Futaba FASST rumour

[cymaz]

Found this on our local hobby shop fb page

It allegedly reports of the discontinuation of the fasst system....I find that hard to believe. I would think it refers to the 617 rx

Edited May 6, 2021 by cymaz

[David Ashby - Moderator]

The fact that the newest Fuby radio, the 16IZ, only supports the FassTest, T-FHSS and S-FHSS protocols would seem to corroborate the fact. It would probably be better if the shop had said 'protocol' instead of 'radio system'.   

[cymaz]

There may be some cheap Futaba txs on the market soon.

[i12fly]

As I understand it, it has not been legal to sell newly made Fasst parts for some time, any sales have been 'residual stock'. I have a Fasst system with many Rx, both genuine Futaba and clones. I hope I'm not tempting fate but all have performed flawlessly since I bought them. I'm disappointed that the operating system (no LBT) is now obsolete but that's progress I guess. What is also disappointing is how many different operating systems Futaba have had since then, and for this reason Futaba will not be on my shopping list when I replace my radio. 

[Nightflyer]

I12fly your comments are the main reason why since the mid 70s having used Futaba gear all that time that I decided to stop buying Futaba. There are so many protocols really ever since 35 FM. Then it  meant getting different rx Crystal's but since 2.4GHz there has been more proliferation in protocols. This is why more people have moved to Spektrum  and other manufacturers. Its nothing to do with quality but people fed up keep investing in new receivers for all their models.

[cymaz]

I was hoping to get a new Futaba Tx next year....now I’m not sure.

[FlyinBrian]

So what is the issue with FAAST? I have several rx and they seem fine. - Fortunately my Tx supports FAASTEST as well as FAAST and use FRSky rx on FAAST with total success so far.

[J D 8]

 Problem with FASST has always been cost of RX's for many modelers and the reason I went with J series S-FHSS / FHSS system.  

[i12fly]

The problem with Fasst was IIRC that the chip was expensive so Futaba couldn't compete on price with other manufacturers (although Frsky etc did with clones). However the system doesn't look before transmit so isn't legal for new equipment anymore (I think that is correct). The high end Futaba Tx will operate Fasst RX but only genuine Futaba Fasst Rx not the clones. I have quite a few clones as the price was 1/3 of genuine Futaba. Ok my fault, but I can buy a couple of new systems with better functionality to cover all my planes for the cost of a single high end Futaba Tx, so as far as I'm concerned they've shot themselves in the foot. I keep a close eye on forum posts of all the different systems so that when I come to change I'll have a good idea what to buy. The disappointing thing is how so many types have to be continually upgraded and the upgrades are not always backwards compatible, so it seems a bit of a minefield.

Regs could be changing too, with electronic conspicuity possibly being required so I'll hold off purchasing as long as I can. How conspicuity can be justified for models I'll never understand, when not all manned 'aircraft' have to have it.

 

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I wonder if it's lazy programming or something promoted by companies' marketing departments? 

 

My own system of choice has evolved since 2009 when I bought a module to fit into my Futaba transmitter and provide me with a 2.4 GHz system with telemetry - subsequently the maker developed their own range of high quality transmitters and have improved them through software upgrades at no cost to the owners as ideas were fed to them and development continued.  The original 2009 receivers and telemetry modules are non-flashable but remain compatible with the EU compliant LBT protocol introduced several years ago.

[MattyB]

14 hours ago, i12fly said:

As I understand it, it has not been legal to sell newly made Fasst parts for some time, any sales have been 'residual stock'. I have a Fasst system with many Rx, both genuine Futaba and clones. I hope I'm not tempting fate but all have performed flawlessly since I bought them. I'm disappointed that the operating system (no LBT) is now obsolete but that's progress I guess.

 

3 hours ago, i12fly said:

...However the system doesn't look before transmit so isn't legal for new equipment anymore (I think that is correct). 

