Whats the difference between FHSS and FASST?

[Ultymate]

Ultymate has read the website, admittedly none too clear, as has already been said by BEB FHSS is a generic term and I suspect each manufacturer will in include their own coding system which apart from some of the orange Chinese clones will render most of the stuff none compatible. Frankly I don't care as I prefer to stick to what I know works.

[Mike Downs]

i DON'T KNOW IF i AM ON THE RIGHT BIT OF THE FORUM FOR AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION...WHICH IS ...MY MODEL IS SET UP ON A FUTABA FF7 2,4ghZ AND I WOULD LIKE TO TEACH MY GRANDSON TO FLY USING A BUDDY LEAD..I HAVE A SPARE TRANNY (FUTABA FF7 AN OLD 35 mHZ SET) CAN I GET HOLD OF A BUDDY LEAD WHICH WOULD WORK BETWEEN THE TWO SETS BEARING IN MINDTHE MAIN ONE I USE IS ON 2.4GIGS AND THE LEARNER WOULD BE ON 35 MEGS

Many thanks

[Tim Mackey]

Shouldnt matter that the trainees one is 35Mhz - it doesnt actually transmit during a buddy session. You just need the correct lead and plugs.

[Tim Mackey]

PS dont shout mate

[Frank Skilbeck]

I think this is a misguided move by Futaba, they want to bring out a cheaper set and have moved to a different protocol to do this. This stops the upgrade path for beginners who bought into futaba. So lets say you bought the new 6 channel futaba Tx and accumulated 3 or 4 FHSS rx's and then decide you wan to move onto more complicated models and would like an 8+ channel set. If you'd have had a FASST 6 channel tx it would be a no brainer, you'd stick with futaba, but now as the Rx's aren't compatible you'd have to invest in new Rx's, so any right minded soul would check out the competition including the companies who don't compete with the entry level sets i.e. Jeti, Multiplex etc

 

Plus is you are already a 6EX FASST user you can't use the new more econimical FHSS Rx's.

[kc]

Buddy lead. If you look in the manual it says you can use any Futaba Tx that has the new rectangular socket for a 2.4 Ghz buddy lead. Dont use any Tx that has the old socket type.

 

Ultymate when you look at the Futaba website and check out transmitters under the FHSS section the further details bit has the WRONG Tx details! It shows a FASST Tx NOT a FHSS Hopelessly misleading not just "none too clear " As I said take a dose of your own medicine!

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Frank, you have a good point. But I suspect we might see an 8-10 channel FHSS (Futaba) Tx before too long as an upgrade path for those that want a "no frills" higher number of channels economy system.

 

As I say I don't know - but it looks to me like Futaba are trying a different commercial model from the others and their idea is to have a complete range of "high end" FASST Tx's and Rx's and a complete range of "clubman" FHSS (Futaba) systems as well as an independent line.

 

BEB

 

PS I use the phrase FHSS (Futaba) because of the point KC makes. I think for the sake of beginners, if lots of manufacturers are going to simply badge their kit "FHSS", then we have to add the manufacturer name - because they wont work "cross platform" even though they are all FHSS!

[ken anderson.]

it'll be interesting to see the review of the new futaba 6 (FHSS-S-FHSS) .....when young ashers gets his hands on a one....

 

ken anderson ne..1

[kc]

The info I gave about Buddy Leads was obtained from the Futaba website and also the 6EX 2.4 manual where it says never connect to a round Din as it will cause your T6EX 2.4 to malfunction.

So the really interesting bit about the above is that the Ripmax catalogue shows a Saturn Trainer lead ( buddy lead ) for the 6 channel Saturn FHSS with a DIN to Square version as an option. So it would seem that this FHSS is OK and wont be damaged while the 6EX 2.4 FASST would be damaged! So what's the reason? Maybe this reveals the difference of FHSS to FASST somehow.

 

Maybe if we continue this thread long enough someone from Ripmax or Futaba will tell us whether all Ripmax FHSS are compatible. Perhaps Mr Ashby has a contact who can answer with authority.......

[Tom Wright 2]

Posted by kc on 26/03/2011 18:08:11:

Ultymate should take a dose of his own medicine and read the Futaba website found by Google . He will see that not only does it fail to answer this question but that it has a very misleading error as I indicated above! We are not arguing the merits of any brand ( well only Ken is ! ) but sorting out compatibility for everyones benefit,

 

The question still to be answered is ..........adverts for Futaba, Saturn and Sanwa all use FHSS in a similar way almost a logo, all in the Ripmax New Item catalogues, but are they compatible? If not why dont they make it clear! (

 

Could we know the brand of the cheap 2.4 sets that Tom found so reliable?

 

Edited By kc on 26/03/2011 18:33:53

Hi KC Sorry been away flying just spotted your question , the cheapy 2.4 set described is a HK -T4A. Receivers are around £10 i think the TX rx combo worked out at about £25 + £12 delivery ,please note these sets are not CE marked but i did contact the OEM Flysky and the said the RF does conform to the OFCOM UK requirements.

