Two more FrSky Txs in the pipeline

[Andy Meade]

Very true Matt, they are getting worked up about it. If I'd invested (time wise) in the ecology I'd be maybe more upset, but I want the hardware more than anything else. I'm sure FRSky firmware is going to be more than capable from the off.

Edited By Andy Meade on 28/04/2015 17:40:33

[J V R]

Ugly but in the same breath beautiful

[Andy Meade]

Thanks - not too bad yourself!

[J V R]

...........

[cymaz]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder......damn they look good

[Erfolg]

Is my understanding correct, in that the Horus and all the other Txs at Chicago are intended as higher specification txs, than the Taranis?

If this is so I guess that the Taranis will continue as a base model?

If the Huros will come to the market with a Frsky OS, is it reasonable to assume, a similar development will take place with the Taranis? Although it could be called something else?

Why is it not possible to use a open system OS that is supplied as a predefined template of operating instructions, to provide the functionality that users are currently entering themselves?

As to the styling, I ask myself, why not just a box? I guess you then move on to the notion that the box needs to be comfortable to hold and help in ensuring that it will not be accidently released. Then you would consider where should the gimbals be, location of primary and secondary controls etc. What does such a case look like, I wonder? The problem that many current cases have is that hey are designed with all manner of nooks and crannies which can make cleaning difficult. It seems that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, although I do prefer the idea that less is more of Bauhaus.

[MattyB]

Posted by Erfolg on 28/04/2015 20:04:11:

Is my understanding correct, in that the Horus and all the other Txs at Chicago are intended as higher specification txs, than the Taranis?

If this is so I guess that the Taranis will continue as a base model?

Yes and yes!

Edited By MattyB on 29/04/2015 02:07:46

[MattyB]

Posted by Erfolg on 28/04/2015 20:04:11:

If the Horus will come to the market with a Frsky OS, is it reasonable to assume, a similar development will take place with the Taranis? Although it could be called something else?

Why is it not possible to use a open system OS that is supplied as a predefined template of operating instructions, to provide the functionality that users are currently entering themselves?

Sorry, I dont't understand the second part of your question fully, but the answer to the first part on whether OpenTX will appear on the Horus is "probably but not certainly". The Dev team have to decide they want to do it and spend the necessary time refactoring the GUI etc before it is released; reading the latest post from Kilrah (linked by Frank a few posts above) that sounds like it is 9-12 months away at minimum...

Edited By MattyB on 29/04/2015 02:09:49

Edited By MattyB on 29/04/2015 02:11:02

[Bob Cotsford]

Posted by Erfolg on 28/04/2015 20:04:11:

Why is it not possible to use a open system OS that is supplied as a predefined template of operating instructions, to provide the functionality that users are currently entering themselves?

If you mean setting up a basic model, then OpenTx takes care of the baby steps with a Wizard which will configure common model types for you.

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by Erfolg on 28/04/2015 20:04:11:

Why is it not possible to use a open system OS that is supplied as a predefined template of operating instructions, to provide the functionality that users are currently entering themselves?

I wonder if Erfolg means something like the Multiplex OS in the Royal Pro/Profi where it comes with standard templates (not to be confused with the defined wing type mixers used in other OS systems) which cover all the typical control configurations and mixing requirements, with the ability to create your own custom control assignments and mixers if you require on top of these.

[Erfolg]

I am thinking along the lines of "Visual Basic", that is where many of the functionality of instructions, such as defining an input window with validation criteria established, becomes a simple tool. I know I am going right back in time, but it struck me that many of the routines associated with Fortran, would be repeated by both students and programmers to achieve the same routine, which at best would become a sub routine that the programmer would use. It was logical to make these repetitious routines, available as a tool, as in Visual Basic.

Much of what is required as instructions when setting up a Tx is so routine, why not just have them as tools to be pasted in for primary controls, switches, mixing etc. For many who have no interest in the intellectual challenge of setting up the Tx for each model, would increase the popularity of the Tarnis.

As an outsider, it does seem that Frsky are the first, or one of the first, Chinese companies to start establishing themselves as a brand, as opposed to manufacture of items for sale under other names.

With respect to the Tarnis, is it not possible that this will be sold using the Frsky OS when developed, as an alternative to the open system?

