| | ||||||
| | ||||||
| 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!! |
| |||||||
| 2.4 Ghz Spread Spectrum Technology Discuss Spektrum, Futaba FASST, and all of the exciting 2.4 transmitter/receiver technology here! |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| | #229 (permalink) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Bad-ass Super Contributer! ![]() Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: murray utah
Posts: 1,905
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| | #231 (permalink) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Bad-ass Super Contributer! ![]() Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: murray utah
Posts: 1,905
|
Are you inferring that thaey are better because they cost more? or that you are really paying more than they are worth? | ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| | #232 (permalink) | ||||||||||||||||||
| The Revegetator ![]() Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 14
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| | #233 (permalink) |
| Bad-ass Super Contributer! ![]() ![]() |
Probably one of Spektrums strongest points is the great variety of receivers but I really doubt that the playing field will remain lop sided for very long. In market driven economy articles of equal performance and size tend to level out. It just takes time and the cream is always on top of the warm milk. First in gets the best bite of the cherry but that wont last forever. |
|
| | #234 (permalink) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Flyin' Around ![]() Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 14
|
Corona has a new FHSS module/rx out for testing. Don't know how good it is, though. And I betcha they are MUCH cheaper. We shall see and I am not in any hurry to splurge on a new system, or I will end up sleeping with the dog. chewy | ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| | #235 (permalink) |
| Bad-ass Super Contributer! ![]() Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Sterling, VA Age: 38
Posts: 225
|
I must say that the level of knowledge here goes so far over my head that I might as well be reading Chinese. Fortunately from the info that I have been able to piece together, I have found it wise to give Futaba FASST a try..and fortunately my 8 channel combo and additional receiver came in the mail today. It mentions nothing with receiver mounting other than staying away from carbon fiber and having both antennas form a 90 degree angle. Would it be good to mount the Futaba setup high in the canopy as well? |
|
| | #236 (permalink) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Seasoned Veteran ![]() Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Enumclaw, Washington
Posts: 252
|
2.4 has a problem with any mass, and a battery pack or motor can cause blockage of signal in certain attitudes. So by having the RX high, and doing a 360 degree range check you can pretty well insure that you have good signal at all times. | ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| | #237 (permalink) |
| Flyin' Around ![]() Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18
|
Ok I feel like a snookered XPS customer, sucks but hey...I came to FG to get the whole XPS story. Now 2.4g experts lest whisper to each other for a sec... hypothetically take all other brands of 2.4g off the table as they dont exist now.. If you had to fly your most prized $$ aircraft using only XPS, for 500 flight hours, what steps would you take to reduce lock outs knowing the 2.4g environment like ya'll do? Now even more interesting Q: With all ya'll skills... if using only the XBee chips, can ya'll team up and do what JD hasnt done and create XPS to fulfill all the Telemetry, Sat Rx's, chan hopping etc.......CAN XPS DO ALL THESE THINGS?? Is xBEE capable of all this? Or is all this just a marketing hype experiment on JD's part. I'm military, and the only way to get a good threat level assessment is to find out from poeple I feel are experts/know their Caca... What they would do with XPS were it mission critical? Go or No Go? How bleak is it? How hostile can 2.4g spektrum get for non hop? How can a XPS user protect themselves? |
|
| | #238 (permalink) |
| Saving the Program....... ![]() Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Yuma Arizona Age: 27
Posts: 658
|
Chevy.......Ford........JR......Futaba, Everyone has their own preferrences and all the companys are going to say they have the best system, we just have to pick one and go fly, this whole hobby is a big risk with any equpment we use, If that worries us too much we should get into a less stressfull hobby like sailboats. I happen to put my trust in the XPS with my 50% Edge 540. ![]() Nice job Kiwi |
|
| | #239 (permalink) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Gettin' Lower! ![]() Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35
|
in the middle of the tailboom far from motor, batteries, carbon frame etc. Unfortunately my most prized high $$ aircraft are all 100% carbon fiber fuse and wings so XPS is simply not an option, and I've not seen any 2.4Ghz system work with 100% carbon planes without serious modifications (either to the plane or warranty voiding mods to the Rx antennas) And because very bad things can happen if it ever loses power at the same time it loses the signal for a second (zombie state), put the servos on the other side of an opto-isolator and give the Rx its own power supply, or second battery as a buffer. There's a DIY circuit that you could use. Diagram attached. The main power basically just keeps the Rx battery topped off, and if the servo draw ever draws the main power supply's voltage down, the Rx voltage stays high (the diode prevents the servos from ever drawing against the Rx's battery). If you can eliminate any possibility of a low power reboot, you up the odds of staying alive through intermittent loss of signal by quite a lot.
Because it is two way, the satellite receivers are at best, dumb, and at worst a liability. They can't transmit ACKs without interfering with the main Rx's ACKs (you'd actually be creating multipath interference at the source) so if the main Rx antenna is blocked, and the satellite receiver antennas are not, the Tx will still think it has lost the link, even though the Rx is still getting signals from its satellites. That'd be ok, if it was meant to always be a one way system, but it's not. As for hopping, it can be done, but it's always going to be *slow*, again because the two way nature gets in the way and it's tough for both ends of a two way link to know for sure if the link is 100% broken or only 50% broken, and you risk more by hopping when it's 50% broken than you would by staying put. There are good reasons for it being a two way system, and it wouldn't work as well as it does if it wasn't, but it hampers its ability to do proper satellite receivers, or to hop quickly and effectively. There is another option. There are new 900Mhz Xbee modules which use FHSS instead of DSSS. They're still two way, so they have the advantage of being able to retransmit when there are single receiver multi-path issues (what I call temporal diversity), but they hop *all the time*, like FASST or Airtronics FHSS. 900Mhz has better range, less multi-pathing and are blocked by less types of material.
