The FrSky revolution - very worried men?

[Simon B]

Taranis is seemingly becoming the transmitter of choice at our club. Yeah, the initial set up involves a small bit of learning, but then so did setting up my DX7 (flaps were a pain in the bum when setting up the latter). Once i'd set up one basic model on the Taranis it was really intuitive setting up other models and now I wouldn't change. Like others have said, it only takes a few people at a club to get them, who can then teach others...

Edited By Simon B on 03/04/2014 12:37:21

[Erfolg]

I must take issue that the early Japanese RC equipment was cheap, and that is the reason that many UK manufacturers fell by the wayside. I do not remember them being cheap, I do remember that they were very reliable when compared to many UK sets, I also remember that their discrimination, with respect to other frequencies was better. That was particularly true of Futaba. Also modern manufacturing techniques were adopted in the construction, not some guy sat at a bench with a soldering iron, or worse still, placed with homeworkers, and it showed right down to the hardware and most importantly reliability.

With respect to the future, I see three issues.

• Capability of the sets
• Tier two alternative supplies.
• Value for money

The easiest to appreciate has been the willingness of Spektrum to licence their technology to other manufacturers. Many of the much derided toys come with Spektrum type equipment. Alternative Rxs are freely available, with commendable reliability, at very attractive prices.

It can be seen that the value for money of Spektrum and Frsky (Tarnis) equipment is exemplary.

The capability of the equipment has been well covered by previous posts.

One manufacturer seems to have lost the plot on all accounts, that is Futaba. Yes that is the set i use, a 8fg and 2* 6ex. Still reliable, but then again all are in this era, including Frsky. But the menu system with Futaba is model dependant, no continuity across the product range. Well behind with respect to telemetry. Costs are high. Then there is multiplicity of actual systems. What a disaster.

Others may not be so far behind Frsky and Spektrum, although they are lagging in many respects. Particularly the value for money aspect.

Will the major manufacturers respond in a positive manner, who knows. What I do know is that now as a member of two clubs, I see ever more Spektrum. Just two other users of Futaba. Personally I have only seen one user of a Tarnis, but this guy also uses Graupner, Multiplex equipment, and flies F3b/j. I have seen not one single new,  JR, Hitec or other system, oh other than a Czech set, again a  competition flier, will this give way to a Tarnis?

Edited By Erfolg on 03/04/2014 15:55:06

Edited By Erfolg on 03/04/2014 15:58:26

[Concorde Speedbird]

In terms of the other transmitter manufacturers- Spektrum's DX6 seems a similar concept, and the others will either do similar or try something different. The Aurora 9 is a very good transmitter apparently (when it isn't accidentally turned off).

In terms of me- I don't have one and am not going to get one! I have one transmitter (DX6i) and I do not need another. Here's what I want from a transmitter. Let's face it, most RC aircraft are 4 channel sports aircraft, most of mine on 4 channel receivers. A 5th is useful if you want petrol and 6 is good for warbirds, so 6 channels is fine for me, any more and there are too many switches. Programming, dual rates is good and end point adjustment useful for throttle on IC aeroplanes but otherwise for me I don't care. I barely use the features on the DX6i, so anything more for me is useless, I do things mechanically on the aircraft. Model memories- I have 10 and need no more, only use 3 at a time at most.

And that's it really, I like things simple! Of course other people will want more which is fine, but I think transmitters are too complicated, we have an old Sanwa 4 channel transmitter which is as basic as you can get, only channel reversing possible, and it is probably my favourite...

CS

[Steve Hargreaves - Moderator]

Well as a lifelong Futaba user I have to say I'm very tempted by the Taranis.....I mainly use FrSky FASST Rxs & have found them pretty bullet proof so FrSky quality is not in doubt.....the ability to set a model up on the PC & download it to the Tx sounds like a great idea & the price.....Cheap as chips for all those features.

Rather than ask why should you change maybe the question should be why wouldn't you change??

Chris has promised a go with his Taranis at Greenacres so I'm going to wait until then.....

[iqon]

Posted by Steve Hargreaves - Moderator on 03/04/2014 21:22:22:

set a model up on the PC & download it to the Tx

think thats the big one for most people

[Erfolg]

I have been pondering CSs view that for many that a 4 channel set, fits the bill.

