had to use multiple RXs to get the system performance where they needed it. Both approaches are valid, both work, and probably have different strengths and weaknesses that we will observe over time. It made me suspicious at first that the JR stuff had multiple RXs and signal monitoring accessories .. after all, engineers only include stuff like that if its needed .. but again, field experience has been good.
3) In the end it is clear that both systems work well in actual use, and both have limitations that people are starting to observe in actual use. Time will tell us more.
But debates on deep technical issues without the supporting technical details and engineering expertise probably won't do much but make for recurring flame wars, which is actually kind of fun :-)
Dave
08-25-2009, 08:09 AM
#18
RE: Futaba balderdash
The patent BS Futaba noted, is not even a half truth.
It is a classic "whispering " advertisment , intended to redirect interest to their product
The facts are that Spektrum does need to aquire two usable channels to hook up - THAT requires that the 2.4 spektrum be "free" from ahigh threshhold of interferrence.
Good Idea.
The signals from the DSM2 tx doNOT capture that frequency (ies)-
Why?
because the ON /off cycle of info leaves lots of room for other devices to access th same freq.
That is how 2.4 is supposed to work
Simply put
If you have a device which won't play nice with others in the spektrum - you cannot use it.
All that said - The military choice has nothing to do with our uses of the 2.4 spread spektrum.
If you compare "ability to receive"features on both systems you get into a quagmire . Those confused now will really get confuse on this issue
If you compare features of the systems - The Spektrum system offers lots of features not found in the Futaba line up
An obvious one is the Bind n Fly -
The Model Safe -which I really like is another - some feel it inhibits their use of receivers -
If you do a realistic search of market penetration - it is not even a race -
It is a classic "whispering " advertisment , intended to redirect interest to their product
The facts are that Spektrum does need to aquire two usable channels to hook up - THAT requires that the 2.4 spektrum be "free" from ahigh threshhold of interferrence.
Good Idea.
The signals from the DSM2 tx doNOT capture that frequency (ies)-
Why?
because the ON /off cycle of info leaves lots of room for other devices to access th same freq.
That is how 2.4 is supposed to work
Simply put
If you have a device which won't play nice with others in the spektrum - you cannot use it.
All that said - The military choice has nothing to do with our uses of the 2.4 spread spektrum.
If you compare "ability to receive"features on both systems you get into a quagmire . Those confused now will really get confuse on this issue
If you compare features of the systems - The Spektrum system offers lots of features not found in the Futaba line up
An obvious one is the Bind n Fly -
The Model Safe -which I really like is another - some feel it inhibits their use of receivers -
If you do a realistic search of market penetration - it is not even a race -
08-25-2009, 10:45 AM
#19
RE: Futaba balderdash
ORIGINAL: onewasp
I think we ALL would like to see your data.
The best RF guys I converse with have told me that to lay out a ''this'' is better than ''that'' on FHSS and DSSS is impossible. Now introduce the hybrids and it is even more complicated
You apparently have proof they are wrong. Right?
You need to share it with us, please.
ORIGINAL: taildragger21
Sorry, but fasst has the upper hand in technology and safety. To bad Jr had the marry spektrum. Now there stuck.lol
Sorry, but fasst has the upper hand in technology and safety. To bad Jr had the marry spektrum. Now there stuck.lol
I think we ALL would like to see your data.
The best RF guys I converse with have told me that to lay out a ''this'' is better than ''that'' on FHSS and DSSS is impossible. Now introduce the hybrids and it is even more complicated
You apparently have proof they are wrong. Right?
You need to share it with us, please.
Just do a forum search... How many threads do you see with people having unexplained crashes on spektrum,lockout,brownouts,controls going to fulldeflection lockout.. Then search fasst and it is a lot less.. Fasst works no need to hook up sattelites. In my experience I almost lost a plane on spektrum and have saw other's. burn in at our field. Was at joe nall when the t28's went in, and people lost planes on spektrum. Even a JR REP. [:-] THAT IS CORRECT A JR REP.told me fasst was superior.. I know in my large scale planes I would have nothing less. Not being a brand snob honestly. Just for security of using somthing more safe.
