2.0.14 Now available for download.

[PatMc]

Could it be that the D series already comply with the new standard because their signal strength is relatively low ?

[GONZO]

Doubt it. D series Tx modules are 60mW plus 2dBi from the aerial making approx 100mW erp. So, above the 10mW limit when LBT and MU of 10% or less are required. As the chips used in the Tx and Rx are the same and are trancievers I would imagine that the Rx is set up approx the same as the Tx but with the less effective aerials thus giving something less than 100mW but more that 10mW. But, air to ground range would probably be better than ground to air range compensating for the lower erp. After all there's not much point in a telemetery link that looses contact before the control link. Happy to be correct if anyone knows the actual figures.

Edited By GONZO on 14/01/2015 14:07:55

[Jim Mchugh]

I can confirm that one strange issue that I sometimes suffered has been resolved:

"Fixed blank LCD screen at very low temperatures"

When my Taranis had been in the car all night in low temperatures, sometimes the LCD did not initialise at power on.

Did the old IT trick of turn it off and on again... fixed it.

Still, it reduced confidence in the TX.

Put the new firmware onto the radio last night (thanks Chris), left it in the car overnight (0C here in Brum) and it lit up fine first time this morning!

[Dickw]

Posted by GONZO on 14/01/2015 14:06:17:

...... above the 10mW limit when LBT and MU of 10% or less are required. .........

Edited By GONZO on 14/01/2015 14:07:55

I think it is "LBT OR MU of less than 10%", In that case some old gear might not need to be updated if it has MU of less than 10%.

Dick

[PatMc]

What does MU stand for ?

[Dickw]

From the new standards doc:-

"4.3.1.5 Medium Utilisation (MU) factor

This requirement does not apply to adaptive equipment unless operating in a non-adaptive mode.

In addition, this requirement does not apply for equipment with a maximum declared RF Output power level of less than 10 dBm e.i.r.p. or for equipment when operating in a mode where the RF Output power is less than 10 dBm e.i.r.p."

I believe the end result of this and other clauses means that if you are not using LBT you have to transmit for only 10% or less of the available time unles the power output is 10mW or less.

I am no expert so may be wrong.

Dick

Edited By Dickw on 14/01/2015 16:42:37

[Bob Cotsford]

"In that case some old gear might not need to be updated "

Dick, as this only affects new imports/production then 'old' equipment doesn't need to be updated at all. Grandfather rights cover it. The only reason would be if you buy a newly imported Euro compliant X series receiver or a new transmitter, in which case 'old' X series equipment would need to be updated in order for it to work with the new component.

So place your bets Gentlemen, is it the end of the line for the 'D' series?

[Dickw]

No argument with that, anything you already have can continue to be used.

What I meant by "some old gear might not need to be updated" was that it could continue to be sold without needing any updating if it was already below 10mW OR below 10% MU.

Dick

 

Edited By Dickw on 14/01/2015 17:24:56

[Bob Cotsford]

ah, sorry, wrong end of the stick.

Thinking back, I seem to remember that FrSky first set their V series tx modules to put out something like 10% power for the range test. I gave up walking at around 150 yards so it may be that air range would actually be enough for the limited telemetry using just 10mW. Phil G might remember the actual figures for those early V modules.

[WolstonFlyer]

I just did the 2.0.15 update and also XJT module ETSI EN 300 328 V1.8.1 and all of my receivers (X6R and X8R) and it all seems to have worked fine.... I think

Edited By WolstonFlyer on 14/01/2015 19:17:12

[Jim Mchugh]

This thread appears to have evolved into a discussion on RF power and the like which give me a opportunity to mention my own experiences with certain FrSky receivers.

Using a stock Taranis X9D TX and two types of FrSky receiver.

 

Receiver 1: FrSky D4R-II fitted to my Radjet800

Receiver 2: FrSky D8R-XP fitted top my Riot.

While "flying" my Radjet with D4R-II I started getting "Low RSSI" warnings. Strange. "Landed" it and did a range check. About 15 paces maximum before low RSSI warnings. Thought I might have a duff RX so tried two more D4R-II receivers I have. Both exactly the same! Three receivers giving the same results.

Started to suspect my TX maybe. Tried against the D8R-XP receiver and got good 30+ pace range tests.

This prompted more questions. According to the FrSky specs the D8R-XP draws 100mA (Full Range) while the D4R-II only draws 60mA (also Full Range).

 

So is the D4R-II receiver actually a "Full Range" receiver?

 

As we know this kit employs a closed loop RSSI system. The receiver is actuially a transceiver which transmits back RSSI data to the ground.

 

Is the FrSky RSSI system "averaging" the signal strength from both ends?

Maybe the D4R-II receiver is transmitting back to ground at a lower power than the D8R-XP....

Don't get me wrong I still love the FrSky kit...

Edited By Jim Mchugh on 14/01/2015 21:00:02

Edited By Jim Mchugh on 14/01/2015 21:01:06

[Andy Butler]

I don't know whether anybody else has seen this? When I click to download the ETSI EN 300 328 V1.8.1 firmware for the internal XJT module and my X8R receivers, I get a page of garbled text instead. I tried compatibility view settings without success. I'm running 64 bit Windows 7 with IE11 so nothing exotic. Anybody have any ideas?

OK I just tried Firefox and that worked, so if anyone else gets this, that's the way to go.

Edited By Andy Butler on 18/01/2015 09:56:31

[Kevin Fairgrieve]

No problem here.

64 bit W7 Ultimate + Chrome.

**LINK**

Kev

[TigerOC]

Posted by Andy Butler on 18/01/2015 09:46:37:

I don't know whether anybody else has seen this? When I click to download the ETSI EN 300 328 V1.8.1 firmware for the internal XJT module and my X8R receivers, I get a page of garbled text instead. I tried compatibility view settings without success. I'm running 64 bit Windows 7 with IE11 so nothing exotic. Anybody have any ideas?

