Welcome to The FlyingGiants! - please login or click this bar to join our community...

NitroPlanes Giant Scale New Arrivals Sales Nitro Planes Gadgets
 

Welcome to The FlyingGiants Community! We're all about fun, and inside you'll find the greatest, friendliest, and most helpful group of people around! If this is your first time visiting, please check out site, and click here to sign up! We hope to see you soon!!

Go Back   FlyingGiants Forums > General RC Product Discussions > 2.4 Ghz Spread Spectrum Technology


2.4 Ghz Spread Spectrum Technology Discuss Spektrum, Futaba FASST, and all of the exciting 2.4 transmitter/receiver technology here!

Support our Sponsors

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-04-2008, 09:59 PM   #457 (permalink)
Bad-ass Super Contributer!
 
XJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New Zealand
Age: 55
Posts: 791
XJet is offline
Default Re: Independent tests prove lack of frequency hopping with XPS

Quote: Originally Posted by zoomer260
View Post
Xjet, I'm NOT a basher on this thread I am following with accute interest. But I am wondering why you said a particular system needs failsafe for one airborne craft but not another ? They both can be lethal. Is it because meet rules require it on one but not the other or is it a personal requirement ?
Well it's just a personal preference but I would not feel at all comfortable using any RC system that didn't have failsafe on a model larger than .40-size.

Imagine the mayhem that could ensue if you're taxiing even a 50cc model and got hit by interference -- even a 22x8 spinning at 7K RPMs will make mincemeat of anyone who gets in its way.

All my larger planes have PCM receivers, I keep FM/PPM sets for the smaller "somwhat less" dangerous ones ;-)

Does anyone fly 50cc+ without failsafe these days? Why would you?
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 10:04 PM   #458 (permalink)
Bad-ass Super Contributer!
 
XJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New Zealand
Age: 55
Posts: 791
XJet is offline
Default Re: Independent tests prove lack of frequency hopping with XPS

Quote: Originally Posted by ChrisHays
View Post
xjet.. please include a pic of the tx!..thanks
Here's a picture of the transmitter, 2.4GHz receiver (with satellite) and 2.4GHz module.

Looks suspiciously like a JR module but it won't work without a small mod in my 9X II (9303).
Attached Images
File Type: jpg imax9x01.jpg (47.4 KB, 66 views)
File Type: jpg imax9x02.jpg (21.9 KB, 63 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 10:33 PM   #459 (permalink)
Bad-ass Super Contributer!
 
zoomer260's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Louisville,KY
Age: 50
Posts: 2,614
zoomer260 is online now
Default Re: Independent tests prove lack of frequency hopping with XPS

Quote: Originally Posted by XJet
View Post
Well it's just a personal preference but I would not feel at all comfortable using any RC system that didn't have failsafe on a model larger than .40-size.

Imagine the mayhem that could ensue if you're taxiing even a 50cc model and got hit by interference -- even a 22x8 spinning at 7K RPMs will make mincemeat of anyone who gets in its way.

All my larger planes have PCM receivers, I keep FM/PPM sets for the smaller "somwhat less" dangerous ones ;-)

Does anyone fly 50cc+ without failsafe these days? Why would you?
No particular reason to not use it I've just seen severe rush to the hospital damage from a .40 size airplane. My current radio is both but all I have is PPM receivers. The one PCM receiver I've used (I got with a used radio system) cost me a plane to lockout even though I had it checked out before and after the incident. As a result I'm not sure about it's benifit. I've had "hits" and with PPM you know it, with PCM you can get hit and maybe not ?
But to answer your question is I have no PCM receivers and have plenty PPM.

Last edited by zoomer260; 02-04-2008 at 10:40 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 10:37 PM   #460 (permalink)
Bad-ass Super Contributer!
 
zoomer260's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Louisville,KY
Age: 50
Posts: 2,614
zoomer260 is online now
Default Re: Independent tests prove lack of frequency hopping with XPS

And to show that I'm not trying to start anything, I've never used two receivers either. But just for the heck of it I'm gonna do it in this plane I'm building now just because I have them and thought why not ? No reason to do it other than it's something I haven't tried and I'm thinking maybe two antennas are better than one ?
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 12:28 AM   #461 (permalink)
Bad-ass Super Contributer!
 
DesertHucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kalgoorlie Australia
Age: 41
Posts: 644
DesertHucker is offline
Default Re: Independent tests prove lack of frequency hopping with XPS

Quote: Originally Posted by zoomer260
View Post
No particular reason to not use it I've just seen severe rush to the hospital damage from a .40 size airplane. My current radio is both but all I have is PPM receivers. The one PCM receiver I've used (I got with a used radio system) cost me a plane to lockout even though I had it checked out before and after the incident. As a result I'm not sure about it's benifit. I've had "hits" and with PPM you know it, with PCM you can get hit and maybe not ?
But to answer your question is I have no PCM receivers and have plenty PPM.
In Australia you can not fly IMAC without fail-safe at least on the throttle.

So a system without fail-safe could not be used for IMAC. I'm not sure about other disciplines.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 01:15 AM   #462 (permalink)
If you can't HUCK it BLING IT!
 
sweetpea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Whidbey Island, WA
Age: 34
Posts: 7,323
sweetpea is online now
Awards Showcase
Japaleno Bad Ass: This is to say thank you for donating  funds to help bring Wesse to the 09 Joe Nall! - Issue reason: Thank you so much! Official FG Bad Ass!: Hand selected award for being a BAD-ASS member, and an awesome dude in general. - Issue reason: For helping put on the 2007 FlyingGiants Las Vegas Huckfest, and being an essential friend of The Giants! 
Total Awards: 2
Default Re: Independent tests prove lack of frequency hopping with XPS

There are cheap after market failsafe device that can be put inline with the throttle servo.

So this system could still be used, not that I would use it.
__________________
Offical Member of Team Caribou Lou
A 'Veteran' -- whether active duty, discharged,retired, or reserve --is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America,' for an amount of 'up to, and including his life.' That is honor, and there are way too many people in this country today, who no longer understand that fact
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 03:31 AM   #463 (permalink)
Bad-ass Super Contributer!
 
DesertHucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kalgoorlie Australia
Age: 41
Posts: 644
DesertHucker is offline
Default Re: Independent tests prove lack of frequency hopping with XPS

Quote: Originally Posted by sweetpea
View Post
There are cheap after market failsafe device that can be put inline with the throttle servo.

So this system could still be used, not that I would use it.
Did not think of that
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 04:32 AM   #464 (permalink)
Bad-ass Super Contributer!
 
XJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New Zealand
Age: 55
Posts: 791
XJet is offline
Default Re: Independent tests prove lack of frequency hopping with XPS

These devices are ony useful if the receiver stops outputting pulses when the signal is lost or interference is received -- a lot of the DSP-based PPM receivers just go into a default "last position hold" for quite a while before they stop outputting pulses.

I'll check this cheap Chinese 2.4GHz set and see what it does.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 04:43 AM   #465 (permalink)
Eccentricus Magnus
 
KrisW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
Age: 51
Posts: 3,568
KrisW is offline
Default Re: Independent tests prove lack of frequency hopping with XPS

Quote: Originally Posted by XJet
View Post
These devices are ony useful if the receiver stops outputting pulses when the signal is lost or interference is received -- a lot of the DSP-based PPM receivers just go into a default "last position hold" for quite a while before they stop outputting pulses.

I'll check this cheap Chinese 2.4GHz set and see what it does.

Any idea how many frequencies the Chinese items can use? It would be nice to know if they can switch at all.
__________________
KrisW
"Mediocrity is doing it THEIR way"

It's 20% Plane, 5% Engine, and 75% Practice, practice, Practice . . .Excuse me, I'm off to the field.
http://www.modelaircraftengineering.com
BME Repair and Modifications Guru
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 04:53 AM   #466 (permalink)
Comin' through
 
RH1N0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: BrisVegas, Australia
Age: 35
Posts: 979
RH1N0 is offline
Default Re: Independent tests prove lack of frequency hopping with XPS

Quote: Originally Posted by XJet
View Post
These devices are ony useful if the receiver stops outputting pulses when the signal is lost or interference is received -- a lot of the DSP-based PPM receivers just go into a default "last position hold" for quite a while before they stop outputting pulses.

