JR to relinquish DSM2

[Ultymate]

Apparently JR are to relinquish their use of Spektrum's DSM2 technology and introduce their own full frequency hopping system which is apparently under CE testing as we speak. I found this link to a post on RCMF by a JR technical rep in the UK see HERE

Edited By Ultymate on 29/08/2010 09:14:16

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Here's the message -

 

JR will be bringing out their own 2.4 GHz systems on new future systems.  Their new 7 channel system is undergoing full CE testing at the moment and for aircraft use it will be full FHSS.

It is hoped to be in production in October, they will be dropping the DSMJ system and from what I can gather, no longer manufacturing DSM2 FOR NEW SYSTEMS.

They will still be supporting the DSM2 for some period of time.

Their entry level set is called the XG7 and supports telemetry.  The receiver is fitted with 2 long antennas ( similar to Futaba/Hitec) and comes with a telemetry sender.  Currently it is for Rx battery voltage but you will be able to add additional probes to it.

For those of you heading to the NATS this weekend, it will be there.

Transmitter styling is that of the 2720/DX7.

As it is a completely new system and not based on Spektrums hardware, there is no compatibility or upgrade path with DSM2.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Yes it seemed obvious that JR would be coming up with a new low-end 2.4GHz radio as their agreement with Horizon (where Horizon release low-end DSM2 radios and JR do the high-end stuff) had expired hence the recent appearance of the Spektrum DX8. 

 

Any thoughts on the switch to frequency hopping?

I guess in the long term JR DSM2 users won't have much choice but to buy Spektrum receivers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited By David Ashby - RCME Administrator on 29/08/2010 09:28:01

[leccyflyer]

Mac Man is to be commended for making the statement that was made, unpalatable as it will be to many JR-DSM2 users, it'd be nice to see Horizon clear up their plans should the negotiations on the regulations for 2.4ghz go against the DSM2 system.

[leccyflyer]

Posted by David Ashby - RCME Administrator on 29/08/2010 09:23:47:

Yes it seemed obvious that JR would be coming up with a new low-end 2.4GHz radio as their agreement with Horizon (where Horizon release low-end DSM2 radios and JR do the high-end stuff) had expired hence the recent appearance of the Spektrum DX8. 

 

Any thoughts on the switch to frequency hopping?

I guess in the long term JR DSM2 users won't have much choice but to buy Spektrum receivers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited By David Ashby - RCME Administrator on 29/08/2010 09:28:01

 In the long term surely  there's a chance that nobody will be buying Spektrum DSM-2 receivers, if the protocol is found to be breaching the new reglations when they come into force next year. How long will DSM-2 continue to be supported. It seems that JR have said they will support their DSM-2 users for a couple of years, in the statement referenced above. They also confirm that there is no viable upgrade path from DSM-2 to their new system, other than presumably completely new modules and receivers.

[Dave Towell]

They mentioned DSMJ, This is the system they use in Japan and is Freq hopping ,at one point it was called DSM3, Freq hopping is a  legal requierment in Japan.(Some one correct me if I'm wrong).

 I wonder if this will ever make it to the UK. might be whats introduced after the EU ruling eary next year if it all goes wrong for DSM2 .

[Frank Skilbeck]

And MacGregor are covering their bases as a division, Hobbyplastic, is bring in the WFly systems probably to compete with the Planet systems from Perkins

[Ultymate]

Posted by Dave Towell on 29/08/2010 12:32:16:

They mentioned DSMJ, This is the system they use in Japan and is Freq hopping ,at one point it was called DSM3, Freq hopping is a  legal requierment in Japan.(Some one correct me if I'm wrong).

 I wonder if this will ever make it to the UK. might be whats introduced after the EU ruling eary next year if it all goes wrong for DSM2 .

 It has been said that DSMJ is to be dropped 

[andy watson]

I have repeatedly said this is something that someone looking to buy a new radio system should be taking into consideration.

 

Of course, I have always been shouted down.

[Roger in Dubai]

Hope DSMJ is not dropped by JR as I bought the 11X Zero a few months ago and it came with a 9ch DSMJ Rx and only last week I bought another 7ch Rx (also DSMJ) to slowly move the fleet over from 72MHz !!!  It's even on my Avatar along with the Reactor Bipe !!

 

Hopefully all will become clear in the fullness of time, until then I am just going to enjoy my flying. 

Edited By Roger in Dubai on 01/09/2010 10:13:10

[Erfolg]

I can understand the interests of both Spektrum and JR not wishing to damage their immediate commercial interests, by highlighting a change in commercial arrangements and the system operation/concept.

