Andy Meade Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 I wouldn't be keen to fly on 35mhz these days - I have had too many bad glitches or seen the effects of "shooting" someone else down. That said, Turnigy do a nice "standalone" telemetry system that could be used along side the traditional 35mhz systems, even though they operate on 2.4ghz, your main control link could stay in the mhz range if required. I have kept 35mhz modules and a couple of receivers on the shelf - just in case! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim longbon Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 Hi chaps as a newbie to the open source system, reading these messages has started to worry me slightly. Have have l just thrown away Quite a considerable investment in TX,s and RX,s as well telementery gear. Or is the RC equipment bought post the latter end of 2014 hopefully be future proofed as was promised ???. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masher Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 Nothing to worry about jim, just use it. I'm afraid there is no such thing as future proof where radio equipment is concerned since we can't see in to the future and the associated rules made by regulatory bodies. For now though, enjoy and find something else to worry about I think Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 The issue is Jim that our use of the 2.4GHz band is just a tiny, immeasurably small, fraction of the total use. Add to that the fact the whole technology is evolving and expanding in use at a tremendous rate and you will always get regulatory change and adaptation. This is a fact of life, it is not percular to R/C in general let alone to FrSky in particular! What matters, and the only real degree of future proving you can realistically get, is that the hardware is made in such a way as to allow firmware updates so it can remain current. I'm afraid the days of buy a Tx and don't touch it for 10 years are probably behind us forever now. So, one of the aspects to look out for now perhaps when considering the purchase of your next Tx is not perminance - that's a pipedream now - but instead how easy is it to update and how quickly and reliably does the manufacturer make the necessary updates available. BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Skilbeck Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 Jim the Open source part, Open Tx, is completely separate from the RF transmission, so from that perspective you can download all the Open Tx updates to provide enhanced programmability (and address any bugs etc), the RF side is Frskys proprietary system and needs to comply with the regulations. But from next year Frsky official importers will not be allowed to sell any Txs or Rxs which can be updated to the International standard which they sell elsewhere in the world. You will be able to update all your existing gear to the new standards if you wanted to add more Rxs from an EU supplier. Note Frsky have just introduced a new beta version of their EU RF firmware which now uses the Listen Before Transmit protocol which allows more band utilisation, which they say improves the stability of their EU compliant systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Christy Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 The problem is not standards and regulations per se - its the fact that the powers-that-be are changing them every 5 minutes, it seems! The latest ones coming out of Brussels, and due to be implemented next year, I understand, seem to be an attempt to RESTRICT ones ability to update equipment! The same thing is happening in the States, but to a different standard, naturally! I don't think the 35 MHz standards have changed since they were originally implemented back in the early 80s, but of course that is not a shared band. Nor has 459 MHz changed in decades, and that IS shared! To be fair, the changes seem to be aimed primarily at wireless routers, and model control gear is simply co-lateral damage. What I cannot understand is why, given that 2.4 GHz is an internationally approved band, there is not also an internationally approved specification. It seems to me to be an attempt to "fix" a problem that doesn't exist, other than in the minds of control-freak bureaucrats. The price is paid (literally) by consumers and manufacturers, where these artificial barriers simply reduce the market size, and therefore the bulk savings. Luckily, in the case of FrSky at least, so much of it is open source software that some bright spark is bound to find away around the problems caused by bureaucratic meddling! At least, I hope so....... And at least none of the changes so far have been made retrospective, so you can carry on using your old gear as long as you wish! -- Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted December 28, 2015 Author Share Posted December 28, 2015 Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 27/12/2015 15:22:56: The issue is Jim that our use of the 2.4GHz band is just a tiny, immeasurably small, fraction of the total use. Add to that the fact the whole technology is evolving and expanding in use at a tremendous rate and you will always get regulatory change and adaptation. This is a fact of life, it is not percular to R/C in general let alone to FrSky in particular! What matters, and the only real degree of future proving you can realistically get, is that the hardware is made in such a way as to allow firmware updates so it can remain current. I'm afraid the days of buy a Tx and don't touch it for 10 years are probably behind us forever now. So, one of the aspects to look out for now perhaps when considering the purchase of your next Tx is not perminance - that's a pipedream now - but instead how easy is it to update and how quickly and reliably does the manufacturer make the necessary updates available. Agreed. For this reason I currently only buy X-series RXs, as the old V8 cannot be upgraded and D series are unlikely to be updated with revised firmware (probably because it isn't in FrSky's commercial interests to do so). Personally I think this is a shame, as my D series models in particular have given fantastic service for very little cash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted December 28, 2015 Author Share Posted December 28, 2015 Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 27/12/2015 15:39:22: ...But from next year Frsky official importers will not be allowed to sell any Txs or Rxs which can be updated to the International standard which they sell elsewhere in the world. You will be able to update all your existing gear to the new standards if you wanted to add more Rxs from an EU supplier. True... in theory. In practice UK resellers still seem to be shipping D-series RXs and XFT/XJT modules which we know are not compliant with the regs since January. Will FrSky handle the "region locking" of RXs the same way when the regs come in? Who knows... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Skilbeck Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Posted by MattyB on 28/12/2015 01:38:30: Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 27/12/2015 15:39:22: ...But from next year Frsky official importers will not be allowed to sell any Txs or Rxs which can be updated to the International standard which they sell elsewhere in the world. You will be able to update all your existing gear to the new standards if you wanted to add more Rxs from an EU supplier. True... in theory. In practice UK resellers still seem to be shipping D-series RXs and XFT/XJT modules which we know are not compliant with the regs since January. Will FrSky handle the "region locking" of RXs the same way when the regs come in? Who knows... True and lots of UK retailers will sell you high power FPV video transmitters as well, it doesn't look like the wireless authorities are too concerned about our activities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Christy Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 I don't think that its FrSky's commercial interests that prevent the upgrading of D8. The problem is that if you tried to make it EU compliant, it wouldn't be D8 any more, which rather defeats the object of the exercise. I haven't tried it, but from the instruction sheet, it appears that D16 (EU) receivers can be bound to a D8 transmitter ie: they are backward compatible - so D8 users should have no fear of their gear becoming obsolete overnight. And as already stated, the new regs are not retrospective - you can still use equipment you already own. Further, importers and resellers can continue to sell existing stock of non-compliant equipment. They just won't be able to get any new stock when the existing stuff is exhausted. (Reminder to self: order up some "hack" modules to keep in stock.....!) -- Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 I have been following this thread with some interest. I am in many ways shocked, or may be concerned. It does seem that there has been a number of changes with respect to 2.4, in recent years, or at least during the period that the frequency has been used by us. My concerns cover a number of areas. The first is that both for the manufacturers and purchasers of top end radios, continuous changes throw into question, if it can be justified in purchasing RC equipment that very quickly move into an area where purchase of additional units and repairs become doubtful. From RC manufacturers perspective, updates cost money and can only be justified by making a profit, which implies a lot of units sold at a modest profit or a small number at a high profit. From the purchasers perspective, does it make sense to buy such equipment when it quickly becomes obsolete. Could these constant changes kill the production of many of the sets even at the mid range we all use. Perhaps leaving the more basic models only? From experience (non electronic), it is the change to standards that invariably lead to a less than thorough update, as these changes cost money and often lead to issues not initially foreseen. Are these regulations and standards a form of trade barrier? Again from my past experiences I have not seen changes to standards once issued as seems to be happening . Most manufacturers would generally not welcome a constantly changing set of rules. It does seem odd, it almost suggest that the bureaucrats are themselves useless, in their role of canvassing opinions from all interested parties, seeking consensus and the formulating standards fit for purpose into the future. Which all begs the question, are there already known changes coming down the pipeline. It all seems odd, yet another potential threat to RC Aeromodelling, when taken in conjunction with potential EU regs for us modellers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim longbon Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Hi chaps. Didn't quite know what my observation on the Frsky or open source but the whole of the 2.4 band equipment would generate. I am glad that others on this forum do understand and are more informed than me. thank you chaps for holding up the candle in the dark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Skilbeck Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Erflog, not really there was one update to the standard which was introduced as the original standard had loopholes in it, the next revision is to prevent sale of equipment which can be updated to be outside of the standard. Also it's one standard for the whole of the EU so it can hardly be classed as a trade barrier, better than each individual country having it's own standard, the next change though could be when (if) the transatlantic trade agreement comes into place...................................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 Latest info from a FB Taranis group I am a member of... FrSky will be supplying all future TXs and RXs with the new EU LBT firmware. Extract below... EU LBT Firmwares FrSky has released the Listen-Before-Talk (LBT) firmware for the EU X-series receivers and XJT modules. These firmwares will be pre-installed on devices for the EU market from now on. Depending on stock levels we should expect to see them from mid-January. Check with your supplier if in doubt. FrSky highly recommends to upgrade to the LBT firmware as it fixes range and stability issues that some users have experienced with the EU firmwares released earlier this year. You will need to flash all your X-series receivers and the XJT module to be compatible. Note, flashing the LBT firmware to your XJT module will re-enable LR12 support, i.e. you can use the L9R receiver again. The L9R receiver does not need a firmware upgrade. If you're buying new receivers in 2016 be aware that you will need to upgrade your XJT firmware to be compatible. For the uninitiated, the XJT module is the same as the internal RF module in the Taranis X9D, X9D+ and X9E radios. Downgrading a new receiver to an earlier EU version is not advised due to aforementioned issues. For a simple method to upgrade your firmwares with OpenTX 2.1 follow this post. The firmwares are available as a single download from FrSky's website here. Official announcement. Edited By MattyB on 01/01/2016 22:30:14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 Ps - Not sure whether or not the new EU LBT firmware will drive D8 RXs or not at this stage; watch this space, but somehow I doubt it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Christy Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 I have just upgraded my 2013 X9D to the new LBT firmware. I still have D8 and LR modes available. Similarly, the upgraded X8R will still bind to my DHT "hack" module (D8 only). Until now, I had assumed that it was the RF firmware that controlled whether