It also seems that FRsky are moving into a sector of the market which they have so far ignored as a "top end brand and specification". It is apparent that the Taranis is occupying the mid range area of the RC market. Which raises another question for me, apart from a higher quality hardware, what do you really tangibly get, that feeds through to control, do you get with a high spec Tx, as mid range Txs seem to do all I could possibly need?

All my comments are based on the premise that the Huros etc, are an extension to the range of products and not a replacement.

It should concern all of us that at present there seems to be no market orientated response by the likes of JR, Futaba, Hitec and Sanwa etc, as it is competition that improves quality and constrains selling prices. It seems that only Spektrum offer anything like a offer that is attractive that is based on both cost and functionality (from a Futaba user), where even this is not quite to the same order.

[Masher]

I think it's worth noting that the Taranis, which I have recently moved over to, can be whatever the user wants - simple or very sophisticated. I got a simple 4 channel model set up in a very short time, there is loads of documentation and videos to help in that. However, if the user wants to add extra levels of control or reporting, it is possible. The point I want to make here is - this is the fun bit - any structure, template or 'resident' firmware procedure would defeat the object - it's 'Open' and the user is totally free to tailor to his/her needs.

Hope this makes sense - keep it open as possible.

I don't know if Taranis is a 'base' model or not and don't mind. All I can say is, it feels very comfortable to use, has every control I could want and the feel at the sticks is excellent.

[Erfolg]

Masher

I do see the attraction of inputting your own functionality. It was this aspect that made programming for mainframes and then early PCs so attractive to many. However, this is by no means a universal attraction to a large slice of any market.

On this contention, I could see that providing an alternative setting format, that is essentially predefined being very attractive to many. It does not seem a giant step, or requiring much investment from Frsky, to provide an adapted OS from the Horus, to widen the appeal of the Taranis, whilst leaving the open system available as on of two options. It is just a thought, no more.

I am waiting for a reaction from all or any of the current big names. Be it a step change in some aspect of functionality/capability, technology, or just a realignment of selling prices.

Edited By Erfolg on 29/04/2015 12:07:34

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by Erfolg on 29/04/2015 12:07:15:

I am waiting for a reaction from all or any of the current big names. Be it a step change in some aspect of functionality/capability, technology, or just a realignment of selling prices.

Edited By Erfolg on 29/04/2015 12:07:34

I think that would need a change in the distribution model too, at the moment you can't buy a Taranis from your LMS only from the guys who import them, it would be like buying a Futaba direct from Ripmax. Also with the Taranis using the Open Tx system eliminated the cost associated with developing their own operating system, but now the Open Tx team (which are enthusiasts working for free) don't have the spare time (or commitment) to support multiple transmitters. Will this see a gradual increase in Frsky pricing as their overhead increases or are wages and taxes so low in China that they will always have an edge, only time will tell.

[Erfolg]

I totally accept the concept and benefits of the free and open system.

Yet for some reason it would appear that Frsky are now developing their own. Which does raise the question of why. This then leads on to another consideration, if you have spent money and time in developing your own OS, minimising unit cost expenditure suggests that all the units shipped would benefit from using the OS developed.

The distribution model is intriguing. I am guessing that the world wide distribution of Frsky products is by small distributors. If this is so, is it a model which they intended continuing? If not, when and why would they look to a large distributor. If on the other hand Frsky find the existing distribution model advantageous, can the big names continue with the present arrangements, particularly if this is a source of the higher selling costs.

I am intrigued how the prototype cases have been produced, as from the photographs they seem to be moulded.

I know that many have commented on the advanced nature of the features available on the Horus, what are they actually. Would I want them, or perhaps better put, what is the profile of the modeller who would really benefit from these features. When compared with the Taranis.

As a Futaba user, a lot of the attraction has been the universal nature and range of products from second tier Rxs, servos etc. If for example loss their dominant position, it could mean the death knell of Futaba and similar brands as a preferred brand.

Edited By Erfolg on 29/04/2015 14:54:05

[Andy Meade]

FrSky are developing their own software this time as the OpenTx guys (who do the development in their spare time) were not free to help. Either a lack of planning or a rush to get to market - either way no manpower was available as it was when the Taranis was in early development, so FrSky have written their own.