I do think that that that view was perfectly reasonable in the past. However today, even flying my basic old gliders I make use of the additional functions of the newer radios. Typically on opening the throttle I make use of the mix to feed in some down elevator trim, to keep the model going vertically, rather than going inverted. On models such as the old algebra I use, the channel 6 for the two servo glider wing. Still relying on a switched air brake. If I get round to updating it, I will add inboard flaps, This will allow both reflexing and crow braking. Given that I am a both a dinosaur and a technological numpty, even I already make use of features above the basic 4 channel sets.

It is a similar story with my rebuilt power models.

I will go as far to say that all the newcomers to club number 1, arrive with a basic Spekrum set. Very quickly they upgrade to a higher spec Spektrum.

I can easily see that the Tranis will become both the entry level set, whilst also being the advanced set, all in one. It is the expandable capability which could well be a game changer, particularly at the very keen price. Early days, I agree, I suspect that the Tranis is the way of the future.

[GrahamC]

Of course there is supposedly the FrSky Horus in the pipeline. Looks good but I can't really see what it would offer that I don't have on the Taranis.

The Taranis plus is also supposedly in the pipeline... and there are hints that owners of Taranis will be able to buy the bits to upgrade.... But why would I want 'haptics' [rumbles and vibrations] on a transmitter?

I tend to be a new adopter, but theres a point where I become a Ludite!

[Rich too]

There has always been budget radios - and the big four have survived.

For what is essentially a one-off purchase I do not see that this changes much at all. I certainly wouldn't buy one of those ugly transmitters, i'll stick with my Futaba thank you, and upgrade to Futaba gear when I need to.....

Good to have choice though, it will help keep the prices of the quality gear down!!

 

Rich

Edited By Rich2 on 04/04/2014 12:23:34

[Erfolg]

I am certainly not an "early adopter", not quite a Luddite, not yet. To some extent i may be a typical citizen, initially seeing no need, then having experienced some innovation or feature, become a must have one, if not now, soon.

Having a Futaba 8fg, which is very basic, now, not even the middle market kit it purports to be, I have been taken aback with the features of the latest transmitter by Spektrum.

There is one of the latest in club No.2, which impresses me. Up till now I have been indifferent to Spektrum sets. It has features that so many of us have so derided in the past. It communicates some information, via a synthesised female voice, for instance keeping the flyer informed of the time left on the timer. Not intrusive at all. I understand it has feed back on Lipo voltage, both invaluable for power type electric flyers, taking the need to scan a small screen out of the equation.

I am under the impression that the Taranis does similar things and more at a fraction of the cost.

From what Graham hints at, it seems that Frsky are not resting on their laurels either.

Is Frsky a challenge to the big manufacturers? I believe definatly a yes. Futaba seem to be on the back foot, it will take a lot to put them in the dominant position they enjoyed. Spektrum, seem to be the market leader at present. The rest are playing catch up. JR seem to be in a similar position to Futaba, somewhat confused recent product ranges and developments. Many of the others seem to be also rans, often with niche markets, for specific model types, or chosen because that is what a champion is using.

I am firmly of the opinion that basic sets are even less viable in this era, as argued earlier, quickly confined to the shelf. I have two, not used for years. I imagine I am not alone.

Once we have experienced the capabilities of these sets for our specific needs, we want one. It is here that the Taranis seems to win, allowing specific templates to be down loaded and supplemented or replaced as the users wants and needs develops.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Yep

One of the first questions asked by newbies is what radio ?

answers always 2.4

At £200 it may soon become Taranis 2.4

still a JR 35 MHz man myself, but would I be if I was just starting ?

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I think it would be a very dangerous position for Futaba (or any of the other mainstreams) to dismiss Taranis as "another budget radio system" - that would be a big mistake.

Someone pointed out to me that earlier this week T9 were showing 40+ Taranis in stock. Today, Friday, they are showing just 2. That means T9 alone sold over 38 Taranis transmitters in the last 4 days or so. I very much doubt as many Futabas or JR, or possibly even Spektrums, have been sold in the UK in that period.

BEB

[Martyn K]

I have to say that this is a tough call. I am rapidly approaching retirement age and want to stock up on toys to see me well into retirement. I have been a Futaba user since 1979 (M series) and was planning on buying a Futaba 14SG later this year as a primary transmitter (to give me access to FrSky FASST receivers).

