Independent tests prove lack of frequency hopping with XPS

[dirtybird]

Please include receiver sensitivity test in dbm.

[Wojcigitty]

If you guys are confused about any of the technical mumbo-jumbo in this thread, just look at this chart, it should clear everything up:

[XJet]

I love it! ROTFL!

[Four Stroker]

Kiwi; http://www.runryder.com/helicopter/t449100p1/

[Fish07]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Wojcigitty
	If you guys are confused about any of the technical mumbo-jumbo in this thread, just look at this chart, it should clear everything up:

[Kiwi]

LMAO. with the chart.

OK it looks like the feild is growing in the 2.4Ghz markets and I have a list of what is available today or known to be available within the next six months. Guys if you can add to it anything you know please.

But what is obviously apparent is that to do a heads up on all this will need financing from the state department. There is just too much and too many to try and do as part time after work thing.

The systems available that I have found so far are:

FASST
SPEKTRUM DSM
SPEKTRUM DSM2
SPEKTRUM DSMJ
XPS
AIRTRONICS
ASSAN
WEATRONIC
IMAC
WFLY

I am sure to have missed some but when you put that pile of equipment together plus the fact that some of them are not modular and that means buying a radio as well it just does not make sense for me to do it or even attempt it.

But before we close the case on this is it possible among the brains trust we have interested here to make some sort of onboard data logger that we could pass round to different guys. Not a logger looking at your receiver, rather something that only looks at your Tx and the noise environment in your area. Sort of like a small portable frequency scanner that logs what it sees.

I am thinking of something you place in your model and go fly. After the flight you have a look at what was going on.

I see a small device like that having great merit for guys who think they have a dirty area to fly in, it could even be used to check the site before an event or something.

Scanning from the ground is pretty much useless if you want to see your flying field environment.

So what would it take to make something simple and easy to use for this, or am I on the wrong track completely.

Kiwi

[Prof. Dr. YoMan]

ACT
http://acteurope.de/html/2_4ghz_conversion_system.html

[Four Stroker]

YoMan's example has a very interesting idea that I have been thinking about:

There is no need to have satellite receivers if you can have quick disconnect satellite antennas - like in the wings.

Is there a micro quick disconnect coax connector sort of like the ubiquitous bayonet connector on the 14 MZ antenna ? It would have to be good for 1000 insertions instead of the 30 for U.FL.

Kiwi, If you are going to include DSM, DSM2, DSMJ then shouldn't you include FASST 7 CH and FASST MULT CH modes ? They are not the same protocol.

[grayuk]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Prof. Dr. YoMan
	ACT http://acteurope.de/html/2_4ghz_conversion_system.html

Now that is a complicated system of levers and pulleys

[Kiwi]

Whooooooooooo,

Look at that, 2,4 Ghz and 35 Mhz running side by side. Now that has to be so solid its not funny.

That is some seriously well thought out stuff there, with the dual 2.4 and the redundant 35 (could be 72 as well) your really running three Rx's.

Phew, that is way cool technology right there.

[Prof. Dr. YoMan]

http://acteurope.de/html/2_4ghz_systeme__ubersicht.html

[Kiwi]

Prof,

You seem to have some very good access to the information your posting and I wonder if this stuff is available on the street yet.

Those diagrams really show some key details that would otherwise be unknown. In the FASST receiver for example it appears the the two antenna system is switched. Does it switch to the strongest signal or does it switch constantly.

You have to admit either way that the competition is heating up and that only means good things. If the manufacturers can crack the FUTABA G3 data strings then there is no stopping them transmitting at 2048.

Its getting interesting. Take for an example the 12 channel Rx with true dual FHSS. If that Rx is priced lower than $400 it is in the game with the dual Rx users. However if it is similarly priced to the current 14 channel unit its a killer unit.

The thing I really get all warm and fuzzy over is the bi directional telemetry that some of these new FHSS systems can incorporate.

Rather than than the new guys meeting the playing field level I think they are raising the bar and that only means goodies for us end users.

Yee Haaaa