 

However from a users view point the situation looks different.

 

If I were a JR or potential customer, I would wish to know the intentions regarding the system marketed and both the short and long term policies. This could have significant impact on purchasing policy at an individual level.

 

As to the long term legal position of the Spektrum system, I have not read anything substantive, other than nods and winks that all might not be well. Further muddying the water are those Spektrum users who are prepared to die in a trench, with the battle cry, "there is nothing wrong with Spektrum, it is legal, it is the best system" . Is there a thread which tells the issues behind the story?

 

I guess the bottom line for Spektrum and the  present 2.4 JR users, is the question. Is there any threat that the continued operation of the system could become illegal within the EU (or the UK for that matter). EU sticker or no sticker. What about all those leisure market 2.4 systems.

 

Above all what is the problem with the Spektrum concept, if any?

Edited By Erfolg on 01/09/2010 12:43:41

Edited By Erfolg on 01/09/2010 12:46:59

[David perry 1]

Erfolg,

 

As I understand it the only issue with the Spekky concept is that it is not the same as all other European users have decided upon.  In the whacky world of Eurotrash, if all ist  nicht the same as all others, then it is forbidden.  True frequency hopping has been agreed upon, zis is nicht zat zo it ist kaput.  I cannot imagine for the life of me what nation in Europe would mandate such action.

 

I think, if I have understood the arguemnts correctly, that technically the Spekky concept is not bad. (Their quality aside!)

 

You make a valid point though about the thousands of liesure users using their system.

 

I find the ramifications of the internet quite amazing, and probably they have yet to reach their full potential.  If DSM2 is legal in the states and we can find 14 dollar Rxs for it by the simple expedient of Googling...how the heck can it ever be removed from the market?  A bit like AM CB, but more so with tinternet.

 

D 

 

 

 

D 

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

As I understand it, any threat is to continued production rather than a retrospective ban. What happens outside Europe is another matter and could mean receivers being produced even if the new sales of DSM2 transmitters were stopped in the EU.

 

As to the problem, it's simply that the intent behind the regulations allowing us to use more than 10 mW (only sufficient for cars, boats and very close in airborne use) was that all systems would frequency hop over at least 15 channels constantly during operation. 

 

Spektrum chooses 2 free channels and does not vary from these for the duration of a session.  Spektrum have argued that the fact that they scan the band before locking on to these 2  frequencies is sufficient to satisfy the letter of the regulations if not the intent.

Edited By Martin Harris on 01/09/2010 13:00:53

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

David,

 

I'm certainly not a fan of the EU and its apparently wholesale embodiment of the nanny state mentality but as existing users of the 2.4 GHz band, would we be happy if another interest started disregarding protocols and launched equipment that could hazard our use of the waveband?

 

I'm not qualified to say whether the non-hopping operation of Spektrum equipment has any effect on existing or potential users but surely you can see that we do need some sort of protective organisation to legislate for the use of the band?

 

Of course, despite it's limitations, the 35 MHz band did at least have the advantage of being virtually exclusive (some very limited military usage was permitted) to model aircraft and because of this, such issues as bait boats on 35 MHz being sold to anglers were quickly resolved by the power of the law.

Edited By Martin Harris on 01/09/2010 13:17:05

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

In my view Martin is absolutely correct. In a crowded RF world there have to be rules and users must obey them. The alternative is anarchy and chaos and I'm sure I don't have to remind any one interested in RC planes who what be the ultimate victims of RF anarchy - US! If your internet link crashes once every 48 hours that's inconvienient - for us a tx/rx link crashing every other flying session its a disaster.

 

The people who object to Specktum's implementation of the standard have, in my view a legitimate point. To simply represent them mockingly is neither smart nor likely to resolve the issue. They have a a right to their opinion and frankly its a very well informed opinion.

 

There is a very real problem with the Specktrum system, because it takes and holds two channels it effectiveley halves the bandwidth of the whole system. As a simple illustration, if there are 80 distinct channels in the 2.4GHz band, then 80 Futaba transmitters can operate simultaineuously, but (as I understand it) only 40 Specktrum transmitters can operate in the same space - this is what I mean when I say Specktrum halves the bandwidth.

