Alternatives to using Futaba FAAST receivers

[GONZO]

No new production, only old stock(could be as far back in the supply chain as importer into EU) to be sold. AFAIK The only new Tx that supports FASST is the 14SG. The modified FASST for the 14SG is not true old FASST and will not opperate 3rd party Rx properly unless the Rx firmware is updated. Be quick and do what I did, if you have a module system, and buy a spare module while stocks last.

FS,

I believe the term for the LBT is "polite and uniform degredation of all users data in a busy RF environment".

Edited By GONZO on 11/03/2015 15:00:55

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by GONZO on 11/03/2015 14:50:56:

No new production, only old stock(could be as far back in the supply chain as importer into EU) to be sold. AFAIK The only new Tx that supports FASST is the 14SG. The modified FASST for the 14SG is not true old FASST and will not opperate 3rd party Rx properly unless the Rx firmware is updated. Be quick and do what I did, if you have a module system, and buy a spare module while stocks last.

But for some strange reason it works with Futabas FASST rxs without the need to update them. Remember FASST is not an industry protocol but Futabas own, so any 3rd party Rxs are reverse engineered rather than built to Futabas specifications, hence if Futaba do an update they can only guarantee there own stuff.

[Erfolg]

Frank

I have no knowledge about 2.4, I am asking what the change achieves?

There seems to be continuing issues with EU regulations, in that many of the claims have been found not to be factual. The energy saving lighting being one, that much later, there have been some admissions that performance and goals were not as initially stated, although many of the short comings are now claimed to be resolved. One of the problems appears to be that although national interests are supposed to subjugated, that is not always the case. Just reading news reports, the UK Insurance and Banking systems have continually been subjected to proposed regulations which favour some, to the disadvantage to others.

In the past I have been a member of scrutinising committees of international regulation. I can assure you that not all members are as independent, fair minded, ignoring national interests as you would like to observe.

So Frank I am asking why? What is achieved at a practical level? Also as some one observed, will there need to be further changes, as these previous regs are probably about 5 years old?

[kc]

So I was substantially correct......buying more FASST Rx now is money down the drain unless you want to spend three hundred pounds or more for a replacement TX if yours becomes unreliable. You might as well bite the bullet now and buy a FHSS combo when you need an extra RX.

Wish I had bought Spektrum!

[GONZO]

I did see somewhere, can't remember where, that the next step after LBT(Listen Before Transmit) will be RPBT(Request Permission Before Transmit). So device steps onto new frequency in band, listens and if clear then transmits some form of signal that is a request to transmit in case some other device is already ahead in the process and is about to transmit. DISCLAIMER: This could all be hogwash and I have totally misunderstood.

[Erfolg]

It is all very disappointing, I thought we were sold 2.4 on the basis that it did not matter if someone was transmitting on your specific frequency, simultaneously. That your Rx only recognised the message that was intended for it.

With respect to what you think may be coming down the tracks, it would be easier to understand if that is a possibility, if we knew what is the problem with the existing regulations. Particularly with respect to Fasst, although, i would have thought that other txs would would potentially have the same issues. Then some understanding how the changes rectify the problem. Knowing the basics could provide an insight as to if these changes are just a steeping stone.

I have a DAB radio (a Roberts), apparently this will shortly be junk, as DAB radio transmissions are also being changed. Although i must admit, as it stands, it is pants. My wife has reverted to FM.

I can imagine that the manufacturers and importers of many devices, will not shed to many tears, if electronic items will need to be replaced.

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by kc on 11/03/2015 15:11:28:

So I was substantially correct......buying more FASST Rx now is money down the drain unless you want to spend three hundred pounds or more for a replacement TX if yours becomes unreliable. You might as well bite the bullet now and buy a FHSS combo when you need an extra RX.

Wish I had bought Spektrum!

Providing you don't have any DSM2 rxs as Spektrum EU txs no longer support DSM2.

[Erfolg]

I am now getting the impression that Futaba and the Fasst system is not the only systems affected. that Spectrum is also?

I note that there appears to be a caveat applied, that is EU Rxs. Which suggests that non EU rxs are not affected, which will be to standards as set in other countries?

I am extremely disappointed if this is the case, as the EU is publicly committed to Free Trade and the removal of regulations which inhibit Free Trade both between EU members and internationally.

At a more practical level, we should be able to buy Rxs that work with older systems from non EU sources. I am assuming that the operation of equipment to previous standards remains legal, and that only sales of non compliant with current regulations would be in breech of EU regulations?

