What is happening in Futaba?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[GONZO]

Tsk, tsk. Stop teasing. **LINK**

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Frank Skilbeck]

It's not just the transmitter but also the receivers to be considered, for normal sport flying then most receivers are fine, but if you do a brief search of the net you'll find people who have range problems with various systems and some of this might be down to the receivers. Also some brands have been a bit slow at introducing a reliable protocol on the new EU 2.4 regulations (or not supporting their full Rx range). No good having the best all singing all dancing transmitter if you can't get a receiver which suits your model, or if you have to add extra components to make it suitable for a larger model etc.

[Phil Green]

Posted by Percy Verance on 17/12/2015 15:17:33:

In fact if you look around a bit, it's perfectly possible to buy new gear off the shelf that's already out of date..........

I can well understand someone paying extra for a new-but-out-of-date Spektrum so they can continue using DSM2.

From an RF perspective, what a fiasco this year has been, for many of the major players!

Cheers
Phil

[Willyuk]

Having digested all the above and spent quite a few hours programming my 14SG for my needs, I find a few things small things lacking that Futaba do not seem to supply in one transmitter:

I use conditions( flight modes) for my electric aircraft but have to use the glider setting on the 14sg, which removes a couple of useful mixes from the list, so I have to use a Pmix, but this goes across all conditions, so is a little annoying. The 18SZ and MZ allow conditions in aircraft mode BUT, remove the countdown timer voice function which I like a lot. The 14SG and 18sZ allow a stick position warning beep, which I like but the 18MZ does not have this feature. The 18MZ allows voice warning of condition change, which I would like but the other two do not. There are many other other mismatches and I would guess that it is not a technical problem simply a marketing decsion. Why do Futaba do this?? Surely if a feature/function is a useful addition it should be on all radios, or failing that the top of the range should allow them all I would think.

The upshot is that whilst I like futaba and am comfortable with the programming system, I have to consider moving away to get the features I would like. Can I use Frsky? I do not have a PC but use a MAC, so am I right in thinking this screws up the programming side of things. Move to Jeti? all those receivers to replace? also do I want to spend lots of money on a system I have never tried or seen?

I bet requests to Futaba are useless. does anyone else find this frustrating??

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Peter Christy]

You can get the OpenTx Companion (for the FrSky gear) for a Mac, no problem. Indeed, if you upgrade to the latest OpenTx firmware (currently 2.1.6), the only thing you need a computer for is to download the firmware from the net. Once you have it, it is a simple matter to transfer it to the SD card in the FrSky TX. Once its on the SD card, you can do ALL your updates (OpenTx, RF firmware for both Tx and Rx) from the transmitter!

Details here: http://www.multi-rotor.co.uk/index.php?topic=14805.0

(I don't think you can flash receivers from the X9E (Euro-tray version) because it doesn't have the external module slot. But it certainly works on the X9D)

Download the Companion for Mac here: http://www.open-tx.org/downloads.html (select 2.1.6 and then the mac version).

There are also tutorials on using Companion and flashing the firmware here:

http://open-txu.org/

If you are used to a system that uses pre-defined menus for different model types (Futaba, JR, etc) the OpenTx firmware can be a bit of a culture shock! However, once you get your head around it, its very logical, and almost infinitely flexible! You may also find that someone else has tackled any problems you may come across and have a model file that you can download and install very simply. (Will probably need tweaking to suit your precise needs, but will often provide a good starting point!)

The FrSky Taranis X9D can also take any JR compatible RF module, and I'm sure Futaba produced a number of these. So you may not even need to change your receivers!

A little bit of bed-time reading for you! Enjoy!

--

Pete

 

Edited By Peter Christy on 03/01/2016 11:32:51

[Erfolg]

I personally would and am not in any rush to buy a new radio set, particularly Futaba.

It seems that you do not just have to concern yourself with the functionality of Futaba and its performance with respect to other sets. There is the issue of the EU, where there seems to be a never ending changes to the 2.4 system standards. Which potentially can have implications not just to your set, but to future purchases such as Rxs. This may or may not be a set of real issues.