non-compliant, older protocols were disabled or not. Clearly this is not the case. There must be another factor at work. My X9D is running OpenTx-2.1.6, which I upgraded from the SD card, rather than via Companion. I notice in Companion, there is an "EU" check-box which I gather will stop non-compliant protocols from displaying in the selection window. Without speaking to the developers (and I suspect they may be a bit coy about this), I can only guess at what is happening. Perhaps the firmware only alters the D16 portion of the code, so if your system came with D8, that will not be touched. It sounds a bit unlikely, but at present I must confess to being puzzled! I can only report that which I have found! I upgraded my Tx and two receivers after doing some extensive range checks. Using the same Tx and Rx combination, I was getting just shy of 600 meters ground range on the older ETSI-1.8 firmware, and well over 600 meters on the new LBT firmware. I've never had a range issue with the older firmware, but I'm aware of reports complaining of short range. I have to conclude that there must be other factors at work in those cases (Installation? Local interference?) Looking on the spectrum analyzer, the LBT firmware presents a much more visible signal - more akin to the earlier D8 protocol than the original EU firmware. That must be a good thing, though like I said, I've never experienced any range issues with any of the protocols. As an aside, the new OpenTx-2.1.X firmware allows you to not only upgrade the Tx RF firmware from the SD card, but also the receiver's as well, if you have a transmitter (X9D) that has the module port in the back. I don't think you can do the receivers from the X9E, as it doesn't have a module slot - unless anyone here knows differently? (The X9E does have bluetooth, so maybe there's a bluetooth to s-port dongle coming?) This is brilliant, as a computer is now only needed to download the new firmware in the first place! Once you've got it on the SD card, you can do all your updating simply from the transmitter itself! -- Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Blandford Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 I can confirm D8 mode works with this XJT firmware. I had an XJT (Taranis Plus internal) bound to a D8R-II, D8 mode selected. I flashed the XJT, and the D8R-II still responds. I also then carried out a bind procedure on the D8R-II and it bound correctly. As a test, I tried binding the XJT in D16 mode to a X8R (not updated) and it fails to bind. I'll test flashing the X8R later. Mike. Edit: By the way, I'm running ersky9x firmware on the radio, not openTx. Edited By Mike Blandford on 02/01/2016 17:20:12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Skilbeck Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Mike the RF firmware is always Frskys own, Open Tx is the programming system not the EU compliant firmware, they've just made different versions to suit which version of the Frsky RF firmware you are using. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Christy Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Mike, I would recommend re-binding any D8 receivers after upgrading the Tx firmware, even if they appear to work without. We don't know precisely what is going on inside, and its just possible there may be some side effects on D8. Rebinding should fix any potential issues. I note that you did this (wise man!), but I just wanted to emphasise it for others reading this. -- Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Blandford Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Frank: Yes, I know thanks. I help write openTx, but prefer to use the ersky9x firmware I maintain. Mike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy48 Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Posted by Peter Christy on 02/01/2016 09:54:40: I upgraded my Tx and two receivers after doing some extensive range checks. Using the same Tx and Rx combination, I was getting just shy of 600 meters ground range on the older ETSI-1.8 firmware, and well over 600 meters on the new LBT firmware. 600 metres on range test?????? That seems an awful long way. I know the Taranis is far better on range testing than my Spekky was, though the range test power levels night be higher, but I still get nothing like 600m. Do you mean 600ft? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy48 Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Thanks for the heads up Matty. I have been holding off updating to EU compliant until now, but what with the new telemetry software for OpenTX and this, combined with a waterlogged flying field, it seems a good time to quietly upgrade everything, and check out each of my models with the new software and the new telemetry, especially as I have just bought three new receivers. Another learning curve. Sigh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Christy Posted January 3, 2016 Share Posted January 3, 2016 Andy, This was a full power range test - not the reduced power normally used for a quick check on the flying field! There have been a small number of reports of range issues with the EU firmware, and the owner of the transmitter I was checking had complained of short range. I felt the only way to find out one way or the other was to do a full power ground range check over the straightest path I could find. Luckily there is one close to home, so that's where I conducted the test. The actual figures were: "Old" EU firmware - 575M, "New" LBT EU firmware - 657M. On the old firmware, I still had a working signal at 575M, but there were quite a few RSSI warnings, and it was obviously close to its limit. With the new LBT firmware, the signal was still rock solid at 657M, with no warnings. The only reason I didn't go any further is that that would have taken me over the brow of the hill, and out of sight of the transmitter. I don't think anyone could reasonably expect it to continue working under those circumstances! I also repeated the test with my old and well proven DSM-2 gear (JR DSX-9 / AR7000) which also made it to 657M, but was clearly on its limit, with the "lock" lights flickering on and off. Whatever was causing the short range originally clearly wasn't the transmitter, or the protocol being used. -- Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy48 Posted January 3, 2016 Share Posted January 3, 2016 Thanks for that Peter. Makes sense now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted January 4, 2016 Author Share Posted January 4, 2016 Ok, so this is looking much more hopeful now guys - thanks for this posting this new data Mike and Pete. I think I will wait a little longer just to be sure, but I can see now it will make sense to move to the EU LBT firmware in the medium term, particularly as it appears the D8 mode remains unaffected. Edited By MattyB on 04/01/2016 01:24:37 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.