 

Sorry  @i12fly, but quite a bit of what is posted above isn't quite right:

• The original variant of FASST was not legal to sell after the ETSI regs changed in 2015 (see this thread on RCGroups). However, Futaba adapted the protocol to make it compliant with ETSI 1.8.1 so it could conitue to sell the FASST TXs that had the hardware to run the new variant (18MZ and 14SG) and FASST RXs they had in their line at that point. That is why UK sellers have been able to continue to sell those product until now.
• There are a number of options for to comply with the revised ETSI regs that came in in 2015; LBT is just one of them, but you are correct it is the one chosen by Futaba for the revised FASST. Reducing the duty cycle is another option.
• Frsky FASST receivers are not clones - they have different hardware to the OEM units and and reverse engineered firmware, so are perfectly legal. "FASST compatible" would be a fairer description.
• Although the Frsky FASST compatibles didn't work initially with Futaba's v2 FASST protocol, Frsky did get them working again with new firmware shortly afterwards (example from the Frsky downloads page).

Putting all that aside the end of FASST has been on the cards for a long time. Look at it from Futaba's perspective - FASST needs a custom chipset that is expensive to produce (even more painful as demand reduces), there is no telemetry capability (so no follow on sales of sensors) and compatible RXs reduce demand for the OEM FASST RXs further. It also has little to offer in real word terms over the cheaper S-FHSS but adds the to "protocol soup" marketing issue for new users considering the brand. Finally continuing to offer OEM RXs perpetuates the life of older transmitters (which for them is commercially problematic).

 

Think of it this way - if you are a loyal Futaba fan with only FASST RXs, the odd compatible and an old TX you are happy with, how much revenue are you driving for them? QED. It might seem harsh, but you are less valuable to them than a new customer to the brand. Futaba have lost a lot of pilots to other brands like Jeti, Powerbox Spektrum and (probably to a lesser extent) Frsky, and those users who are left probably don't spend as much on kit. They therefore want to grow market share by catching up to the market in terms of functionality, and to do that FASST was always going to be a casualty.

Edited May 7, 2021 by MattyB

[MattyB]

3 hours ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

...My own system of choice has evolved since 2009 when I bought a module to fit into my Futaba transmitter and provide me with a 2.4 GHz system with telemetry - subsequently the maker developed their own range of high quality transmitters and have improved them through software upgrades at no cost to the owners as ideas were fed to them and development continued.  The original 2009 receivers and telemetry modules are non-flashable but remain compatible with the EU compliant LBT protocol introduced several years ago.

 

If you are talking about Frsky, D8 has not been ETSI compliant since 2015. Frsky said they would release compliant firmware for the hardware "if there was sufficient demand", but never did (presumably because it didn't suit them commercially to do so). Mike B has released D16 compatible firmware for them since though that should extend their life ?.

 

How UK sellers have continued to sell D8 RXs since without a certificate of conformity I am not sure ?, but it looks like Frsky have killed it for good in their latest generation of TXs anyway. That is primarily because MPM radios have eaten away at all Frsky's low-middle range sales, so they need people to move to ACCESS and the X series TXs to regain those revenues.

 

Edited May 7, 2021 by MattyB

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

No Matty, Jeti.

[MattyB]

1 minute ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

No Matty, Jeti.

 

Fair enough. Jeti were one of the few manufacturers to negotiate the 2015 ETSI regs without any real disruption to their users; Multiplex were the only others I can think of that managed it without any impact, but then they were so late to 2.4GHz they were able to design for compliance with v1.8.1 from the start.

[Mike Blandford]

1 hour ago, MattyB said:

How UK sellers have continued to sell D8 RXs since without a certificate of conformity I am not sure ?,

I've never checked the timing and power exactly, but a D8 receiver only transmits every 4th, 9mS interval, so only once every 36mS. If it transmits at 60mW and for less than 6mS, then it uses less than one tenth of the power bandwidth, so would actually comply.

 

Mike

[MattyB]

1 hour ago, Mike Blandford said:

I've never checked the timing and power exactly, but a D8 receiver only transmits every 4th, 9mS interval, so only once every 36mS. If it transmits at 60mW and for less than 6mS, then it uses less than one tenth of the power bandwidth, so would actually comply.

 

Mike

 

Technically you may well be correct, but Frsky removed all the certificates of conformity for D8 kit in 2015 (they didn't recertify them against ETSI 1.8.1), and as far as I understand all kit on sale in the EU needs that self certification to be able to be sold legally.