OK I just tried Firefox and that worked, so if anyone else gets this, that's the way to go.

Edited By Andy Butler on 18/01/2015 09:56:31

The garbled text is the contents of the file which is merely being displayed. Click "save as" in this file name to the relevant directory. Firefox is not displaying the file contents in the browser window.

Rob

Edited By TigerOC on 18/01/2015 11:17:34

[TigerOC]

Posted by Jim Mchugh on 14/01/2015 20:59:36:

This thread appears to have evolved into a discussion on RF power and the like which give me a opportunity to mention my own experiences with certain FrSky receivers.

Using a stock Taranis X9D TX and two types of FrSky receiver............................................

Jim I think that you should enter this as a new topic. I would be concerned.

Rob

[John Privett]

Posted by TigerOC on 18/01/2015 11:17:01:

Posted by Andy Butler on 18/01/2015 09:46:37:

I don't know whether anybody else has seen this? When I click to download the ETSI EN 300 328 V1.8.1 firmware for the internal XJT module and my X8R receivers, I get a page of garbled text instead. I tried compatibility view settings without success. I'm running 64 bit Windows 7 with IE11 so nothing exotic. Anybody have any ideas?

OK I just tried Firefox and that worked, so if anyone else gets this, that's the way to go.

Edited By Andy Butler on 18/01/2015 09:56:31

The garbled text is the contents of the file which is merely being displayed. Click "save as" in this file name to the relevant directory. Firefox is not displaying the file contents in the browser window.

Rob

Edited By TigerOC on 18/01/2015 11:17:34

IE11 is indeed simply displaying the file (or attempting to) instead of downloading it - it's arguable whether the fault lies with IE11 or with the FrSky website, or a bit of both...

However, doing a "Save As" in IE11 will NOT get you the same file contents as downloading it properly in the first place. It's a binary file and it has to be exactly right. (As a starter, even the file size is different - downloading the file gives me a 64kB file, saving the IE11 file gives a 51kB file.)

[John Privett]

Posted by WolstonFlyer on 14/01/2015 19:16:42:

I just did the 2.0.15 update and also XJT module ETSI EN 300 328 V1.8.1 and all of my receivers (X6R and X8R) and it all seems to have worked fine.... I think

 

Hmm... I've "upgraded" a new X8R to the new ETSI firmware and then upgraded the Taranis too.

Not impressed! Immediately I noticed the green LED on the rx flickered rather than staying on as it normally does. Servo response was jittery too.

Now I'll admit I'm in a noisy RF environment at home and I'm sure the flickering LED and jittery servo was a result of the Taranis doing the 'LBT' and struggling to find a gap to transmit in. However, turning off my wifi router made little difference, so just the background noise from our neighbours' routers and other 2.4GHz devices is enough to cause noticeable issues.

It's dark and cold right now and I'm certainly not about to drive out to the flying strip to see if it behaves any better there, so after a bit of digging around to find the original firmware files I've reverted both back to the non-ETSI compliant code.

Are others finding similar issues? Or are WF and myself the only ones to have tried so far?

 

Edited By John Privett on 18/01/2015 21:57:30

[GONZO]

I've had my doubts about LBT for our use in controlling aircraft and have expressed them in various posts. With the more common uses of data transmission you may loose a bit of info and have to resend or the the transfer rate slows down, no big deal. Ours is a real time dynamic situation intolerant of slowed/lack of instant control. At best we could experience slowed response and at worst the Rx could go into failsafe resulting in the loss of the plane. We are a minority user of this band and as a consequence the regs and standards will be set to accommodate the majority and they may or may not be the most suitable for our needs. I hope my fears prove groundless as the story unfolds. John, I look foward to the result of any tests you may do at your flying site. But, I suspect it is like most sites in a remote country location and will not test the LBT firmware sufficiantly.

[robert Jones 14]

It seems to me half the model community is content to stay with their 35mg equipment, while some are trying to up-grade to some new regulation. Is there something us middle-of -the -roaders with 2.4 should be aware of?

[gangster]

Gonzo hopefully lbt will make no difference as the tx will have moved onto another frequency every few mili seconds (I think it is 20ms for hitec). That would be a lot of channel changes before you, I or the plane would notice. To go into fail safe surely that would mean about 100 failed attempts. Bearing in mind what the TX can hear a few feet off the ground would need a very strong interfering signal The model itself will hear much more

[gangster]

Robert I think the answer to your question is to go fly and enjoy yourself and change nothing.

[Chris Bott - Moderator]

John, could you do a check for us all?

Could you check which mode you're bound in? (Probably D16) and test again in D8 mode.

Having a good look at that compatibility chart linked earlier, it seems to me that they have only made a change to D16 mode. How else would both forward and backward compatibility be maintained, in D8 mode? i.e. new Tx firmware works with old Rx, and vice versa (in D8).

[WolstonFlyer]

John,

I am just off out to a club meeting night but will try and have a look when I get back, I can test this with an updated X6R to see if the LED flickers and / or a servo is jittery.

I am in a reasonably quiet 2.4GHz area with just the WiFi in my house and that of our direct neighbour in range.

[John Privett]

Posted by Chris Bott - Moderator on 19/01/2015 09:34:38:

John, could you do a check for us all?

Could you check which mode you're bound in? (Probably D16) and test again in D8 mode.

D16. I'll flash them both back to ETSI-compliant firmware and see if D8 makes any difference. What would I lose using D8 compared to D16? I'll report back later.

[John Privett]

Just a thought... After flashing the firmware in tx and rx, should I have re-bound the rx? Because I didn't. But if it needed re-binding surely it wouldn't have worked at all?