I have loads of these RX and one TX often flown at daft heights ,no issues at all ,but please note the lack CE marking may quite rightly mean that some clubs will not allow the use of such equipment .

 

TW2.

.

Edited By tom wright 2 on 28/03/2011 02:17:35

[Tom Wright 2]

Just a foot note to my post above .....there are now quite a few CE marked entry level 2.4 sets appearing on the uk market costing little more than £50 but the ones i have seen are classed as parkfly were as the HK seems to have the max permitted 100mw output.

eg full range ,I do have com screen gear but like to set every model up so it is correctly trimmed ,control throws differentials etc ,so i don't really need all the model memories and computer gizmos.... ,just pick up the tranny and fly , i have seen several models crashed due to the pilot selecting the wrong model programme or not setting it at all, call me old fashioned ,i don't mind ,in fact i think a lot of the modern complex gear can detract from the development of airmanship ,buy top of the range add some gyros some audio telemetry and it will virtually fly its self where's the fun in that? mind you must admit expo can be handy .

 

TW2.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Posted by ken anderson. on 27/03/2011 08:23:41:

it'll be interesting to see the review of the new futaba 6 (FHSS-S-FHSS) .....when young ashers gets his hands on a one....

 

ken anderson ne..1

 

 

LOL, not sure I will Ken, but I speak to Ripmax about your other question.

[ken anderson.]

Posted by David Ashby - RCME Administrator on 28/03/2011 08:10:19:

Posted by ken anderson. on 27/03/2011 08:23:41:

it'll be interesting to see the review of the new futaba 6 (FHSS-S-FHSS) .....when young ashers gets his hands on a one....

 

ken anderson ne..1

 

 

LOL, not sure I will Ken, but I speak to Ripmax about your other question.

good lad david...we have your pledge in writing.......your mission ...the forumites are waiting.........

 

ken anderson ne..1.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Ok, spoke to Ripmax, bright and early...

 

In every respect BEB's summaries at the start were spot on -

 

Futaba FHSS is just a brand name while also revealing the systems modus operandi. It's not compatible with any other system including Futaba FAAST.

 

FAAST is a Rolls Royce system (my terminology) with 5 chips in each Rx while FHSS will be a Ford by comparission - reliable too. A 6-channel RX is anticipated to be £39.99 and a 6-channel park fly RX will be £29.99.

 

Delivery anticipated Mid-May at the moment.

 

It goes without saying that other Txs will be released in due course.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited By David Ashby - RCME Administrator on 28/03/2011 08:53:37

[r6dan]

Don`t get me wrong it is great that they are bringing out slightly lower priced gear for people who just want a basic set and nothing more...BUT they are, in comparison with the likes of the Frsky 8 channel recievers, which I have been using lots lately still more expensive!

[Steve W-O]

Posted by tom wright 2 on 28/03/2011 02:16:47:

Posted by kc on 26/03/2011 18:08:11:

Ultymate should take a dose of his own medicine and read the Futaba website found by Google . He will see that not only does it fail to answer this question but that it has a very misleading error as I indicated above! We are not arguing the merits of any brand ( well only Ken is ! ) but sorting out compatibility for everyones benefit,

 

The question still to be answered is ..........adverts for Futaba, Saturn and Sanwa all use FHSS in a similar way almost a logo, all in the Ripmax New Item catalogues, but are they compatible? If not why dont they make it clear! (

 

Could we know the brand of the cheap 2.4 sets that Tom found so reliable?

 

Edited By kc on 26/03/2011 18:33:53

Hi KC Sorry been away flying just spotted your question , the cheapy 2.4 set described is a HK -T4A. Receivers are around £10 i think the TX rx combo worked out at about £25 + £12 delivery ,please note these sets are not CE marked but i did contact the OEM Flysky and the said the RF does conform to the OFCOM UK requirements.

I have loads of these RX and one TX often flown at daft heights ,no issues at all ,but please note the lack CE marking may quite rightly mean that some clubs will not allow the use of such equipment .

 

TW2.

.

Edited By tom wright 2 on 28/03/2011 02:17:35

 

 

 

I have been using their sets now for nearly 18 months (I had a thread for the TH9X)

 

The n e w p a g e for the TH9XB says they nhave CE and FCC approval, and the modules and the box is marked CE

 

 

I use the ER9X firmware, and I have my doubts that any TX regardless of price could do more.

 

Can confirm the great range, and reliiability, and now with full FHSS I think they are even more amazing value.

 

There were initial questions about quality control, regarding the soldering to the switches and pots, but the new ones I have seen are as well done as any other make

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Just for interest I see that Futaba have updated their website, much improved.

[kc]

 Sorry David that site is correct but if you do a Google search ( as Ultymate suggested ) the Futaba site you get to stll shows that the only FHSS Tx with the details for a FASST system.   see this link and click on the 4YF ( not on the picture of Tx ) and click to see the info.  Totally wrong info!