Some case parts are moulded, some machined.

As for what it offers over the Taranis, that's probably a bit objective still at the moment. The most interesting thing for me is that it's a decent screen at the top of the Tx (so no longer obscured by the neck strap) and the hardware in the gimbals. The Horus uses an altogether better stick position sensors, along with a much improved gimbal feel.

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by Erfolg on 29/04/2015 14:52:24:

The distribution model is intriguing. I am guessing that the world wide distribution of Frsky products is by small distributors. If this is so, is it a model which they intended continuing? If not, when and why would they look to a large distributor. If on the other hand Frsky find the existing distribution model advantageous, can the big names continue with the present arrangements, particularly if this is a source of the higher selling costs.

Edited By Erfolg on 29/04/2015 14:54:05

There is no small distributor, the sellers get their units direct from Frsky, which is why you don't see the Frsky units stocked by your LMS and only sold by a few "outlets" who all import them. So for Futaba to match Frsky then either the model shops would all have to order direct from Futaba or the "distributor" would have to start selling direct to the public.

[GrahamWh]

Has there been any word on price for the new types?

[Andy48]

Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 29/04/2015 12:34:05:

I think that would need a change in the distribution model too, at the moment you can't buy a Taranis from your LMS only from the guys who import them, it would be like buying a Futaba direct from Ripmax.

I bought my Taranis from my LMS.

[Erfolg]

Of coarse Frank, I am guilty of sloppy terminology, which in this case does matter. It would be better to describe most as import/retail traders. I have suspected for some time that this is probably the pattern for most future successful trader organisations. The existing model being inefficient with such low number of modellers, circa 100, 000 modellers of all hues.

I guess though there is one major issue, that potentially affects Frsky equipment and that is the issue of faulty items, particularly after usage. I assume that there is no repair service. I have come to expect that this is a feature of the past and that your equipment cannot be economically repaired. Although this does not seem to be the case with Spektrum.

With respect to the Frsky equipment, with emphasis with the Huros, has there been any development of the application of Telemetry, particularly at the Tx end of the package?

Being a Futaba user, I am aware of the benefits from a coherent product strategy, which is not apparent with Futaba. Do people see a positive pattern with Frsky?

Edited By Erfolg on 29/04/2015 20:28:06

[Andy48]

My Taranis went down not long after I bought it. I returned it to my LMS who sent it back to T9 Hobbysport. It was returned with a new main circuit board. Yes there is a repair service. You can easily buy several spares on line in the UK such as new screens, any of the switches or the joysticks, or even a new motherboard. The latter is just £35. A replacement trim switch is £2.

As for telemetry, it is already pretty good storing a whole range of parameters back on the transmitter SD card. It is particularly impressive for electric where you can monitor each cell of a battery, monitor current used by the battery and therefore overall consumption. It also monitors all the stick and switch positions, so you can compare throttle position with current. Add the GPS module and you have got position data, height, speed etc. using the impressive speech you can have audible output and warnings of any parameter

There is some new open source telemetry software on the way which will make it even more versatile.

[MattyB]

Posted by Erfolg on 29/04/2015 12:07:15:

I do see the attraction of inputting your own functionality. It was this aspect that made programming for mainframes and then early PCs so attractive to many. However, this is by no means a universal attraction to a large slice of any market.

On this contention, I could see that providing an alternative setting format, that is essentially predefined being very attractive to many. It does not seem a giant step, or requiring much investment from Frsky, to provide an adapted OS from the Horus, to widen the appeal of the Taranis, whilst leaving the open system available as on of two options. It is just a thought, no more.

Edited By Erfolg on 29/04/2015 12:07:34

I suppose that is possible, but given Taranis is successful already with OpenTX at a £140 price point I can't see how the economics would work. To repurpose and maintain the Horus firmware for Taranis would cost money, which would have to be reflected in the sticker price - will people pay £180-250 for a less capable menu driven Taranis? I'm not sure. I suspect FrSky hope that the Horus is cheap enough to tempt those who want a menu driven TX; after all it should still be less than a DX9, and those are not exactly a rarity down the club field.