So I dont have to prove anything...The facts are on here and all the other rc forums.. [8D]
08-25-2009, 11:52 AM
#22
RE: Futaba balderdash
ORIGINAL: taildragger21
Just do a forum search... How many threads do you see with people having unexplained crashes on spektrum,lockout,brownouts,controls going to fulldeflection lockout.. Then search fasst and it is a lot less.. Fasst works no need to hook up sattelites. In my experience I almost lost a plane on spektrum and have saw other's. burn in at our field. Was at joe nall when the t28's went in, and people lost planes on spektrum. Even a JR REP. [:-] THAT IS CORRECT A JR REP.told me fasst was superior.. I know in my large scale planes I would have nothing less. Not being a brand snob honestly. Just for security of using somthing more safe.
So I dont have to prove anything...The facts are on here and all the other rc forums.. [8D]
ORIGINAL: onewasp
I think we ALL would like to see your data.
The best RF guys I converse with have told me that to lay out a ''this'' is better than ''that'' on FHSS and DSSS is impossible. Now introduce the hybrids and it is even more complicated
You apparently have proof they are wrong. Right?
You need to share it with us, please.
ORIGINAL: taildragger21
Sorry, but fasst has the upper hand in technology and safety. To bad Jr had the marry spektrum. Now there stuck.lol
Sorry, but fasst has the upper hand in technology and safety. To bad Jr had the marry spektrum. Now there stuck.lol
I think we ALL would like to see your data.
The best RF guys I converse with have told me that to lay out a ''this'' is better than ''that'' on FHSS and DSSS is impossible. Now introduce the hybrids and it is even more complicated
You apparently have proof they are wrong. Right?
You need to share it with us, please.
Just do a forum search... How many threads do you see with people having unexplained crashes on spektrum,lockout,brownouts,controls going to fulldeflection lockout.. Then search fasst and it is a lot less.. Fasst works no need to hook up sattelites. In my experience I almost lost a plane on spektrum and have saw other's. burn in at our field. Was at joe nall when the t28's went in, and people lost planes on spektrum. Even a JR REP. [:-] THAT IS CORRECT A JR REP.told me fasst was superior.. I know in my large scale planes I would have nothing less. Not being a brand snob honestly. Just for security of using somthing more safe.
So I dont have to prove anything...The facts are on here and all the other rc forums.. [8D]
I have heard all these oldd horror stories many times - and am totally unconvinced by any of em - they are simply " tales of the uninformed"
08-25-2009, 12:05 PM
#23
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Tan Valley,
AZ
Posts: 5,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba balderdash
Just one last tidbit. Spectrum searches the band for a low noise channel because they edict ed to do so by the FCC. Not for performance issues. I think the FCC requires that to ensure full use of the band.
BTW I use XPS. I have the choice of using FHSS or DSSS. Plus they now have available satellite receivers. I think its the best overall choice. It took awhile to get there.
I suppose you will say Jim Drew put out a lot of balderdash. Maybe so, but at least it was about his own system. He didn't spend a lot of time running down the other systems.
BTW I use XPS. I have the choice of using FHSS or DSSS. Plus they now have available satellite receivers. I think its the best overall choice. It took awhile to get there.
I suppose you will say Jim Drew put out a lot of balderdash. Maybe so, but at least it was about his own system. He didn't spend a lot of time running down the other systems.