 

Now I know this isn't a problem for us - when are we likely to want to operate 40, let alone 80, transmitters at the same time? But that's not the point. The people charged with ruling on this are not just considering a bunch of folks flying toy aeroplanes - they are ruling for the whole user community on 2.4GHz. The real issue for them is if Specktrum are allowed to do this then so is everyone else. That means all the wireless computer network people, the remote sensor groups, the wireless device manufacturers - everyone. And given how crowded the RF waves are they simply cannot allow everyone to squander bandwidth in this way. And so the very small number of DSM2 users (relative to the whole 2.4GHz band users) may well end up paying the price so the whole community can operate at maximum loading.

 

Do I feel sorry for Specktrum in this? No. In my view they knew from the outset that they were cutting corners to produce a cheaper, quicker to market, system. Do I feel sorry for Specktrum users? Yes of course I do - I don't think they have been dealt with in a fair and transparent fashion. Specktrum have constantly denied there is a problem, and reassured users it will all go away. But this move by JR I think prooves what one major manufacturer thinks of those gaurentees - not much is the answer.

 

Rather than trooping out national stereotypes and indulging our "Little Englander" mentality on this we would, in my view, be better employing out time in engaging the autorities and playing the "consumer welfare" card. The EU is very keen on this concept at present and by doing this we might be able to get a special dispensation for RC planes in the 2.4GHz band. But if we approach them with insults we will get nowhere.

 

BEB

[Steve W-O]

There are many other users of the 2.4gHz band, possibly these are part of the decision.

 

Number of channels available is only part of the question of how many devices/models can use the band at the same time.

 

Many laptops have problems when both the bluetoooth and wifi cards are operating at the same time.

 

Too many 2.4 transmitters operating at the same time could easily stop a receiver receiving a valid signal, so it is likely that a device transmitting two signals at the same time could make things worse, even with plenty of spare channels available.

 

The only hope is that it is based on technical facts, not political hot air.

[Erfolg]

Is there a time scale with regard to anticipated resolution of the issue?

 

I had thought that the unique identifier of Futaba type systems allowed in absolute terms infinite number of operators (limited by the length of the identifier). On this basis I thought that as a principle Futaba type system could operate far more than 80 (dependant on that identifier numeric range) In practice I guess that no sensible scenario can be envisaged where any limitation above say 40 is a real issue.

 

In some respects it seems reasonable to allow existing Spektrum type systems to be used. Although I suspect that some limitations on use may be seen as necessary.

 

The worst aspect of this situation is the apparent silence of the trade on the issue, and the limited information made available to us, the consumer.

 

As for racial stereotyping, it is something that I find unfair, particularly if not uniformly found unacceptable.

[David perry 1]

Martin, Whilst I agree in principle what Spektrum are doing is not endangering the band for other users. 2.4 is an amateur band anyway, and thus as a shared band will be full of different protocols. Spektrums version is just different, not wrong I really think it's the " different" but that counts here. Otherwise why not just leave them alone? No one minded when PPM and PCM were shared and whilst 35 Meg was excessive over here it certainly wasn't elsewhere on earth as a marginal HF band it does propagate over the globe. Anyway, what happenschappens and spekky ought to have checked! D

[Steve W-O]

Posted by Erfolg on 01/09/2010 15:39:50:

 

As for racial stereotyping, it is something that I find unfair, particularly if not uniformly found unacceptable.

 

 

 

 

Racial or national? There is a big difference, and I saw nothing about race.

 

 

There are technical reasons (think why it is unwise to put a 2.4gHz video transmitter in a plane with 2.4gHz control) why an infinite number of devices could no operate together even with the unique identifier (don't all 2.4 systems have a unique identifier?)

 

I think the suggested maximum is 20 at a site at one time

[Erfolg]

I understand that national as well as racial, from a legislative stand point are interchangeable. Although some have been prosecuted under the same legislation (for a specific form of addressing a nationality) and found to have committed an offence, others have had no case to answer (for a broadly similar nationality gibe) . For me that is unacceptable.

 

But let us stick with 2.4 and specifically, is the Spektrum system compliant with existing legislation.

 

Martin has suggested that there is a requirement to frequency hop, under the existing legislation. I would expect that the EU authorities will consider the "why" of the requirement.

 

My main concern is for those who have or are considering a Spektrum or similar system. In the worst case they could possibly own a package that should not be legally used. A better scenario is that although permitted continued use is permitted,  commercial support within the UK/EU could reduce. The best  scenario, obviously is no change.

 

Given the political and commercial clout of the USA, I would expect  that significant USA Government pressure, will be exerted on the EU.

 

But in the mean time, there should be full disclosure of relevant facts to the buying public, however inconvenient to trade interests. As I am not confident I still know what the issue is, other that now  believe there is an issue.