I have also been considering a Taranis, the cost is approximately £220 cheaper than the Futaba. A price difference that cannot be ignored

However, I am not totally 'sold' by the open source concept. Many believe that this provides a future-proof platform. However, from my experience in working in IT this isn't the case. While there is very often a clear development path forward, don't always assume that you will be able to run code produced today on tomorrows transmitters or even code produced tomorrow on today's transmitters. Internal architectures change as technology moves forward and I think you will get far more consistency sticking with major manufacturers - especially those who have custom made chips.

What I think will happen is that the big 4 will integrate some of the open source code into their products. The catch is that with Open Source licensing, manufacturers will have to release how they have integrated the code and also any changes they have made. I think that this will drive prices down and possibly provide more interoperability between systems, especially if the RF code is adopted. The end result is that systems will become more transparent and hopefully we can return to the days where we can interchange components more freely. What you will end up with is transmitters working harmoniously but with different user interfaces - Taranis will probably always be bleeding edge, I suspect that Futaba will remain conservative.

My guess is that Hitec will be the first to jump, followed by Spektrum/JR then Futaba. The high end manufacturers may opt out entirely as they already operate at a significant price premium.

my 2d worth

Martyn

[Erfolg]

Martyn you have manage to get a message across that I tried, and failed.

I think all who have had contact in IT have seen convergence of the capability and methodology of features at the higher user level. Although some have gone out of their way to stand alone, Apple, being obvious, with the view of maximising returns and protecting IP. It has been the likes of systems, products which are targeted at the wider market that succeed, such as Microsoft, who are not totally closed. Even CAD systems have gone the same way, it is the readiness of Autodesk, in both assisting bolt on products, in addition to their own products which have brought them to a prominent position. It is all the users, who through use, make it possible to continue development. It is a tricky balance to achieve, from giving it away for free, to being so guarded that you get left behind.

I certainly agree with your view of being upwardly compatible. I bet we have all been caught with that one, from home users, to large organisations.

One of the big attractions of Futaba for me, was that every body did stuff for their gear, servos, Rxs, leads plugs, what ever you wanted. The Fasst system is an example of an attempt to maximise profits by exclusivity. We saw it early on with Lipo balance leads, all trying to lock you in to their product. It works for a time.

Both Frsky and Spektrum seem wise to how markets can be developed to their advantage, with them being prominent players.

People like Smart, no longer appear to be around, as neither is PDMS (in any meaningful way) or many of the early word processing products. I can almost hear people thinking who the hell were they?

Another way to fail, is not to have intuitive, but quirky interfaces or methodologies, Such as Word Star, much loved by typists due to its quirky use of quick keys, Hated by engineers who wanted to write their own reports.. Or the methodology driven by the processor logic as in the again quirky Reverse Polish Notation used by Sinclair early calculators, who tried to tell all it was logical, and mathematically correct way of doing things.

[Geoff S]

There's a big difference in OS code for our transmitters and that for computers that may have very real vulnerabilities if they are on networks and aren't kept up to date. It won't really matter if later updates won't run on older transmitters because they'll stil work safely as before but won't have some later bell or whistle.

It's true that Apple suffered initially from not allowing clones of their PCs to be sold like IBM did. However they're doing OK now and Microsoft was the main beneficiary of IBM's generosity. However, I don't think any of this relates to model radio systems to anything like the same extent.

My first FrSky radio was in the form of a module plugged into the back of my old Futaba FF7 Super then I made a FrSky module for my Multiplex 3030. It was then I knew I wanted a native FrSky transmitter and so bought a Taranis as soon as I could get hold of one (I then proceeded to blow up a mosfet in the power cct - since repaired - and bought a second ).

Erflog, nothing wrong with Wordstar. I wrote all my early MC6800 assembler on it using a Futuredate development system back in the early 70s. I was a dab hand with all the control keys - just as well as there was no other way to use it in the days before desk top IBM computers. So not all engineers hated it

Geoff

[Concorde Speedbird]

I don't see the need for all the programming features. 6 channels, dual rates and maybe travel adjustment and exponential is all that is needed for 80% of models I think. That is why I like the basic sets, simple to use and not much clutter. Even the DX6i is too complicated for my liking. You always get differences in customer demand, so it isn't like everyone will have a Taranis by tomorrow. They won't. Spektrum have a huge customer base and even though some may get a Taranis the new DX6 will mean they will be fine. Hitec have the ever popular Aurora 9, and the others have similar variants. They won't be worried about someone else's transmitter, they'll be looking at their own profit margins.