08-25-2009, 03:03 PM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 2,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba balderdash
ORIGINAL: taildragger21
Just do a forum search... How many threads do you see with people having unexplained crashes on spektrum,lockout,brownouts,controls going to fulldeflection lockout.. Then search fasst and it is a lot less.. Fasst works no need to hook up sattelites. In my experience I almost lost a plane on spektrum and have saw other's. burn in at our field. Was at joe nall when the t28's went in, and people lost planes on spektrum. Even a JR REP. [:-] THAT IS CORRECT A JR REP.told me fasst was superior.. I know in my large scale planes I would have nothing less. Not being a brand snob honestly. Just for security of using somthing more safe.
So I dont have to prove anything...The facts are on here and all the other rc forums.. [8D]
ORIGINAL: onewasp
I think we ALL would like to see your data.
The best RF guys I converse with have told me that to lay out a ''this'' is better than ''that'' on FHSS and DSSS is impossible. Now introduce the hybrids and it is even more complicated
You apparently have proof they are wrong. Right?
You need to share it with us, please.
ORIGINAL: taildragger21
Sorry, but fasst has the upper hand in technology and safety. To bad Jr had the marry spektrum. Now there stuck.lol
Sorry, but fasst has the upper hand in technology and safety. To bad Jr had the marry spektrum. Now there stuck.lol
I think we ALL would like to see your data.
The best RF guys I converse with have told me that to lay out a ''this'' is better than ''that'' on FHSS and DSSS is impossible. Now introduce the hybrids and it is even more complicated
You apparently have proof they are wrong. Right?
You need to share it with us, please.
Just do a forum search... How many threads do you see with people having unexplained crashes on spektrum,lockout,brownouts,controls going to fulldeflection lockout.. Then search fasst and it is a lot less.. Fasst works no need to hook up sattelites. In my experience I almost lost a plane on spektrum and have saw other's. burn in at our field. Was at joe nall when the t28's went in, and people lost planes on spektrum. Even a JR REP. [:-] THAT IS CORRECT A JR REP.told me fasst was superior.. I know in my large scale planes I would have nothing less. Not being a brand snob honestly. Just for security of using somthing more safe.
So I dont have to prove anything...The facts are on here and all the other rc forums.. [8D]
Young and inexperienced is better than many options which come to mind.
08-25-2009, 03:34 PM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sluff, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba balderdash
I read and digest what has been written and it amazes me.
So many problems with Spektrum / JR are (in the end) due to poor user understanding. They adopt the same build criteria as "the old days" and then blame the receiver/transmitter instead of looking at the build quality.
Yes admittedly, in the beginning there were problems with Spektrum kit but they were easily fixable. But any company that adopts a "new technology" will have to accept some flak.
Futaba had their own issues.... Zero GUID anyone ? Heat related problems ?
XPS had their own issues as well... single channel "intelligent" hopping ? The theoretical antenna ! The spread of disinformation etc.
No one system is perfect, YOU have to know the limitations of the systems that you are using and attempt to minimise the risk.
For some applications, DSSS is better but for others FHSS is the choice, and for some... well a Hybrid DSSS/FHSS would be the way to go.
All companies are guilty of marketing using the "Brand A is preferred over Brand B by 9/10 cats" etc etc . It is up to us to see past the waffle and choose what we need.
So many problems with Spektrum / JR are (in the end) due to poor user understanding. They adopt the same build criteria as "the old days" and then blame the receiver/transmitter instead of looking at the build quality.
Yes admittedly, in the beginning there were problems with Spektrum kit but they were easily fixable. But any company that adopts a "new technology" will have to accept some flak.
Futaba had their own issues.... Zero GUID anyone ? Heat related problems ?
XPS had their own issues as well... single channel "intelligent" hopping ? The theoretical antenna ! The spread of disinformation etc.
No one system is perfect, YOU have to know the limitations of the systems that you are using and attempt to minimise the risk.
For some applications, DSSS is better but for others FHSS is the choice, and for some... well a Hybrid DSSS/FHSS would be the way to go.
All companies are guilty of marketing using the "Brand A is preferred over Brand B by 9/10 cats" etc etc . It is up to us to see past the waffle and choose what we need.