The EU changes  do not seem to make the use of older equipment illegal, although there are some in our community who see compliance with the latest directive as a must and always reasonable. My own view is that it demonstrates the incompetence of the legislators, possibly the self serving ends of equipment suppliers.

So Frsky could offer the flexibility in making upgrades doable, will Futaba?

 

Edited By Erfolg on 03/01/2016 13:08:47

[PatMc]

The regulations are not made by the EU they are devised by ETSI in co-operation with international ICT developers.

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by Erfolg on 03/01/2016 13:07:59:

The EU changes do not seem to make the use of older equipment illegal, although there are some in our community who see compliance with the latest directive as a must and always reasonable. My own view is that it demonstrates the incompetence of the legislators, possibly the self serving ends of equipment suppliers.

So Frsky could offer the flexibility in making upgrades doable, will Futaba?

Edited By Erfolg on 03/01/2016 13:08:47

Why wouldn't they, if you had a pre Jan 2015 Futaba FASST rx it continued to work with post Jan 2105 Futaba transmitters. The only one really affected were Spektrum with the DSM2 which couldn't comply. It seems that it was only Frsky who got caught out with the new standards, but they now seem to have caught up (although they do have some legacy Rxs that won't work with later Frsky systems)

[Erfolg]

Constantly changed or amended regulations are not good news or confidence building to many of us consumers.

To those in the industry, may see virtue in changes, many others of a non technical background see uncertainty, possible obsolescence. Just importantly there continued practical use can be compromised, in that some aspect or replacement parts or enhancements cease to be possible or perhaps deemed as breaking regulations.

I can imagine that some retailers hope for additional trade, yet for a hobby such as ours, the automatic switch of equipment cannot be as certain as with phones, information storage, televisions etc.

[ben goodfellow 1]

i have just moved to futaba ,a 18 sz . whilst i like the set the rxs are the problem, a little for a lot.. when the ds24 comes out later this year if im not totaly sold on futaba ,thats where ill be headed... fly low

[Frank Skilbeck]

They aren't constantly changing, the regulations were updated in Jan 2015 after a length consultation period and the new regs had actually been published a couple of years before this, it also made them common across the whole of the EU. The change this year is to stop people selling equipment which can defeat the regulations by allowing them to be modified to a system outside the standard, the standard itself isn't changing, so if you are already on the EU standard you won't notice anything.

Unfortunately it's a shared band and without any standards the situation would be even worse, you may find all of a sudden that your system no longer worked because somebodies new "improved" system which interfered with yours, making yours obsolete.

[Erfolg]

Frank

I assume that you are writing as someone who is aware of the origin and the process that has and is taking place.

As a consumer whose interest is that only as a user, where these events are at best a nuisance, potentially leaving me and others with equipment which is no longer state of the art. I and others could be in a position as an example that i could not buy a new receiver, to use with older once compliant (with the then regulation) equipment. This type of situation is unsettling to many consumers.

[Peter Christy]

The problem as I see it is that most of the changes are trying to address a problem that simply doesn't exist. As far as I am aware - other than people operating illegally high power outputs for video transmissions - there have been no reported problems of interference on 2.4 GHz. In any case, as an unlicensed band, no guarantees are made as to its suitability for any given purpose. You use it at your own risk! The vast majority use it for WiFi networks, where such problems as *do* exist seem down to users simply going with the default settings on their routers. None of the proposed changes will address consumer ignorance!

We are simply caught in the cross-fire.

The requirement to prevent the installation of non conforming firmware is not part of the ETSI standard. Oh, and by the way, there's yet *another* one of those on the way, 1.9.1 is due for implementation around November time! Mercifully, as far as I can make out, most of the changes seem to be the in the way that various parameters are measured. This is of more concern to test houses than to us, because as far as I can see, the core specification remains the same. But no doubt some bureaucrat, trying to justify his existence, will try to ensure yet more "mission creep"!

The firmware ruling comes in the form of an EU directive:

**LINK**

Article 3, section1i:

[Radio equipment shall be constructed so as to ensure] radio equipment supports certain features in order to ensure that software can only be loaded into the radio equipment where the compliance of the combination of the radio equipment and software has been demonstrated. (sic.)