Frankly all I care about is that the photons of radio light get from the transmitter to that aeroplane.

CS

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

pretty much speaks for me CSB

how do they compare on price though?

last time I bought one was a JR9x when they first came out

[Geoff S]

Posted by Concorde Speedbird on 04/04/2014 20:15:30:

I don't see the need for all the programming features. 6 channels, dual rates and maybe travel adjustment and exponential is all that is needed for 80% of models I think. That is why I like the basic sets, simple to use and not much clutter. Even the DX6i is too complicated for my liking. You always get differences in customer demand, so it isn't like everyone will have a Taranis by tomorrow. They won't. Spektrum have a huge customer base and even though some may get a Taranis the new DX6 will mean they will be fine. Hitec have the ever popular Aurora 9, and the others have similar variants. They won't be worried about someone else's transmitter, they'll be looking at their own profit margins.

Frankly all I care about is that the photons of radio light get from the transmitter to that aeroplane.

CS

Perhaps not but if you want to convert from 35Mhz to 2.4gHz then Frsky is aguably the least expensive way to go. I still have a few models on 35Mhz but I'm always a bit wary in case someoen switches on and transmits on channel 67. There are almost zero people on 35Mhz at my club and it concerns me that frequency discipline may lapse because of that.

The bare transmitter is £140 and includes a neck strap, a charger and a good aluminium carrying case. The receivers are very inexpensive. Last week I bought a 4 channel receiver with a guaranteed 1km range (£13.14) and an 8 channel one with telemetry (feeds back received signal strength and receiver battery voltage automatically to my transmitter) for £22.19. That's cheaper than any of the cheap 35 Mhz receivers I bought a few years ago and a lot cheaper than the high quality Mux IPD receivers I've been using.

The added programming is a bonus that you don't need to use. Plus, you can still use a Taranis to fly your Spektrum based models and, with a suitable JR compatible module, any others. I bought a DX6i last year in an attempt to master the vagaries of an MSRx flybar less micro helicopter and for other Bind 'n' Fly models. I've already sold it as unnecessary. I quite liked it but not as much as the FrSky.

Geoff

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

That all sounds good Geoff

Assuming one will be as reliable as my 9x.... 100%

how do's it feel in your hands, what are the sticks like?

to me that's an important feature, if it didn't match 9x I would be reluctant to change.

[fly-navy]

So what do I do ???

Having so many flying models and seeing the price to fully convert to 2.4 I went on the recommendation of a mate who flies big stuff and purchased the FrSky module to plug into the back of my FF9 with a few 8 channel rx. Bought more rx until 90% of flying models are on 2.4, been absolutely bullet proof as a system so far.

Do I need to change or get the FrSky Tx.

[Concorde Speedbird]

We still use 35MHz which is working fine (for some reason we have had no problems whatsoever since 2.4 came along!). I don't want telemetry, I'm looking at the aeroplane and it isn't something I would want. With a transmitter I am not interested in price, I want it to be good and I've found that quality pays with planes, engines etc. Good thing about my simple needs is that it doesn't cost as much!

One thing I really want is manual trims, I much prefer them to digital ones!

CS

[Erfolg]

Geof

The points I am struggling to make are not exact comparisons, it is all about principles.

The multiplicity of menu structures as Futaba has across it range, is not good. Look at Microsoft where even modest changes to structures receive adverse comment, yet the general look and feel are retained. Then look at Futaba (because that is the set I have experience with) and you find the menu structures and accessing methods are vastly different across the range. This is not good from the users perspective. I suspect the differences are micro processor related.

I have had experience of CAD systems where the tree structures were so clunky, that expertise was in navigating the structure, not in using the commands effectively. Such levels of clunkyness are not good, from the perspective of a customer, who puts is hand in his pocket to pay hard earned cash, for something that is not intuitive or easy to use.

With the passage of time I expect a degree of uniformity to emerge, such that is experienced with the cars basic controls, or is found with your TV stick.

I personally think there is a long way to go with Tx interfaces. Though the open nature as described, seems to provide a vehicle which is flexible enough to be configured to any emerging structural arrangements. Then again, perhaps not. As I have no experience and I am relying on my interpretation on what I read.

BEBs question related to will the major players today be the same tomorrow. My guess is no, from the perspective of a Futaba user, I think they have lost the plot, on many issues.