I'll check this cheap Chinese 2.4GHz set and see what it does.
I've noticed that JR PCM receivers change frame rate when they are in fail safe. It's only a slight change and not enough to upset the servos but it is a useful way to detect that the receiver is in failsafe when the servo pulse duration is set to hold.

I'm interested to know if any of the 2.4 systems do this as well. Worth a look when you test the system...

Last edited by RH1N0; 02-05-2008 at 04:59 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 05:05 AM   #467 (permalink)
Gettin' Lower!
 
3DDevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 37
3DDevil is offline
Default Re: Independent tests prove lack of frequency hopping with XPS

XJET... when you tested the IMAX 9x system, did you notice that the plane was way more sensitive than when flown on PPM or PCM? I found this when I first flew my plane on XPS. I really liked the extra responsiveness...They recon its because with 2.4Ghz you get a lot more signals/sec to the servos?

That was until my XPS locked out and the plane crashed!!....
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 03:16 PM   #468 (permalink)
Bad-ass Super Contributer!
 
XJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New Zealand
Age: 55
Posts: 791
XJet is offline
Default Re: Independent tests prove lack of frequency hopping with XPS

Quote: Originally Posted by 3DDevil
View Post
XJET... when you tested the IMAX 9x system, did you notice that the plane was way more sensitive than when flown on PPM or PCM? I found this when I first flew my plane on XPS. I really liked the extra responsiveness...They recon its because with 2.4Ghz you get a lot more signals/sec to the servos?
I suspect that, much as folks claim "but it's true", this talk of "locked in" feeling and extra responsiveness is more placebo effect than anything.

Why?

Well no matter how fast your transmitter and receiver communicate, the fastest your servos can accept data is once every 20mS (50 times a second). That means there's an average latency of 10mS between when you move a stick and the servo becomes aware of that move.

Since a module-based 2.4GHz system can't send the data any faster than it's being created by the transmitter, it can't produce a faster response-time than the old "dumb" FM/PPM system.

Any module-based 2.4GHz system is actually going to introduce *extra* latency because it has to process each frame of data (1.5mS x num of channels) and convert it into a set of digital values, then send it to the receiver. Once the receiver gets that data, it then has to convert the digital values into a pulse for each servo.

The *fastest* and most responsive of all radio systems is actually the good old FM/PPM setup with a "dumb" (ie: no DSP or other computer stuff) receiver. With these old systems, the average delay between when a stick is moved and the servo receives the new position data is still still 10mS but the signal is passed on to the servo immediately, without the additional latency of processing or frame-reconstruction. In fact, the delay between when a pulse enters the transmitter module and when the same change appears at the servo lead on an old FM/PPM system is measured in *microseconds* rather than the milliseconds we associate with PCM, DSP or module-based 2.4GHz systems.

In fact I noticed a definite reduction in latency when switching from a Berg 5/II in my Katana profile to a plain old "dumb" FM/PPM receiver -- because the Bergs (like most DSP receivers) actually tend to buffer a whole frame before they output it. The difference *was* noticeable when flying. I've noticed no such difference when comparing my JR 9XII (9303) PCM to either the XPS or this cheap Chinese 2.4GHz gear.

The latency of an old FM/PPM system is also a whole lot better (a frame less delay) than a PCM system too -- but I don't recall folks saying that their FM gear felt more responsive or "locked in" than their PCM systems.

And let's not forget the weakest link of all -- the mechanical parts of the servos. Most servos are rated somewhere between 100mS and 250mS transit-time. This makes a delay (or improvement) of a few mS in latency elsewhere in the system seem rather insignificant.

If people are finding their 2.4GHz module-based systems feel more responsive then just what were they using before?
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
xps


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Xtreme Link Experiences Fly3DWithStyle 2.4 Ghz Spread Spectrum Technology 1221 03-27-2009 12:37 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:33 AM.


  Sitemap :: Contact Us :: Community :: News :: Videos and Photos :: About Us
FlyingGiants, and The Leading Edge, are trademarks of RCGroups.com LLC. All content (c). All rights reserved.
Please view our disclaimer


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0