12X resident 2.4 or 12MV?

[DC Gayhart]

I’ll be returning home to AZ from our summer trip in Sept. and I’m still undecided over buying the 12x 2.4 or the 12x 72/2.4 MV. Now with the prospect of Weatronic’s entry in the 2.4 market the decision is harder yet. I think it hard to beat the Spektrum/JR lineup of 2.4 receivers for most applications but the Weatronic receivers IMHO are the undisputed choice for expensive airplanes.

JR claims there is no difference between the module version 12x and resident 2.4, what are your opinions? Is the 12MV on the streets yet?

[Zeeb]

The 12X MV is supposed to be out, but I've not really been looking for postings about it specifically as I run the native system.

The question about which might be better is strictly a subjective one and has been talked about in several areas including the existing 12X threads, you might want to peruse those for comments.

The performance/options on 2.4 operation are the same as the native system, but when running in 72MHz you lose Model Match and 2048 resolution on the 9 channel and above rx's. I'm not sure if you lose servo synch or not, but I'd think it would be operational with the 72MHz module. The 72MHz modules for the 12X MV are 12X specific as IIRC, there are two rows of pins for the module/tx interface so other modules will not work with it. You also lose 12 channel operation as JR doesn't have a 12 channel 72MHz rx.

When I started to convert to the 2.4GHz band, I bought native tx's and kept one 72MHz tx until I got 2.4GHz rx's for all my models, then I sold the 72MHz tx.

That may be an option to consider????

Oh, I do have the native 12X and it's a GREAT radio IMHO...

[TeamFlatout]

I had the choice between both versions and went strictly with the 2.4 setup. I enjoy it a ton. The reason I chose the 2.4 is because the 72/2.4 has the detachable antenna and does not look sleak and nice looking as the full on 2.4 system. Thats the main reason I bought it over the 72. I just dont like the antenna in the back of the radio.

[seattle_helo]

There is no doubt the Weatronic gear is going to be very nice. But I'll tell you, after what I've put my turbine aircraft through with the 12X and the R1221 I have complete faith in it and how solid the RF link is. For me, the RF link is everything- it is the most important feature bar none. I am consistently getting all zeros in my Flight Log data and this is at considerable range with lots of metal, CF and other complexities in my installs. Confidence is high.

Back in the 72Mhz days only two companies I am aware of were doing high end integrated diversity receivers- ACT and Weatronic. Now that we have these JR DSM2 receivers with true diversity and redundancy from the factory, that primary advantage is no longer reserved only for them. It's true that the Weatronic system offers other benefits (like high quality German construction, GPS and other data options), but be also have that with the JR DSM gear minus the GPS. All of the JR gear is made in Japan and with the Flight Log you have an outstanding way to obtain and judge the performance of the RF link at any time. (BTW, with an EagleTree system you could actually have both real time RF performance and GPS as well.)

The other factor for me what that I had no intention of ever running 72Mhz again. It would have been pointless for me to get a module version and, as TeamFlatout mentioned, the integrated DSM12X is very clean and solid with the HD antenna ball right where it should be. If you have a lot of 72Mhz gear, however, than it might make more sense to get the 12MV.

[tadawson]

	Quote: Originally Posted by seattle_helo
	If you have a lot of 72Mhz gear, however, than it might make more sense to get the 12MV.

Myself, I would be more interested in the modular so that if/when 900MHz (or whatever) comes out, I can adopt it without needing to buy yet another radio. I see the modular system as much as for forward compatibility as rearward, and I think a lot of folks fail to consider that . . .

- Tim

[seattle_helo]

Tim, I understand what you're saying. I guess I'm just truly satisfied with the performance of the current DSM2 protocol. I've seen enough for myself to trust it completely and so I don't anticipate any need to change RF schemes again for quite some time. The current protocol is safe, it's protected from shoot-downs, it's protected from common model generated interference, it prevents you from operating the wrong model, it syncs all servo outputs, it operates on multiple frequencies, it's relatively high power (200mw) and the range is outstanding.

nick

[dubd]

I fly with the dedicated 12x and my buddy has the MV. No difference aside from the antenna configuration. He bought the MV because he wasn't sure about 2.4Ghz, but after the success of his first jet, he has converted 6 other jets over to 2.4 and no longer has any 72Mhz driven planes.

[tadawson]

	Quote:
	I guess I'm just truly satisfied with the performance of the current DSM2 protocol.

