stuck to one Manufactures 2.4Ghz protocol no more

[flight1]

Days of having to be stuck to one Manufactures 2.4Ghz protocol are comming to an end with this module kit

It won't be long before you can buy a Tx with this capability allready built in, the manufactuers better be aware, long live freedom!

[Mike Blandford]

This is an "open source" project, read about it here: **LINK**.

That module has been available from bangood for some time. Note that it is based on an Atmel AVR processor and not all possible protocols can be included at the same time. There is a version that uses a STM processor, with more flash memory, that does support all possible protocols.

When used in serial mode, these are supported by the open source firmware for transmitters (ersky9x/er9x and openTx).

To be able to use these fully, you will likely need to update the firmware on the module. This will need you to install the Arduino development software, download the source code and build the required firmware, then flash it to the module. Initially, this will require a programmer (USBASP or similar) and the addition of a programming header to the module. Should you then flash a (specific) bootloader, and use ersky9x firmware on your Tx, you would be able to flash the module "in situ" from the Tx.

Mike.

[flight1]

Looks like this one comes pre loaded with a few protocols just need case antenna if I read it right. we shall soon find out when I get one for christmass.

[MattyB]

Posted by flight1 on 24/05/2017 10:25:07:

Days of having to be stuck to one Manufactures 2.4Ghz protocol are coming to an end with this module kit

It won't be long before you can buy a Tx with this capability already built in, the manufacturers better be aware, long live freedom!

This is potentially useful for being able to utilise your main TX with some of the sub-hobby grade indoor toy helis and quads, but I would not trust $36 module like this with more expensive and heavy models operated outdoors. Also the market is somewhat limited to FrSky owners, as they are almost the only TXs available new that still have a module bay. I will also be pretty slow (high latency) too, and I strongly doubt it will be CE marked.

Shorter answer - I don't think any of the big manufacturers will be losing any sleep.

[Mike Blandford]

The following transmitters work with this:

Flysky/Turnigy 9X running er9x.
Flysky/Turnigy 9X upgraded with 9Xtreme board running ersky9x.
Flysky/Turnigy 9X upgraded with AR9X (or SKY) board running either ersky9x or openTx.
Turnigy 9XR-PRO.
FrSky Taranis/TaranisPlus/QX7/X9E/Horus running either ersky9x or openTx.

Bangood offer a case for it. I have mounted one in a FrSky DJT case (obtained from T9HobbySport). If you look at the third picture on the web page, you will see it comes with an antenna.

The latency is no worse than the transmitters it replaces. It uses the same "over the air" protocol, so matches the performance, and, in serial mode, the servo data is updated every 7mS.

As long as you do a proper range check before flying anything, there is no reason to doubt it would be OK with larger models.

Mike.

[flight1]

Posted by Mike Blandford on 24/05/2017 17:45:35:

The following transmitters work with this:

Flysky/Turnigy 9X running er9x.
Flysky/Turnigy 9X upgraded with 9Xtreme board running ersky9x.
Flysky/Turnigy 9X upgraded with AR9X (or SKY) board running either ersky9x or openTx.
Turnigy 9XR-PRO.
FrSky Taranis/TaranisPlus/QX7/X9E/Horus running either ersky9x or openTx.

Bangood offer a case for it. I have mounted one in a FrSky DJT case (obtained from T9HobbySport). If you look at the third picture on the web page, you will see it comes with an antenna.

The latency is no worse than the transmitters it replaces. It uses the same "over the air" protocol, so matches the performance, and, in serial mode, the servo data is updated every 7mS.

As long as you do a proper range check before flying anything, there is no reason to doubt it would be OK with larger models.

Mike.

I couldn't of said it better

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by Mike Blandford on 24/05/2017 17:45:35:

The latency is no worse than the transmitters it replaces. It uses the same "over the air" protocol, so matches the performance, and, in serial mode, the servo data is updated every 7mS.

Mike.

It may update the servos every 7ms, but whats the latency from moving a switch/stick through the Tx software, conversion to PPM stream (which updates at 21ms or so) to send the info to the module, convert it back to the selected transmission protocol and send it to the Rx.

