gangster Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 It is future compatibility of receivers that concerns me. As a user we should neither need to know or care whether our kit uses FAAST, FHSS ,DSMX, ACCST or P F M (if you don't know about PFM don't ask!) All work as well and do what we want them to do. As already stated even if etsi rules change grandfather rights will allow us to use what we have got. What however happens 5 years down the line when we want a new receiver? My concern is that there will be issues of "semi comparability " where one of the protocols is tweaked, is supposedly backward comparable yet not quite causing unexplained failures We have already read on these pages where specs appear to have been tightened making 3rd party receivers potentially incompatible with newer TXs and wasn't there an issue where when the DX8 first came out it could potentially have difficulties working to some early dsm2 receivers. Radio kit of all makes is so reliable for little cost but I do fear protocol tweaks could give problems further down the line. Maybe I should just lay in large stocks of s fhss and dsmx receivers to cover my requirements for the life of my transmitters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONZO Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 gangster " ....for the life of my transmitters...." That could be decades. I still have my Futaba DigiMax 4 from the mid 70's although its got different internals now. But, I still have my Futaba 5L from the early eighties now modded with a SC encoder as well as the original working a 'hack' FrSky module. Plus, Futaba FF8, FF9, FF9 Super(2off) all of which are used and have never given any problems. Along with the more current Futaba 12FG and Taranis. I've doubled up on FASST modules and am considering my holding of recievers. Being in my late 60's I do not forsee ever having the need to buy anything in the future as I've never even used the full capabilities of the FF8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Skilbeck Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Posted by GONZO on 14/12/2014 11:09:26: Frank S FASST duty cycle 25% new regs limit 10% thus does not conform. Above 10mW transmitted power must LBT. As FHSS is 100mW, as are all EU RC Tx, then must LBT and is not currently complient. The way I'd read it that there was no limit on the power (but if the RF output power is less than 10dBm then you don't need to comply) but was a function of power and duty cycle, i.e. Medium Utilisation = (P mW/100mW) x Duty Cycle%, and this had to be less than 10% so if you transmitted at 100mW then the max duty cycle was 10%, but if you transmitted at 50mW then duty cycle could be 20%. But maybe we need a new thread to discuss the new regs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangster Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Ah Gonzo totally agree with everything you say about the older gear in the past I have kept my transmitters for about 15 years. I have however tended to sell the older ones as I have replaced them. I have never had any brand loyalty and still do not believe any one make is better than any other. My old Skyleader was replaced in the late eighties with Hitec prism x which was in my opinion better quality than the gear it appeared to clone I never had a moments trouble with it and the only reason I sold it was due to getting 2.4 gear. My 1979 Sanwa was replaced in the mid 90s with Jr 378 again It was a case of that looked and felt right and I still love it although I have not flown the glow models it controls in two years . I have Futaba Spectrum and an FR Sky modified Graupner/JR all on 2.4 but I cannot say how they will last or what the future will bring I do however know that with receivers being as cheap as they are these days I anticipate probably not pulling them out of one model and putting them into another so can anticipate wanting to buy more over the next decade. Hence the point of the post. I do however still have one of my earlier transmitters, probably the most flexible and sophisticated transmitters of its time. The R C M&E 8 channel FM with all the bell and whistle boards. Still working fully charged with good battery's charged up and regularly used into the late 90s . Only thing stopping me using it at the moment is the sticks are quite worn and the centring is not great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Stevenson Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 With all this confusion perhaps I should still fly with my Futaba FF7 on 35mHz for another year? Was thinking about2.4 but never had a problem with 35meg, Perhaps 2.4 will get sorted out someday? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Pearse Posted December 14, 2014 Author Share Posted December 14, 2014 I didn't realise the debate this question would spark!Can I return to one thing. ..does a FASST Tx - ie Futaba - with a non Futaba Rx mean that the overall system is not properly operating in FASST mode and thus does not have the specific FASST reliability benefit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 I think the only thing you can say with any confidence is that a Futaba FASST receiver should work correctly - any other make might... Edited By Martin Harris on 14/12/2014 23:13:06 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon burch Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 If transmitting in Faast, the receiver has to be a compatible Faast rx otherwise it will not work. On my 18mz you have the option of Fasst, FHSS and Faastest. You can not mix them up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangster Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Will Yes it will probably still be working in Faast mode However I am not convinced that faast has in reality for what we use it for any specific realiabity benefit over other modes. Assuming it has though you may be compromising that benefit by using other makes of receiver with the Futaba transmitter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cymaz Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 That's it, I need more FrSky Rx's in my stock before they all disappear. With 2.4 becoming ever more busy it looks like I'm glad I kept my 35mhz Futaba. So, with a futaba Ff9 and a tm8 module and Frsky Rxs could I update via a down load , should I need to, in the future? Edited By cymaz on 15/12/2014 06:40:49 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONZO Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 My understanding is that original units (TM-8 etc) are not up-dateable (is that a word?) due to the hardware (chipset) used. As to if you need to, from my previous post:- "The old FASST protocol (non LBT and high duty cycle) can still be used into the future. The term is 'grandfathering in' existing/old equipement. I for one will continue using my 12FG and TM-8 on the old FASST protocol (36 channels across the whole band and v/widely spread) as it will be legal to do so. I feel, maybe incorrectly, that I will be at an advantage not having to LBT whilst newer sytems will be giving way to my transmissions as they will have to LBT." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangster Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 We must not fall into the trap of thinking that if all those 36 channels were in use that would be it (all the pegs taken to use the old talk) Fasst would support many times that number of models in the air. I believe DSMX uses 23 channels and Spektrum claim they have used 100 systems simultaneously without loss of link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONZO Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Kept all my 35mHz gear as well, just in case! But, having a think about a 459mHz(legal UK freq. band) module and Rx by EzUHF **LINK**. Its listed as 433mHz but can be changed to 459mHz and OP reduced to 100mW with a software download from the manufacturers web site. For Tx without a JR module slot **LINK** .It just straps to the back of your Tx and picks up the ppm and power from the trainer socket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangster Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Cannot say that I have any desire to try 459 MHz when there are a good number of well tried tested and reliable 2.4 systems from well respected manufacturers I was thinking about this on the golf course this morning. Back to my earlier post why do we need to know the acronyms for the modulation modes why do my transmitters have to have dsmx and s fhss written on them Surely as a consumer it would be simpler for the manufacturer to tell me to use for example a Futaba "H" type receiver or a Spektrum blue stripe receiver i feel it is like car makers. Putting the techno babble letters on the back of their cars. They can then try to make us believe their system is better than others Back to Faast as in the question. Is it worth it. I don't know all the others seem to work ok or....... could it be a Futaba marketing ploy. The urban myth that goes round is that the chipset is expensive and they have had to develop a cheaper system for the lower end of the market. Maybe or is it a case that the chipset is just a few pounds more but by fitting it in some sets they can convince us it's worth a couple of hundred or two more for the higher price sets. They will then have the other sets selling on price and reputation who knows? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONZO Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 As with everything, and I do mean everything, you buy 'its not what it costs, its what the market will pay' and this is enhanced by marketing hype. As to the EzUHF units they have been around for some time, mainly used by the FPV guys as they have better range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.