[Geoff S]

Posted by john stones 1 on 04/04/2014 22:08:13:

That all sounds good Geoff

Assuming one will be as reliable as my 9x.... 100%

how do's it feel in your hands, what are the sticks like?

to me that's an important feature, if it didn't match 9x I would be reluctant to change.

Obviously reliability statistics can only come with time and a large user base but the general experience seems to be all good. The standard of workmanship inside is excellent.

My previous main transmitter was a Multiplex 3030 which I loved. It did all that I needed and I found it very easy to set up. One important feature I needed was a throttle inhibit switch for electric model safety and that was easy to do. In fact my only concern with the Taranis is the cramped layout but that's a feature of all transmitters except some very expensive European ones and my 3030.

The Taranis feels great. It has ball bearing joysticks and all the toggle switches are positive. The side sliders let it down but there's a fix for that. I use it with a tray because I can't move my fingers independently very easily because of a relatively minot high spinal injury. (in fact if it wasn't for the injury I wouldn't be aeromodelling I'd be sailing ).

I wanted to move to 2.4 gHz radio and FrSky seems to be the obvious move. It was a very old Futaba FF7 I tried first with Frsky module which had some very irritating programming limitations - like having to choose between aileron differential or flaperons. I had reservations about Spektrum DSM2 though I think DSMx is better.

Geoff

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Thanks Geoff

Time for some reading I think, birthday soon

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Erfolg on 04/04/2014 22:52:22:

from the perspective of a Futaba user, I think they have lost the plot, on many issues.

I agree with you Erf. I've always used Futaba and stuck up for them. Their stuff is excellent quality - I don't remember a single radio problem in 6 years of using Futaba 2.4, or any beyond glitching with Futaba 35Mhz. And that is quite an achievement. In my experience FASST is absolutely bullet proof.

But look at Futaba's recent history.

First they were caught seriously on the back foot by the opening of the 2.4GHz frequencies. Which was pure negligence on their behalf because they had been using and developing spread spectrum technology in industrial and military applications. So not to see the potential in the hobby market was daft. That was mistake number one.

That was compounded by the fact that when Spektrum came along Futaba were incredibly arrogant and dismissive of it. Basically they seemed to view Spekky as a "cheap gimmick" - and so left the market wide open for Spektrum to become fully established. Mistake number two.

Then when they did come into 2.4 it was with a very high end, hi-spec, system, FASST, that they would simply never be able to manufacture down to the price to make entry level kit. So what was their solution? For a while it seems to be "ah well we don't really want the low end market anyway". But if beginners don't buy your basic kit to start with what incentive is there for them to trade up to your higher level stuff? None, they'll stick with the brand they have come to know. The third mistake.

Then they woke up - "oh we need a low end 2.4 system" so they bring out FHSS - that misses the point completely because it doesn't talk to FASST! Which genius thought of that? So now they are supporting two incompatible 2.4 protocols. Mistake number four.

Eventually they do add high end Tx's that can work with FHSS and FASST. But with only limited telemetry and they are 1/3rd more expensive than the competitor from Spektrum which has a much higher spec - God give me strength!

Add into that the fact that yes they support clever things like Sbus - but that their Sbus kit costs an arm and a leg, no one seems to have a clue about sensors and the fact that we are paying through the nose for all this and you begin to wonder, as I did, why am I continuing to support this hapless crew?

Someone in Futaba needs to be asking some very difficult questions. But I suspect it is too late. I think their whole culture is wrong now - they appear to have completely lost the appetite for technical innovation. They have corporately forgotten how to do it. I believe the only thing that can save Futaba now would be "lock-stock and barrel" take-over by someone else that would completely reform the company - starting at the top. And, sadly, I very much doubt that is going to happen. Japanese industry overall is in decline - and its probably irreversible. How long before most viable Japanese industry is actually owned by Chinese capital?

I take no pleasure in expressing these views. I've always been a "Futaba man" - but there comes a point when you just have to accept that, as you say Erf, they've lost the plot.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 05/04/2014 00:15:35

[Rob Jones 2]

Futaba won't go to the wall. In the same way that prestige marque cars have survived. It's an aspirational radio set. I bought a 7c set a couple of years ago mainly because I couldn't afford futaba 30 years ago. Plus of course their reputation rests on utter reliability.