 

  

[David perry 1]

If the speky stuff is outlawed how the heck will they regulate the thousands of current users, both modellers and those who operate the ARTF gear of all sorts? It's an impossible task I suppose they'll ceAse in the end though. It's a toughy and is certainly something to consider when buying new gear. I certainly won't be buying more Spektrum gear nor JR now. Any new tranny will be put off for a year. I guess if DSM2 is outlawed then ones BMFA insurance is invalid if caught flying with it Something to bear in mind! D

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Problem is that we are allowed more power than many other legitimate users on condition that FH is implemented.  At least one of the American multinational wireless LAN manufacturers has already made noises about getting peripheral users (that's us!) kicked off 2.4 GHz and if we're held to be habitual abusers of the regulations it could weaken our case.

 

On seeing David's last post it's reminded me that I'd say that with the rapid advances being made, the concept of buying into a particular system and remaining with it for decades is rapidly becoming outdated. We've already seen at least several manufacturers upgrade to non compatible systems from their first versions and another runs 2 systems in parallel with receivers only being compatible with certain transmitters/modules.

Edited By Martin Harris on 01/09/2010 17:29:02

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Erfolg, I've sent you a PM, stay on topic please.

 

 

Edited By David Ashby - RCME Administrator on 01/09/2010 17:47:12

[Steve W-O]

 

 

 

Posted by Erfolg on 01/09/2010 17:03:40:

I understand that national as well as racial, from a legislative stand point are interchangeable. Although some have been prosecuted under the same legislation (for a specific form of addressing a nationality) and found to have committed an offence, others have had no case to answer (for a broadly similar nationality gibe) . For me that is unacceptable.

 

 

 No disagreement on what is acceptable, but speaking from a family made up of 3 nationalities and four different race groups (some people have joked about us being the UN) they are hugely different

 

 

I also agree with you about the disclosure.

 

I must add that it would not affect me personally, as I see some of the big brand names as hugely overpriced. I use a transmitter made by FlySky, comes under different names like Turnigy, Imax, Eurgle. It takes JR plug in modules, it comes with its own 2.4 module, but it has a telescopic antenna fitted for 35 and the JR 35MHz synthesised module works perfectly in it. I have two of them, have ordered a third, which I will be loading custom firmware onto.

 

So if the JR sets have plug in modules (I don't know if they do or not) the issue may not be as bad as it seems.

 

Technology advances, and the old normally falls away naturally. My first RC system was a home built kit (Micron PL6) on 27MHz. Now I wouldn't dream of flying anything on 27MHz AM.

 

Many of the bigger names have had problems (The Futaba ID problem recently, and others have had firmware bugs).

 

As for legislation, I don't see existing systems that comply with current regulations will have to be binned any more than old cars with no cat converters or air bags have faced forced removal from the roads.

 

 

 

[Peter Christy]

I cannot believe that so many apparently intelligent people are buying the disinformation currently being circulated!

 

There is NO WAY that DSM is going to be banned or legislated against in any other way.

 

Why not? Because every single wireless computer network in the world uses a variant of DSM! They do NOT frequency hop! Yes, your wireless router that you have at home, every single one in PC World or Currys does NOT hop. Further, they don't even check for free channels, they rely on YOU the operator to do that, and to allocate one that's empty - just like 35 MHz!

 

If any regulator tried to implement a ban on DSM, the howls of outrage from the computer industry would be heard on Mars!

 

2.4 GHz is not *OUR* band. It is shared. All users of the band are required to operate under the same rules. You cannot have one set of rules for RC gear and another for wireless networks because the two are technically indistinguishable! That's how we got to use it in the first place!

 

It may well be that the initial agreement that allowed JR to have access to Spektrum's technology has run out, and that it has bought them time to design their own system. But this is all to do with corporate politics, and has nothing to do with regulation or technical specs.

 

I have no doubt that a number of firms have been taken aback by the success of the Spektrum system, and embarrassed by the superb backup that Horizon have offered. It has certainly put much bigger names to shame. Those bigger names would no doubt like to see Horizon vanish forever, and will no doubt spread whatever FUD they can to achieve that end.

 

But we are meant to be intelligent people here. So for Heaven's sake THINK!

 

Will the EU make illegal every wireless computer network in the Union? Because unless they do, DSM is perfectly safe!

 

Disclaimer: I don't work for JR, Horizon, Futaba, or Spektrum. My only relationship is as a satisfied customer!

 

--

Pete

 

No matter how much you push the envelope, it'll still be stationery.