 

.  If the info David Ashby posted is strictly correct ( Futaba FHSS is not compatible with any other system ) then surely Ripmax should make it clear that the Saturn systems they advertise as FHSS are not compatible with Futaba FHSS. The advert for Saturn stating it is FHSS is just a page or so later than the Futaba advert in a catalogue sent to every BMFA member. Mass confusion is possible!

 

If the Saturn systems are reliable ( and they should be if they are from Ripmax ) then surely we should buy these rather than any non CE marked stuff imported via the back door. Less than 40 pounds for 4 channel and 55 pounds for 6 channel is is very competitive. 20 pounds for a spare Rx is also a fairly good price too. Surely RCME should test these and tell us the results?

I agree that a seperate Tx for each model is preferable to multiple memories which is now the major cause of crashes. ( "wrong model memory " has replaced "interference" as the cry. )

Edited By kc on 28/03/2011 12:02:07

Edited By kc on 28/03/2011 12:06:15

[Ultymate]

Since when does coming from Ripmax have anything to do with quality at the end of the day they are just "middlemen/importers". As for wrong memory selection that's down to a "numpty " on the sticks, I certainly can't afford nor would I want to have a T/X for each model.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

KC, I think you are confusing two things here. You have to appreciate that just because two systems both say they are FHSS it does not mean they are compatable. And, with respect, I think most 2.4 users know that.

 

All 2.4 systems, every single one of them, (Futaba, JR, Spektrum, Saturn, Sanwa, etc. etc.) without exception, are FHSS. Because FHSS is the name of the generic communication protocol they run under.

 

But you cannot assume that any two of these sytems - even from the same manufacturer - are compatable, unless they explicitly say they are.

 

Now you may feel that it is potentially confusing that Futaba have decided to adopt the name of the generic technology "FHSS" as an actual name for one of their systems. But, hey, that's just "life"! It doesn't mean the others are not FHSS, nor does it mean they are compatable! There are FHSS and they are not compatable!

 

2.4 is fundementally different from 35MHz - you simply cannot assume any level of compatability. I don't believe Ripmax are at fault here, they have just assumed that people know that.

 

BEB

 

 

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 28/03/2011 12:32:21

[Steve W-O]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 28/03/2011 12:29:45:

 

 

All 2.4 systems, every single one of them, (Futaba, JR, Spektrum, Saturn, Sanwa, etc. etc.) without exception, are FHSS. Because FHSS is the name of the generic communication protocol they run under.

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe a bit ambitious to call Spektrum FHSS.

 

 

It's really like those boards with different shaped holes that kids push different shape pegs through, they are all holes, but they are not compatibale with all the pegs.

[Tim Mackey]

I am also getting confused here now - as far as I understood things, the original Spektrum sets DSM and DSM1 used DSSS Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum a non hopping system.

FHSS specifically refers to a hopping system ( Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum ) so surely its not quite right to say that ALL 2.4G systems are FHSS.

This appears to be borne out HERE

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Well yes, I see your point Steve. But Spektrum describe DSM as an FHSS system and what we are debating then are the finer points of the interpretation of the FHSS specification.

 

So let's not confuse matters further by going into the debate on just how compliant DSM is with the FHSS protocol. Sufficient for the purposes of this debate that Spektrum intend and claim that it is!

 

BEB

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Tim,

 

If I understand it correctly Specktrum's claim was that DSSS met the FHSS protocol as simply their impletation of the standard. If that was not so then the system would be outside the regulations.

 

As someone who personally never accepted that DSM was complaint and sees DSMX as Specktrum "putting their house in order" before the EU do it for them - just my view! - it might suit me to drive a division. But I honestly believe that for this thread the subtly of that argument is beyond what we are talking about here. I think it is important that we keep it simple for beginners: and the message...

 

all 2.4 is FHSS and none of it is compatable unless the manufacturer actually says so in writting

 

is the straight forward simple message we have to get across first. Then we can debate the "niceities"

 

BEB

[kc]

Sorry BEB, its not me who is confusing things! Its the misleading info we get in catalogues and websites! I am looking at this from the point of view of someone looking to buy RC gear. ( in my case to advise others-- I have a Futaba 2.4 set already )

If you look carefully at the pictures of the Futaba FHSS receivers it has the logo FHSS instead of FASST. Just a couple of pages later in the same catalogue the very same letters appear on Saturn equipment name. . It seems reasonable to assume they should be compatible if they have the same lettering I assume that if you bought a Rx with FASST on it you would expect it to be compatible with a Futaba FASST transmitter? Why is it unreasonable to expect the same if it is marked FHSS? .

But actually you don't know they are not compatible , you are just assuming that because other systems are incompatible these will be too. We don't know thats why I started this discussion. We want a definative answer so we can advise newcomers.

 

I am not just nitpicking, it is important to get the facts right. People have been killed by radio failure as we all know, so its important we dont get an accident due to incompatible RC gear.

 

 

Edited By kc on 28/03/2011 13:21:51