I imagine a lot of folks said that not too long ago about 72/35/etc. before PCM came out, and then again after . . . and those with modular radios were able to jump on 2.4 without needing to reequip everything. My take is that you can never be sure what the future may bring, so why not be prepared for it? Myself, from what I have read (and my RF background/education) feel that when 900MHz hits, it's gonna make 2.4 look pretty bad . . . . and would prefer to have the flexibility without buying another entire radio . . .

Bottom line is whatever makes you happy, and keeps your planes in the air . . . enjoy your 12X!

- Tim

[dick hanson]

There will always be add on gear with "extra" features and there will always be those who feel that spending more means getting e better or at least some kind of improvement .
As far as undisputed choice - well- I will dispute that -
so far I have seen no one put out a tx rx combo that is any safer than the DX7 with a 7000/etc rx.
Proove it
I know---- too simple--- too inexpensive .
But the number of these being used in all typs of applications pretty well tells the tale .
really BIG models can benifit from additional remote rx and a good battery setup is mandatory - but
the 2.4 need just two things
reliable power and the receiver setup to always see the tx.
works for me
.

[Howard Leigh]

I remember going through the PC business model marketing trials in the 80's and in the end the clear winner was a system open to third party improvments - why, because it gave the customer more personal choice and more bang for the same money. My sense is that we may have just begun the same process in the RC electronic industry.

I own two JR 9303 systems, one is an XP9303 with a 2.4 XPS module and the other is a dedicated 2.4 JR X9303. I view them as identical radios but, with different potential for growth and improvement. The dedicated JR is what it is and will likely never be able to be changed/improved. The other one is waiting for the first 900 mhz module to be available and will go on from there. Having the two identical radios and yet having very different future expectations for them has taught me the value of the module approach versus the dedicated unit. One is open for technological improvements and the other is not.

At least once a day I read a section from either a downloaded JR 12X manual or the Futaba 12FG manual and have come very close to pulling the trigger on one of them. I like the Futaba package (TX&RX) better but I prefer the 12X - in both cases it would only include the module version. I don't fly 72 anymore so I would prefer a JR 2.4 RX to go with the 2.4 TX instead of the 72 module but, they don't sell it that way. If the JR 12X was not available in the Module Version then I am pretty sure that I would have already purchased the Futaba 12 FG.

For those who feel that what we have is all we need then I submit that if everyone felt that way we would be driving to the flying field in a horse drawn buggy to fly rubber powered free flight machines. I guess the free flight machines would be ok but a horse is an animal that is mean on both ends.

I like the module version - change is good, good change is better.

Howard

[seattle_helo]

So Tim and Howard, you guys want a module version because of an upcoming 900Mhz protocol? Where can I find out more about that and who is making it? And what is it about 900Mhz that would be intrinsically better than 2.4Ghz? I hope it's not simply the larger wavelength.

And let's be very clear here: I'm not opposed to improvements or changes in technology. When the dedicated 16X comes out I'll buy it right away! But, seriously, as I mentioned above the existing implementation of DSM2 is truly reliable. Given this, what need is there to change the protocol? I'll say again, the current protocol is safe, it's protected from shoot-downs, it's protected from common model generated interference, it prevents you from operating the wrong model, it syncs all servo outputs, it operates on multiple frequencies, it's relatively high power (200mw) and the range is outstanding. In terms of controlling a RC model successfully I would genuinely like to know what is missing from that list.

[DC Gayhart]

	Quote: Originally Posted by seattle_helo
	So Tim and Howard, you guys want a module version because of an upcoming 900Mhz protocol? Where can I find out more about that and who is making it? And what is it about 900Mhz that would be intrinsically better than 2.4Ghz? I hope it's not simply the larger wavelength. And let's be very clear here: I'm not opposed to improvements or changes in technology. When the dedicated 16X comes out I'll buy it right away! But, seriously, as I mentioned above the existing implementation of DSM2 is truly reliable. Given this, what need is there to change the protocol? I'll say again, the current protocol is safe, it's protected from shoot-downs, it's protected from common model generated interference, it prevents you from operating the wrong model, it syncs all servo outputs, it operates on multiple frequencies, it's relatively high power (200mw) and the range is outstanding. In terms of controlling a RC model successfully I would genuinely like to know what is missing from that list.

I thought the 2.4GHZ ISM band was limited to 100mw in the USA?