[Paul Marsh]

It doesn't do FASST, so for Futaba transmitters on that protocol, still is incomplete as a full spectrum 2.4 unit.

[Guvnor]

I'd trust that as far as I could throw it...

[David Ovenden]

Doesn't do JR DMSS either.

[Mike Blandford]

Frank: I mentioned "serial mode". This mode uses a serial protocol between the Tx firmware and the module, NOT PPM. Ersky9x reads the sticks/switches and calculates the servo positions over 250 times per second, typically 500 times per second, so every 2 to 4 mS. OpenTx does this a couple of milliseconds before sending the data to the module. In both cases the servo positions are sent to the module every 7mS, in digial form. No significant conversion is needed to change these to the values needed by the RF protocol in use. The RF protocol operates at whatever rate is "standard" for the protocol in use, e.g. FrSky is 9mS, DSM2 is 22mS, DSMX is 22 or 11mS and so on.
So, the latency, in this mode, is quite short.

This module supports at least 29 basic protocols, may of which have several sub-protocols. It has 2 modes of operation, serial mode (as I describe above) where the selector switch is set to the '0' position, and PPM mode where you may select one of 15 possible protocol/sub-protocol options.

Unless your Tx doesn't support serial mode, then you should normally use serial mode to get both the best performance and the option of selecting all the protocols that fit in the flash space.

Guvnor: What do you base your opinion on?

Mike.

[Guvnor]

Posted by Mike Blandford on 24/05/2017 23:27:00:

Guvnor: What do you base your opinion on?

Hobbyking = Cheap & nasty. Would I trust it in anything other than a really cheap foamie? No...

[Mike Blandford]

But Hobbyking are simply selling this, they don't manufacture it. I got one in July 2016 from bangood, who also are just selling it, not making it.

So, in your opinion, is a:

Futaba 14SG 14-Channel 2.4GHz Computer Radio System 2.4GHz FASSTest (Set) (Mode 2) costing several hundred pounds

"Cheap and nasty" because Hobbyking are selling it?

Please read the thread on RCG (with over 9000 posts) to which I linked on the second post of this thread to understand what this module is all about, and how well, or otherwise, it performs.

Mike.

[Trevor Crook]

I don't know what's needed for type approval these days, but is it certified as legal for use in our part of the world?

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by Mike Blandford on 24/05/2017 23:27:00:

Frank: I mentioned "serial mode". This mode uses a serial protocol between the Tx firmware and the module, NOT PPM. Ersky9x reads the sticks/switches and calculates the servo positions over 250 times per second, typically 500 times per second, so every 2 to 4 mS. OpenTx does this a couple of milliseconds before sending the data to the module. In both cases the servo positions are sent to the module every 7mS, in digial form. No significant conversion is needed to change these to the values needed by the RF protocol in use. The RF protocol operates at whatever rate is "standard" for the protocol in use, e.g. FrSky is 9mS, DSM2 is 22mS, DSMX is 22 or 11mS and so on.
So, the latency, in this mode, is quite short.

This module supports at least 29 basic protocols, may of which have several sub-protocols. It has 2 modes of operation, serial mode (as I describe above) where the selector switch is set to the '0' position, and PPM mode where you may select one of 15 possible protocol/sub-protocol options.

Unless your Tx doesn't support serial mode, then you should normally use serial mode to get both the best performance and the option of selecting all the protocols that fit in the flash space.

Guvnor: What do you base your opinion on?

Mike.

Mike thanks for clarifying that, the instructions on the bangood page state "

1. Install RF Module in position, Set PPM signal output on you transmitter."

Which suggests it needed a PPM stream input.

[Guvnor]

Posted by Mike Blandford on 25/05/2017 00:08:40:

But Hobbyking are simply selling this, they don't manufacture it. I got one in July 2016 from bangood, who also are just selling it, not making it.

So, in your opinion, is a:

Futaba 14SG 14-Channel 2.4GHz Computer Radio System 2.4GHz FASSTest (Set) (Mode 2) costing several hundred pounds

"Cheap and nasty" because Hobbyking are selling it?

Please read the thread on RCG (with over 9000 posts) to which I linked on the second post of this thread to understand what this module is all about, and how well, or otherwise, it performs.

Mike.

