The FrSky revolution - very worried men?

[Simon Chambers]

Interesting thread - a few inaccuracies that people have said, but still interesting. I've been away from the different RC forums a bit and coming back it doesn't surprise me how popular the Taranis has become.

One quick point, the plastic moulding tools were originally from the flop that was the KST T810 Transmitter: KST T810

Some of the tooling was modified by FrSky to suit some of the extra features, but these were only minor alterations to the tooling block.

Si.

Edited By Simon Chambers on 07/04/2014 14:27:55

[Simon Chambers]

Also FrSky would have never been able to sell it at this price point if they had to develop the software themselves from scratch. The open source software is what allowed FrSky to leapfrog into the Tx market, with little development effort (and cost) themselves. In fact FrSky really only provide the hardware, the magic and the vast majority of development effort in any modern electronic device is in the software.

Si.

[Chris Bott - Moderator]

Absolutely Simon, FrSky have been very cute indeed to adopt the open source software. That is the whole point.

The beauty of Taranis is just that, it looks like the software will continue to be developed, by users for users, with no corporate forces holding features back for higher end devices.

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by Chris Bott - Moderator on 07/04/2014 15:06:07:

Absolutely Simon, FrSky have been very cute indeed to adopt the open source software. That is the whole point.

The beauty of Taranis is just that, it looks like the software will continue to be developed, by users for users, with no corporate forces holding features back for higher end devices.

And at no cost to the manufacturer or the end user, so it's a win win situation as long as the Open tx programmers are happy with this,

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Well Rich you have made much of this issue of "need" - so I'd like to drill down on this question a bit and examine it carefully.

First of all I think we have to face the basic fact that in the strict definition of the term "need" we don't actually need any of this - we don't need a transmitter at all, or a model aeroplane; its a hobby. So I could argue that the term "need" is actually irrelevant to any decision we make in this context.

But I won't do that. Instead let's have a special meaning for "need" in terms of a hobby. I propose that a working definition might be; you need something if it will, at a reasonable cost, significantly enhance your enjoyment of the hobby. Fair enough?

There is a small problem with that definition though, "enjoyment" is an experience specific to the individual. What I enjoy about aeromodelling probably isn't the same as what you enjoy. And of course that's fine, that's part of the rich texture that is aeromodelling, it offers different avenues for different folks and they are all equally valid.

Consider the modeller that only buys ARTF's, sticks a few servo's in and goes down to his local club on a Saturday to fly his model. Should I criticise him because its "only an ARTF" and there are hundreds of others identical to it? Of course not. Should I draw the conclusion that he flies ARTF's because he lacks the skill and technical knowledge to build his own models? Certainly not. There could be many other reasons why he flies ARTF's. Maybe he has a demanding job or a high level of family responsibilities so he doesn't have time to build. Perhaps he lives in a flat and doesn't have access to the facilities he'd need to build the sort of models he wants to fly.

Or consider the modeller who only flies small Depron models. Should I label him as not an accomplished enough flier to fly a "real model" of a "proper" size? Clearly not. The same guy may well design all those models himself and be a very accomplished modeller who enjoys the challenges that the material and size presents to him as well as the issues involved in trimming and flying such models well.

The point is that while we are united under the single banner "aeromodellers", the fact is that we are all very different. And so our perception of what we "need" (using the hobby based definition above) is also different.

For some figuring out the technical "cutting edge" in our hobby is a part of their interest and enjoyment. These modellers enjoy the technical challenge of making complex models operate better. And bear in mind - complex doesn't necessarily equate with expensive. I'll give you two examples:

1. I have a Phoenix 2m powered glider. It costs approximately £55 from HK. At present I'm converting it over to Taranis, cribbing a set-up originally kindly provided by Chris. The set-up uses 10 channels! (so far). Its a foamy glider! But its fun (for me) to have 3 flight modes, positive elevator trim and flapperons during climb, adjustable camber in the glide and crow braking for landing. Do I "need" these things? Well we have established that I don't "need" a P2000 at all - but if I'm going to have one and it gives me enjoyment to fiddle around with and fly it with "bells and whistles" then why shouldn't I? And I can do that a lot easier with a Taranis than with my old Futaba system. And the real fun is: I could go even further with snap-flaps and all sorts of things. That's a part of my enjoyment of the hobby, that's why, as far as I "need" anything in model flying, I need a Taranis - it enhances my ability to indulge my taste for technical complexity.