Edited By MattyB on 30/04/2015 01:44:53

[MattyB]

Posted by Andy Meade on 29/04/2015 15:58:09:

FrSky are developing their own software this time as the OpenTx guys (who do the development in their spare time) were not free to help. Either a lack of planning or a rush to get to market - either way no manpower was available as it was when the Taranis was in early development, so FrSky have written their own.

I don't think this is really correct. FrSky must have invested a lot in the (entirely new) Horus, far more than they did in Taranis. That means they need it to be a more mainstream sales success; they cannot afford to only sell to existing Taranis enthusiasts, they need it to be nicking users from the established brands. 

As a result they have gone with a menu driven, "canned mixer" approach ibecause that is what 95% of their target market already uses. The small number of experimentally minded Spek/Futaba/JR/Hitec users who were interested in a more flexible approach have probably already bought a Taranis, so those that remain are much less open to converting to OpenTX (many I know dismiss the Taranis as "too cheap to be any good", even though they are often reluctantly impressed by what you can do with it). FrSky are simply offering a product aimed at their specific requirements, nothing more. Hardcore OpenTX fans such as myself may be a little disappointed as a result, but this approach does make commercial sense.

Edited By MattyB on 30/04/2015 01:47:06

[Frank Skilbeck]

But doesn't the new X9E cater for the Open Tx guys, wanting improved hardware.

[Erfolg]

I am making a massive assumption, that the Huros and Taranis have by design used essentially the same processor within a similar architecture, where the Huros makes use of aspects of the processor which have not been used on the Tarnis. A big assumption, although some mainstream manufacturers have made use of this approach in the past. The aim is to increase the margin and market spread by increased features and functionality.

There is a  cost of programming, even in the Far East, although the apparent cost is lower when Europe or the USA is used as the bench mark. On that basis, it makes sense to spread the costs incurred across as many radio sets as possible.

Like many of you i have been pondering the box that the Huros and X9E comes in. Again I am guessing, although from the point of some experience of some 40 years back. At that time i designed Injection, Transfer and Compression moulding tools, within a plastic moulding company. We produced mouldings for some of the then consumer product and industrial manufacturing companies. This went form Pifco, Phillips, Hotpoint to the other end of the spectrum, Plessey, Post Office (telecoms) GEC. Mouldings of this type are seldom made in house, as the cost of the machines is so large, that they need to be operating pretty much continuously. We often helped in the design, or even a redesign. In some cases we would use the same tool to produce a range of essentially the same item, by the use of removable and replacement inserts. As opposed to insert carriers for permanent mould inserts such as screwed bushes etc.

I expect the situation is the same with much of the hardware from Gimbals, switches and screens.

On that basis what is Frsky? I would expect them to be product specifiers, in setting the design parameters. I also expect that they are the actual designers of the electronic package,( although not the componentry).

It does seem that they also undertake the physical assembly of electronic package and probably assembly of all the components and product production testing.

On this basis,the packaging is very important both for first impressions and then usage, I can see why they may not be in any great rush to firm up on what is just one aspect of the package. I can see that getting the functionality of the electronics and logic is in the longer term very important. I can also appreciate that the cost of tooling for the case, can either be low cost, if tooling is used over 100,000 of mouldings, or proportionally expensive if just a 1,000 mouldings are produced. Could this be the reasoning behind what appears to be higher cost production methods better suited to smaller batches. That is engine turned pates or polymer sheet decks. Could this give a clue as to how many it is expected to ship?

I can easily understand why Frsky have no apparent presence at the mass end of the market. Just popping into the local department store or large toy shop etc, you are confronted with low cost models of all types, many making use of RC equipment that is just as good as that used by many of us from the 60s to the late 80s, at very low costs for the whole package, rather than 3 months wages in the 70s. This end of the market is just so competitive, the margins on the RC sets alone must be questionable.

I am still tempted by the Taranis, although I seem to prefer to fly and build now, rather than mess with my Tx. There is always the danger that I would become more interested in the programming the Tx, rather than seeing it as a tool. In fact, i want to see more intuitive interfaces, that do not require me to even read a manual. The interface is structured along the lines I think, rather than me having to learn a structure structure and all the nuances.

Edited By Erfolg on 30/04/2015 11:30:26