[GONZO]

You could buy a Rx that complies to the old (1.7.1) regs from outside the EU, or even within the EU, with immunity. But, a personal import of a non compliant protocol Tx would risk the impounding of said Tx if discovered!

Problem with FASST(as I understand it): original chip set is not capable of firmware change to LBT plus duty cycle is 25% and new reg limit is 10%. In fact there is no facility on older FASST equipement to update the firmware. As an aside, FASST uses more channels than FHSS or FASSTest and the spreading of each transmission is also much wider. See post 2 in this review of the 14SG **LINK**

This has been discussed at length on numerous forums for at least a year and I have posted various links to these on this forum. No, Futaba FASST is not the only system affected and FrSky compatibles are not the only 3rd partyRx affected.

Edited By GONZO on 11/03/2015 16:47:49

[Erfolg]

Gonzo, it would be compliant as long as it is legal to continue to use equipment compliant to the previous regulation.

What is LBT and what is duty cycle in this case and why is it relevant.

Your last paragraph begs the question, when will it be safe for the buying public to purchase a new system and be confident that it will not essentially become superceded by yet another system. Or does the last part require a crystal ball?

[GONZO]

Your last para first, answer is never. The comercial imperative dictates that things must change regularly to sell more goods and keep the wheels of commerce turning. As an example it is my understanding that FrSky is phasing out the 'D' series, as they did the 'V' series, to concentrate on the 'X' series of equipement.

Second para next, **LINK** You will find a lot of answers to your questions in this thread from another forum, plus a link to the ETSI document which contains the definitions of the terms.

All existing equipement manufactured and imported into the EU (that comply with ETSI EN 300 328 1.7.1) prior to the regulation change(ETSI EN 300 328 1.8.1) date are legal to use and continue to do so for the forseeable future. They are all 'grandfathered in ' is the term.

[ceejay]

i use these as well as Futaba,s own, and it seems to me that Fr-sky are on the ball re the upgrades

https://www.t9hobbysport.com/frsky-tfr8s-fasst-compatible-2.4ghz-receiver

cj

[Erfolg]

Gonzo

The links and sub links are very interesting. Much is technically incompressible to me.

What I did get is that one of the prime differences, is that there are a number of methods used to determine where to jump. It appears that in the past, the systems just jumped to the predetermined frequency. Now the Tx has to determine if that point is free, if it is not, it does not transmit the next package. The Rx receives nothing it recognises, so waits until the next jump is expected, and keeps on waiting, until it receives a package on the frequency expected. Would this be a brown out in Spektrum jargon, missed packages?

It seems that the chip set for Fasst and quite a few others do not have a facility for this additional algorithm.

What also throws me is that appears that their is an issue with a lot of Blue Tooth devices also not being compliant. I guess they will continue to work.

With respect to our equipment, it is not apparent that we had or have a problem, is it a solution to some other problem of users of 2.4?

I do recognise that a lot of this is academic,. As from now on new systems will need to be compliant. From my perspective I can continue to use Fasst. The only issue what to do if the Tx fails. The other issue having about 15 Rxs, do i really need any more, as I only fly about 4-6 models on a regular basis.

It seems I will be saving some money. The set could easily outlive me.

[Frank Skilbeck]

Erfolg - a brown out is when the power supply voltage dips too low and causes the rx to reset, the initial Spektrum brown out problem was because it took too long to reboot when the voltage came back up. Completely separate from lost packages, which you will get now if another set tries to broadcast on the same frequency as you during the time your set is transmitting. In this case both sets would see this as interference, with LBT the set that was already transmitting having already grabbed the frequency would be unaffected, but the one that wanted to transmit wouldn't transmit that package, so you could say that with the new regs only one system is affected but with the old system both were.

You have to bear in mind that the regs are written for all applications and while us flying our RC planes miles from anywhere aren't going to affect anybody, somebody using these to say operate model cars near another non RC 2.4 application might affect that.

Bluetooth is such low power that it isn't affected.

BTW Fasst is now compliant and if you bought a new Fasst transmitter then your old Futaba RXs would work OK, but your 3rd party one might need an update. The problem as I see for Faast users is that separate to the EU regulations Futaba have decided that their entry level (10 channel and below) transmitters will be FHSS only due to the costs associated with Fasst.