2, As you may know I'm in the middle of building a TN Typhoon. I want my Typhoon t drop bombs. Now this will result in it having a 5 servo wing. Mmm - complicated. I have worked out, and implemented, a method of conveniently connecting all these servos back to the fuselage at the field via a sub-D connector. Remember, I fly my models, they are most definitely not "hangar queens", so I need a practical solution that will work well every Saturday morning. But Taranis offers me an even better solution than the one I have implemented - one that involves just a single servo lead connection! So again, because part of the pleasure in the hobby for me is having my Typhoon drop bombs - cool I think! - a transmitter that lets me set that up in a simple reliable way is a "need" for me.

Of course your needs will be different - and that's just fine! You should pursue those aspects that appeal to you. It would be quite wrong for me to apply my criteria to your modelling. But equally it's wrong for you to apply your criteria to my modelling! Just because you don't see a need it is, in my opinion, quite unfair for you to claim that others don't "need" those things. It is an even bigger error, and something of a discourtesy in my opinion, to go on from there and "write off" their purchasing decisions as being just "following fashion".

"There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy" (my emphasis)

That might be a good motto for every aeromodeller to adopt and might help us understand that this wonderful hobby really is "all things to all men". Long may it remain so and equally long may we not be judgemental about the way other modellers enjoy their hobby.

BEB

PS Latest FASST Rx now at £41 on eBay - that's another 16 channel receiver, a current sensor and change in my pocket!

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Or you could try the concise version...I want one

p.s. I want one

[Rich too]

Posted by Chris Bott - Moderator on 07/04/2014 15:06:07:

Absolutely Simon, FrSky have been very cute indeed to adopt the open source software. That is the whole point.

The beauty of Taranis is just that, it looks like the software will continue to be developed, by users for users, with no corporate forces holding features back for higher end devices.

I know very little (nothing!) about this concept, however from a quick Google I did come across an article that mentioned the "cost" of this type of software. We all know that nothing is for free, so the big question is, who does pay for it?

Rich

[Rich too]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 07/04/2014 16:48:03:

Well Rich you have made much of this issue of "need" - so I'd like to drill down on this question a bit and examine it carefully.

First of all I think we have to face the basic fact that in the strict definition of the term "need" we don't actually need any of this - we don't need a transmitter at all, or a model aeroplane; its a hobby. So I could argue that the term "need" is actually irrelevant to any decision we make in this context.

No, we can agree that is not relevant, and would be quite flippant!

Rich

[Rich too]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 07/04/2014 16:48:03:

But I won't do that. Instead let's have a special meaning for "need" in terms of a hobby. I propose that a working definition might be; you need something if it will, at a reasonable cost, significantly enhance your enjoyment of the hobby. Fair enough?

Yep, that's fair enough. Maybe I am making my point badly. But in the context of this thread if that is the definition, price is irrelevant - imho. The fact that the price is so low just means that many modellers have been able to make the move who otherwise would not.

Ignoring the Taranis for a moment. Let's say you go and buy a tx, but you go for the £250 model because you do need the bells and whistles on the £500 model (if you did you would have spent the extra?). Then a new tx comes on to the market and has all the bells and whistles for £250 - now you sell yours and buy the new one...

I would express need in the context of my own circumstances, I don't need it, but telemetry would be useful - I am not about  to jump ship for it!