 

Example - D8R-II (No cert to download) vs RX6R (which has an FCC and EU cert of conformity)

 

[Graham Davies 3]

9 minutes ago, MattyB said:

Technically you may well be correct, but Frsky removed all the certificates of conformity for D8 kit in 2015 (they didn't recertify them against ETSI 1.8.1), and as far as I understand all kit on sale in the EU needs that self certification to be able to be sold legally.

 

Hi Matty,

Apologies to all, this may go off-piste for a moment as this is an issue that I am struggling with.

In my 'real job' I am trying to source compliant product to sell in the EU and UK. We WILL NOT breach regulations. One product we sell to schools is FPV cameras and transmitters. These have a clearly defined transmission spectrum. A spectrum that 95% of product available in the UK do not meet. Further, all product must be CE (now CA for the UK) marked. For this, a self declaration is required, but this must be backed up by a technical file. It's not enough to simply say "yep, meets regs..."

 

Banggood used to supply this product, amongst others. However, they could not and would not provide the relevant declarations and technical file. They are acting unlawfully, sadly as are most UK suppliers of similar equipment. So as good guys, we can't commercially compete.

 

Given this sorry state of affairs, forgive my deep cynicism regarding ANY declarations made or implied regarding compliance. I think any decisions about product lifespan are driven by purely commercial reasons, and compliance may only come into it as the various manufacturers use it to sling mud at each other.

 

Our regulator, Ofcom, have so far done sweet FA to provide any clarity or protection.

 

Free market? Be careful what you wish for!

 

But I'm not bitter; we'll find a way. We always do.

 

Graham

[cymaz]

Excellent thoughts from all.

Though what does the average Joe flier do if he wants a new Tx...like myself.

I’m in a quandary now about what to do next year. The Futaba 9c / Futaba module and FrSky rxs work perfectly well. I thought I’d treat myself to a new Tx. 

Jeti looks great gear, the rxs are a little more expensive than Futaba 

Frsky has some very nice features and the prices are good. Now it seems this is not compliant.

 

I’m thinking that the best course might be carry on as I am, ( the current radios in use must be still legal ), and wait until things have cleared up....by which time the rules would have , no doubt, changed again.

 

 

 

 

[Mike Blandford]

FrSky are compliant. It is only the old D8 protocol and receivers that are not compliant, which is why FrSky have stopped supporting them. We were just wondering why there are some D8 receivers still available, we doubt they were all imported before the rule changes.

 

Mike

[GrumpyGnome]

Oh.  There are other manufacturers receivers that claim 'D8 compliance'' too.... or am I confused?

 

GG

[SIMON CRAGG]

Having invested in at least 18 Futaba FASST receivers and half a dozen Frsky compatible items, I am loathe to change anything!.

 

My 14SG is the best TX I have ever had.

 

"Don't panic Mr Mannering"!. 

[FlyinBrian]

12 minutes ago, SIMON CRAGG said:

Having invested in at least 18 Futaba FASST receivers and half a dozen Frsky compatible items, I am loathe to change anything!.

 

My 14SG is the best TX I have ever had.

 

"Don't panic Mr Mannering"!. 

I also have a 14SG and am most happy with it, of course it is not limited to FAAST protocol! - while none of the Futaba rx are "cheap" there are other options.

[Andy Stephenson]

Also as an owner of a 14FG there is still the option to use FASSTest or FHSS. If original FASST receivers are no longer available from Futaba, I would imagine FRSky will be producing compatibles for a while yet.

[MattyB]

10 hours ago, GrumpyGnome said:

Oh.  There are other manufacturers receivers that claim 'D8 compliance'' too.... or am I confused?

 

GG

There are plenty of RXs that are D8 compatible (for instance there are lots of tiny whoop micro quads that have embedded D8 compatibles), but none of them will have an EU certificate of compliance. Compliant and compatible are not the same thing!

[MattyB]

4 hours ago, Andy Stephenson said:

Also as an owner of a 14FG there is still the option to use FASSTest or FHSS. If original FASST receivers are no longer available from Futaba, I would imagine FRSky will be producing compatibles for a while yet.

Exactly, with the newer Futaba TXs that transmit other protocols there will be little impact - just buy S-FHSS RXs instead moving forward. It’s only if you have an older “FASST only” TX that this becomes an issue.