[Willyuk]

Have I lost the plot here? I have a 14sg which works with both the Futaba r617fs fasst receivers and the frsky ones I use, it continues to work today. I know that if I upgrade to the latest firmware in the transmitter (v5) the frsky ones may no longer work but the r617fs will. SO, if I don't upgrade, no problem, if I do upgrade I either ditch the frsky, upgrade them (too difficult) or buy new ones which will work and are compliant.

So where does the Fasst not supported come from?

Yours, confused etc

[Phil Green]

Posted by Willyuk on 11/03/2015 18:54:30:
I either ditch the frsky, upgrade them (too difficult)

Updating Frsky receiver firmware isnt difficult at all, its a piece of cake

[Erfolg]

For me  there does not seem to be a problem. Firstly my Tx is a 8fg, where no upgrade is available, if i wanted one, to address the issues of the regulation changes. If one did exist it is apparent that my existing Rxs would probably no longer work reliably.

The second point is i have no problems with my Tx and rxs, on that basis there are no good reasons as to why i should want to change via an upgrade.

I have enough equipment to suit my immediate and probable foreseeable future needs.

As the existing equipment remains legal, why worry!

The greatest threat is that the TX fails, if that happens i will need to re-equip. This is no different to both the events when changing from 27 to 35 and then onto 2.4. As long as this happens in the distant future, when hopefully 2.4 becomes old hat to all with an interest, why worry.

The discussion has been useful in some ways that I did not envisage. It has raised the lid on the concepts of how manufacturers are setting up 2.4 RC equipment. Much of it is in concept simple, in that how the sequencing of packages commence and subsequent steps are taken is in principal simple. A lot simpler than some articles would have me believe. Although I can imagine that converting the simple ideas into reality that is reliable, is probably a challenge.

However i do wonder are all the 2.4 sets supplied with very cheap flying toys compliant with these new regs. I guess there are no good reason to suppose that they are not, as in some ways, what is supposed to happen now, is really a case of being specifically different, to previous requirements.

I will admit that recent events have changed me from a supporter of the EU to an individual, who has a jaundiced view of a lot of the regulations now emerging. As many regulations do not with stand unbiased scrutiny, often only being partially true.

Edited By Erfolg on 11/03/2015 21:04:44

[Willyuk]

alPosted by Phil Green on 11/03/2015 20:33:13:

Posted by Willyuk on 11/03/2015 18:54:30:
I either ditch the frsky, upgrade them (too difficult)

Updating Frsky receiver firmware isnt difficult at all, its a piece of cake

Hi Phil,

I looked at the frsky website and found it difficult to workout how to connect the receiver to a pc, if I need special cables they probably cost more than a receiver and as I only gave a couple it's probably not worth the hassle. Mind you I am not upgrading the tx firmware yet either.

[Barrie Dav 2]

Phil. I have several FrSky rx's and a few Futaba for my SG14. As has been mentioned above, if you don't update the tx to v5 software there will be no compatibility problems but not updating will meant that future Futaba software updates will not be possible, A missing rung in the ladder.....

However, I would like to update the tx and the FrSky receivers. Perhaps you would would be good enough to furnish an explanation of just how to go about updating the receivers based upon your own experience. That would be really useful.

[A.A. Barry]

I'll keep an eye on this

Barry

P.S

Does this upgrade only affect EU Tx's, in regards to 3rd party rx's, I recently bought one here in Aus and have several Frsky rx's

Edited By A.A. Barry on 13/03/2015 14:13:09

[Phil Green]

I just followed the instructions on Frsky's website, all the info you need is there, plus there are loads of youtube videos describing Frsky firmware updates, its all been done, this is nothing new...

Cheers
Phil

[Andy Meade]

Posted by Willyuk on 11/03/2015 21:14:34:

alPosted by Phil Green on 11/03/2015 20:33:13:

Posted by Willyuk on 11/03/2015 18:54:30:
I either ditch the frsky, upgrade them (too difficult)

Updating Frsky receiver firmware isnt difficult at all, its a piece of cake

Hi Phil,

I looked at the frsky website and found it difficult to workout how to connect the receiver to a pc, if I need special cables they probably cost more than a receiver and as I only gave a couple it's probably not worth the hassle. Mind you I am not upgrading the tx firmware yet either.

There is a special cable - it's £8 from T9.

[Barrie Dav 2]

Er....T9?

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

T9

[Barrie Dav 2]

Thank you John.