 

Rich

 

 

 

Edited By Rich2 on 07/04/2014 18:14:25

[Rich too]

Posted by Danny Fenton on 07/04/2014 12:44:33:

Rich I think it depends on the type of model you fly and in what circumstances you are flying. Some of my scale models, especially the warbirds can consume power at an alarming rate under certain situations. As you will know with scale weight is a constant enemy and the last thing I am going to do is carry dead weight around in the form of unused cell capacity. Telem is a must in that environment if dead sticks are to be TOTALLY avoided. The thought of one of my scale models going deadstick with no where to go is a constant fear and you cannot relax on the sticks at all. As soon as the wheels are tucked up your brain is thinking "how long" Now my caller (Usually Chris, thx mate ) tells me how much is in the tank, and I can actually relax and really enjoy the flight. The cells I use are often A123 they do not sag towards the end and you cannot tell they are about to give up their last milliamp. I will say however my hack wot4 has nothing other than signal and Rx voltage, so if thats all you fly then perhaps you don't need it.

I was possibly one of the early adopters and have been able to monitor my battery capacity since Jeti first started providing the facility in 2009

The knowledge has transformed my flying, is it a must? Possibly not, does it make my flying of the more treasured scale models more pleasurable, you bet it does

That's fair enough Danny.

Rich

[Simon Chambers]

It's simple really...

Those with the most toys, win.

If I had to justify every purchase on my hobby for a proper reason, I'd have no time for the hobby!

[Rich too]

Posted by Rich2 on 07/04/2014 12:05:03:

Posted by Ben B on 05/04/2014 21:20:13:

 

The Taranis is amazing value but is it only me that thinks its flipping ugly and looks as cheap as it is? Not saying we should all be sporting r/c jewellery but they could have attempted to make it aesthetically inoffensive!

I mentioned that in my first post!

Rich

ps take a look at the cracking new Futaba 10J, what a bit of kit!

Edited By Rich2 on 07/04/2014 12:17:26

Forget that, it doesn't support FASST haha! Perhaps i'll put the 14SG (at least it looks like it cost £375!!) on my wish list instead!

What were Futaba thinking?

Rich

Edited By Rich2 on 07/04/2014 20:12:15

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I can't see your point Rich about price being immaterial because of that definition of need. We have agreed that the need is not absolute - it is in reality a desire not a need. If it was an absolute need - then yes then price doesn't matter - because you have to have it. But as its only a relative need - then the price becomes an important factor in deciding if you will "scratch that itch". I know for sure that if the Taranis cost £1,000 I simply would not buy it, despite its undoubted capabilities. So the balance between price and capability does matter - at least for me.

As I see it its very simple. If you say "The bottom line is I want a Futaba whatever its capabilities and price compared to others"; then of course that's fine - its what you want - its your money, your hobby and your choice. Fine. But my point in the OP is that I believe you will be in a shrinking minority in making that decision. If we take the 10J as an example, its twice the price for less than half the capability of the Taranis. I just can't see most Futaba users continuing to back that particular horse. And that's one of the reasons why I'm doubtful about Futaba's long term viability unless they make some very radical changes.

BEB

[Rich too]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 07/04/2014 20:37:50:

I can't see your point Rich about price being immaterial because of that definition of need. We have agreed that the need is not absolute - it is in reality a desire not a need. If it was an absolute need - then yes then price doesn't matter - because you have to have it. But as its only a relative need - then the price becomes an important factor in deciding if you will "scratch that itch". I know for sure that if the Taranis cost £1,000 I simply would not buy it, despite its undoubted capabilities. So the balance between price and capability does matter - at least for me.

As I see it its very simple. If you say "The bottom line is I want a Futaba whatever its capabilities and price compared to others"; then of course that's fine - its what you want - its your money, your hobby and your choice. Fine. But my point in the OP is that I believe you will be in a shrinking minority in making that decision. If we take the 10J as an example, its twice the price for less than half the capability of the Taranis. I just can't see most Futaba users continuing to back that particular horse. And that's one of the reasons why I'm doubtful about Futaba's long term viability unless they make some very radical changes.

BEB

Let's just agree to disagree! Going back to one of your early points regarding stock levels of the Taranis, I have just been on the HK website and a number of "expensive" Futaba tx's are on back order- including the lovely 14SG, so I don't think we'll see the demise of Futaba just yet

One thing is for sure, the hobby is very much alive and kicking.

Rich

[Simon Chambers]

To use a common analogy, an Android based phone is open source, substantially cheaper, has more features, more flexibility than a iPhone. Yet iPhone still sells very well...