Citing Futaba is ridiculous, as they obviously have their own QC.

It doesn't matter who makes or selss this stuff.

I'm speaking from experience of carefully examining electronic products sold by HK.

Some are OK. Some aren't.

Some are well made. Some aren't.

Your models, your choice, but I repeat, I wouldn't trust anything like this in anything other than a foamie...

[Peter Christy]

A lesson I learned many years ago was to never put new radio gear in a new model! I always keep an old "hack" around for checking out new gear before it gets transferred to anything valuable!

There are only a handful of factories world-wide making these chipsets, so the actual components almost certainly come from the same source as those used by the "big names". Similarly, for components this small, hand assembly is no longer practical, and nearly all radio gear these days is assembled and soldered on automated machines. These also come from a very restricted range of manufacturers, so there is no reason to believe that the quality of the electronics will be any better or worse than the big names.

Where differences usually show up is in mechanical parts - sticks, servos, transmitters, etc - which still have to be hand assembled. Since this module requires no hand assembly, I see no reason why it should be any better or worse than any other manufacturer.

In any case, things digital work on a 0 and 1 basis - it either works, or it doesn't! Fly it a few times in a "hack", and as long as it behaves, transfer it to anything you like!

I am certainly tempted......!

--

Pete

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

A good point. It was interesting to see a long time exponent of the capable, but budget Taranis transmitters say that he wouldn't trust these modules because they were cheap! I believe that the more expensive equipment's advantages lie mainly in the mechanical and build quality side - I was fairly horrified to see the internal details of the Horus, for example, with wires running higgledy piggeldly and splodges of hot melt glue everywhere. Corners cut on switches and pots can easily bite you a year or two down the line.

Having said this, price is no guarantee of quality though - witness the recent debacle of a well known and very popular manufacturer's newly released top of the range transmitter which was recalled after finding that the sticks were fouling internal wiring!

[MattyB]

Posted by Martin Harris on 25/05/2017 10:27:29:

A good point. It was interesting to see a long time exponent of the capable, but budget Taranis transmitters say that he wouldn't trust these modules because they were cheap!

Perhaps I should have qualified my comment a little better... What I was trying to say was that a $36 multi-protocol module is not going to worry the established players as it can't be easily used to adapt their TXs.

Based on the current pricing of FrSky telemetry RXs I see no need to buy a multi protocol module like this. If I was interested in the BNF FlySky/WFly etc quads and helis I suppose I might get one, but there is no telemetry and FrSky RXs are still pretty cheap so for outdoor use in parkflier up sized models there are no pressing reasons to get one. If I ran a system that had more expensive RXs I might feel different I suppose, but those systems don't generally have a module bay any more so they are much harder to adapt.

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by Martin Harris on 25/05/2017 10:27:29:

Having said this, price is no guarantee of quality though - witness the recent debacle of a well known and very popular manufacturer's newly released top of the range transmitter which was recalled after finding that the sticks were fouling internal wiring!

They did recall it though, rather than just release an improved version down the line. I know all these chips etc are meant to be the same, but I have been led to believe on computer chipsets that they are tested and graded into different speeds and sold accordingly, so while you can buy a lower speed chip and overclock it, it may fail whereas one certified for use at the higher speed will be OK. Whether that is true for these chipsets or not I am not sure.

Also while the chipsets may be OK what about the amplification circuit design and signal to noise ratios and all that good stuff, or is this all just smoke and mirrors and the design of these sections isn't important.

[Simon Chambers]

Nope, all the RF chipsets are exactly the same from the manufacturer. So the TI CC2500 that powers Futaba S-FHSS, FrSky, et al. is exactly the same spec device between them. These RF devices are used everywhere from keyboards to doorbells and so are dirt cheap.

The analog RF front end does need to be correctly matched to perform correctly. However with RF devices with minimal external components, this is pretty straightforward. RF and especially 2.4GHz designs are pretty tolerant to getting the design wrong but still performing satisfactorily.

Shame no-one has stumped up to get this module properly tested through a notified body to get a proper CE mark and FCC ID.

[Trevor Crook]

If it isn't CE marked, is it legal? For instance, has anyone tested whether it is compliant with things like output power and bandwidth limitations?