Talk about torturing the English language!

Article 49:

1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by 12 June 2016, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate the text of those measures to the Commission.

In other words, this directive is coming from the un-elected Commission!

But:

Article 48:

Member States shall not impede, for the aspects covered by this Directive, the making available on the market or putting into service of radio equipment covered by this Directive which is in conformity with the relevant Union harmonisation legislation applicable before 13 June 2016 and which was placed on the market before 13 June 2017.

So it looks as if there is a year's grace period for existing stocks.

We are now gearing up for the 3rd revision of the ETSI standard since it was originally introduced only a few years ago. I can think of no other standard that has undergone such frequent revision, and for so little reason.

The EU directive seems to be a prima facie case of control freakery, again serving no justifiable purpose.

Words fail me!

--

Pete

[Phil Green]

Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 03/01/2016 17:46:46:

...you may find all of a sudden that your system no longer worked because somebodies new "improved" system which interfered with yours, making yours obsolete.

its the other way around Frank, LBT sets will always lose out to non-LBT. On a typical flying field miles from anywhere, just because a 2.4g RC channel is momentarily in use is no reason not to transmit, spread-spectrum ensures that multiple transmissions on a channel are perfectly feasible, each transmitter has a different chipping code and moves to different frequencies to any other transmitter, several times per bit.
As Pete says, there was no problem to legislate against, everything was just fine & dandy!

Cheers
Phil

 

 

Edited By Phil Green on 03/01/2016 18:46:16

[Frank Skilbeck]

Phil, yes I agree LBT is considerate to non-LBT but not the other way round, but what I said was that if there were no standards you may find...................

[Phil Green]

[Peter Christy]

Frank,

I'm not suggesting there should be no standards. I just don't see what was wrong with the original ones. All the subsequent revisions just seem to make compliance more difficult (and expensive), for no perceptible benefit!

--

Pete

[Frank Skilbeck]

Getting off topic but I thought the problem with the original ones is that thy weren't specific enough (i.e. they allowed non hopping systems) and industry was sent away to clarify them and the new specs didn't ensure that devices couldn't be ugraded to a non EU standard.

Might be expensive, apparently you are talking of over $10,000 to get a system FCC approved in the US, if the EU-US trade agreement gets put in place then there will be a push to harmonise standards again.

[Peter Christy]

The specs still do allow non-hopping systems, but only at 10mW - nothing has changed there. The problem was not with the specs, but the way they had been translated into German and Dutch (?), which fooled the authorities in those countries into banning permitted uses. All that was needed was to re-phrase the specs in a manner which no longer permitted misinterpretation, and that was what the bureaucrats were *instructed* to do. Instead, they changed the specs! AAARRRGGGHHH!

--

Pete

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Interesting as this is chaps - there are other threads discussing these aspects. Can we return to the original topic please?

Thanks

BEB

[Erfolg]

BEB

This aspect of the discussion is not irrelevant to Futaba, as I understand that the latest changes to the regulations will affect existing Futaba equipment. If this is so, then the implications to existing as well as future Futaba equipment becomes very relevant.

Perhaps more to your liking is a discussion of how it seems that Futaba in particular has lost that innovative drive that immediately post war Japan exhibited. Often as is the case of modelling products from cottage industries, such as model engine and guidance equipment into an industrial scale , with then to be discovered (as a buzz phrase) quality control, all at a price that was attractive.

It does seem that much of the model trade is now centred in other South Asian countries, where names such as Pilot, Maratuka, Sanwa, Fugi, Enya and perhaps in the not to distant future Futaba, have all but disappeared into history.

Edited By Erfolg on 04/01/2016 14:06:09

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

That's as maybe Erf. But a debate on the exact motivations and method of implementation of the rules is off topic - especially when threads already exist debating exactly that! This thread is specifically about Futaba - not the way the European wireless telecoms industry along with the Commission regulate themselves! If what was being discussed was the specific impact of those regulations on Futaba - then OK. But its not, so its off topic.

BEB