I don't think Futaba will be dead any time soon. Also don't forget that unlike other manufacturers (JR, Graupner/SJ Propo, Hitec, etc, etc), Futaba is only a subdivision of a large company. Even though Futaba is well known for its RC division, it also has a large but less known section that makes OLED and VFD displays. Chances are, if you see a OLED or VFD (a glowing screen, the same technology as the old green glowing displays on VCRs) - especially in cars, it's probably from Futaba!

Si.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Like Danny, I was an early convert to telemetry, buying in to Jeti almost as soon as Puffin started selling it in this country. I made that decision when I was moving to 2.4 GHz based on the (to me) apparent benefits of telemetry, relatively good price of their receivers (compared to Futaba) and reputation of their existing products. In those early days, my radio was Futaba and I used a transmitter module in it.

When Jeti released their DS-16 hand held version, my reservations over cost were such that I managed to resist for well over 6 months but eventually I managed to convince myself that an integrated transmitter with no external module connections would be a step forward and as I had invested heavily in receivers, I absolutely "needed" to have a DS-16. It's a wonderful bit of kit, literally hewn from solid magnesium aluminium alloy but in terms of price, I've never - and would never - attempt to justify the purchase.

It was probably a once in a lifetime buy which I hope continues to give me reliable and capable service for many tears to come - and with the added benefit that every time I open the transmitter case the visual quality gives me a "wow".

However, getting to the point, without that earlier investment in Jeti, would I have bought my functional male jewellery over something which has similar capabilities albeit packaged in a rather gaudy and flashy plastic box?

And there's the catch as far as many established manufacturers are concerned - even Jeti, although they may be taking a step in the right direction with the cheaper DS-14 which is in the process of being released. They seem to ignore that early "buy in" commitment that budget equipment can provide.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Martin Harris on 07/04/2014 21:49:40:

It was probably a once in a lifetime buy which I hope continues to give me reliable and capable service for many tears to come -

Somehow I don't think you quite meant that Martin, . On the other hand given the price of the DS16,...

BEB

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Whoops - the T and Y must be too close together on my keyboard! Either that or I have a Freudian keyboard...

[Rich too]

Posted by Martin Harris on 07/04/2014 21:49:40:

And there's the catch as far as many established manufacturers are concerned - even Jeti, although they may be taking a step in the right direction with the cheaper DS-14 which is in the process of being released. They seem to ignore that early "buy in" commitment that budget equipment can provide.

It has always been that way so I do not see that as a problem, and it is not unique to transmitters - most product lines are similar in that way - people are always prepared to pay a premium for the top end.

I must admit Jeti had passed me by until now, perhaps that is the eye watering price! But people buy them. Are they suddenly going to stop because of the Taranis - I doubt it.

Rich

[Rich too]

Posted by Rich2 on 07/04/2014 17:55:55:

Posted by Chris Bott - Moderator on 07/04/2014 15:06:07:

Absolutely Simon, FrSky have been very cute indeed to adopt the open source software. That is the whole point.

The beauty of Taranis is just that, it looks like the software will continue to be developed, by users for users, with no corporate forces holding features back for higher end devices.

I know very little (nothing!) about this concept, however from a quick Google I did come across an article that mentioned the "cost" of this type of software. We all know that nothing is for free, so the big question is, who does pay for it?

Rich

No thoughts on this? Quite a relevant part of the equation, who pays?

Rich

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Rich2 on 08/04/2014 11:53:56:

Posted by Martin Harris on 07/04/2014 21:49:40:

And there's the catch as far as many established manufacturers are concerned - even Jeti, although they may be taking a step in the right direction with the cheaper DS-14 which is in the process of being released. They seem to ignore that early "buy in" commitment that budget equipment can provide.

It has always been that way so I do not see that as a problem, and it is not unique to transmitters - most product lines are similar in that way - people are always prepared to pay a premium for the top end.

Rich

Thing is, in the past, makers such as Futaba marketed entry level sets which were compatible with their range of equipment, beginners were recommended such products and brand loyalty started at that point. Many buyers of entry level products would then go on to the middle range or even high end sets as they established themselves within the hobby.

I don't think there is any coincidence that the market for British motorcycles went into steep decline after manufacturers started concentrating on bigger bikes with larger profit margins - the Japanese got learners hooked into their products with exciting looking and (it has to be admitted) more reliable products and the traditional market died as most newcomers bought their next bikes from the same maker that they'd come to know. I could never understand the logic behind not developing the Bandit/Fury range as a 250* instead of (or as well as) a 350 - could that have saved BSA/Triumph from their early demise perhaps?

*The learner limit was 250cc at that time, for the benefit of younger forumites...

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

No idea Rich

I.T. and retail industry is not my strongpoint.

Questions I ask myself is will other brands start and produce this stuff.

And more important, will it drive prices down ?

Will the way we buy brands we have always used change ?

We are not a captive audience any more, more choice and better prices are being offered

something going to change , question to me is what ?

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

No one "pays" for open source Tx software. The model basically is that for many professional software engineers writing software as a job came out of a adolescence doing it for fun. These guys like writing software, its their hobby. Some of them also like R/C. So basically a bunch of them got together on the internet and said "Well if we were to design a firmware for an R/C transmitter, from the ground up, no heritage issues, what would it be like. And so OpenTx was borne. There's a bit more to it than that, but that's more or less what happened.

So, its software written by amatuers? Not at all, the "day job" of many of these guys might be writing software for missle systems, chemical plant, games etc. etc. But this is what they do in their "time off"!

Users are asked for a donation - and I would urge users of both OpenTx and Companion9X to seriously consider chucking a couple bob in as a "thank you" to people who gave us such excellent tools for free. But donating is entirely at the users discretion - you don't have to. Money from donations is used to help support the costs of servers etc for the development and distribution of OpenTx.

This is what was meant when I and others say the conventional companies simply can't compete wit this. How many software engineers do you think Spektrum or Futaba have? I'd be very surprised if its more than five. The expanded OpenTx team numbers hundreds and they're all working for nothing!

Now latest developments say that FrSky have reached an arrangement with the people leading OpenTx that some money will flow back from Taranis to the development effort. So the financial model is developing. I can see a day - not far away - where companies will basically pay a small royalty or licence fee for each installation of OpenTx. But even if that happens, as long as OpenTx remains independent of any particular Tx manufacturer, I believe we will continue to get technical development based on what we want and what is possible rather than what the commercial tx companies choose to drip feed us to keep their sales up.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 08/04/2014 13:14:19

[Simon Chambers]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 08/04/2014 12:52:00:

Now latest developments say that FrSky have reached an arrangement with the people leading OpenTx that some money will flow back from Taranis to the development effort. So the financial model is developing.

Which is in FrSky interest to do, as paying the developers guarantees that they will continue developing and supporting the Taranis and any future FrSky transmitter.

In contrast, as HobbyKing don't pay anything to the main developers for any development on the 9X, new features and support on that has dried up in comparison.

Si.

[Martyn K]

Open source was founded on the back of a volunteer workforce. In computer terms, the software is usually available free of charge and the "community" assists the user to install, run and support this. The user has a responsibility to feed back their experience with the software. Open Source software is widely used, the most famous of these, Linux is used extensively by NASA, many corporate and Government organisations. Brand owners (such as RedHat) package the software into collections and generally give the software away. They make money be selling a single point of contact for product support. In return for this, they provide information and patches back into the development community

In R/C terms, Manufacturers (in this case FrSky) have taken the community efforts and turned it into a product that someone will buy. This is a very different model, the software has been wrapped by the hardware, the software cannot be lifted and placed (easily) on a different platform and I have to be honest that I do not understand the relationship between FrSky and the development community. I suspect that the development community will actually be quite pleased that their offerings have been turned into a commercial venture, but I am unsure just what FrSky's legal and contractual position is. For example, if there is a software glitch and someone gets hurt who will be ultimately held responsible?

I am not trying to be negative, I use FrSKy stuff and I have been very pleased with it, I am just trying to answer the question asked.. I also think that Open Source will drive the cost of ownership down whether all the current manufacturers survive is another question..

Martyn