The 2.4Ghz spectrum can be very hostile to a single channel system, but it's actually fairly rare. We've got a zillion single channel devices (stuff that only picks a channel at power up and stays on it) and they rarely get knocked out completely. But my test with 2.4Ghz video Tx's show that it is possible. ian | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | #240 (permalink) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bad-ass Super Contributer! ![]() Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: New Zealand Age: 55
Posts: 791
|
If it were relatively benign I'd feel much happier about committing a valuable model to XPS.
For example, when questioned about the lack of diversity, JD says "don't need it" because of this magic antenna and the reliable-transport layer intrinsic to XBee. Well the reality is that although the reliable transport layer will *help* mitigate the effects of multi-pathing it's not going to do a thing to prevent shadowing by CF structures, engines or other large RF-opaque elements of a model. Another example: Spektrum offers redundancy by using two channels and FASST offers to exploit *any* clear-spot on the band by constantly frequency-hopping. XPS has neither feature and the XBeePro modules were never designed to operate on dual frequencies or constantly hop. To try and mitigate this, JD came up with the story that a patented algorithm would hop on "potential interference" thus allowing the system to switch to a less noisy channel when required. Clearly this isn't the case (or at least not in a reproducible way).
In a benign 2.4GHz environment the lack of hopping isn't a big deal, since there's not going to be any need to hop. However, if your environment is very active and the profile of the 2.4GHz spectrum is constantly changing by a significant amount then you could find yourself affected to a greater or lesser degree. If you're lucky it'll be momentary lockouts -- if you're unlucky it'll be failsafe all the way to the ground. In a smaller and all wood/glass model the XBeePro's reliable transport layer will compensate pretty well for a lack of diversity since the main problem will be transient signal dropouts due to multipathing, antenna nulls and cross-polarization. However, if you're flying a larger model with CF, big metal engines or other components that can block the 2.4GHz signal then antenna/receiver diversity is essential and XPS falls down here. The reality is that most flying fields are pretty benign from an RF perspective and most models are neither large nor fast enough to defeat XPS's lack of antenna/receiver diversity. That's how come there are thousands of satisfied XPS users who've never had a problem. Not surprisingly however, a number of the unexplained XPS crashes seem to have occurred when a previously trouble-free model is flown at a different location for the first time. Perhaps this is an example of what happens when XPS encounters a hostile 2.4GHz environment and can't hop.
There are no "bullet-proof" RF links, even Futaba's FASST system, although theoretically the most resilient of the lot *will* fail if there's enough noise around -- although the whole band would have to be pretty much saturated for this to happen.
1. Check your RF environment using an SA (from ground and air) to make sure it's not too hostile 2. Make sure your installation is *perfect* to reduce the effects of shadowing 3. If you suffer even a momentary hold/failsafe -- get down quick and find out why The situation isn't too bleak for XPS users -- single-channel DSSS systems can work. I fly every weekend with an ultra-cheap Chinese 2.4GHz DSSS system and have no problems, despite the presence of a school WiFi network, public WiFi tower, a large factory with several 2.4GHz systems in regular use and a small suburb nearby with at least two 2.4GHz cordless phones and an unknown number of microwave ovens. Of course even that ultra-cheap system has a satellite receiver as standard equipment to provide diversity. I could easily fly my 30% Extra with this system -- but I won't. The biggest plane I'm comfortable using *any* single-channel DSSS system on is a 40-sized profile. And this is where I think some people have a real beef with XPS and JD. He's grossly oversold the capabilities of the system. The Chinese system I've been using for four months now makes no outrageous claims -- when you buy it you know exactly what you're getting and can make judgments as to what kind of model you're prepared to risk to it. By comparison, XPS purchasers are told that they're getting a system that's even better than Spektrum or FASST because it has a revolutionary antenna and the ability to hop away from interference before it even happens. If (as has happened on a growing number of occasions) people believe that hype and then lose a model to the system's limitations -- finally discovering that the "fantastic" claims were untrue they get really angry (which explains why there are some former XPS users who are so vitriolic about the system and JD). XPS is a fine 2.4GHz system when people are made fully aware of its limitations and it is used appropriately (with these limitations in mind) -- unfortunately the company persists in over-hyping its technology and capabilities. The result is the utter fiasco that has pretty much exploded in recent months as the facts are revealed, XPS raises its shields to deflect all criticism, and customers are denied any proof that they've actually got the features they've paid for. Ultimately I guess the question you really have to ask yourself is: How much would it cost to switch from XPS to something else and is that cost greater than the amount you're prepared to gamble by using a second-tier 2.4GHz system that could (possibly) cost you a model? From a personal perspective, I don't see any point on penny-pinching when it comes to RC gear. If you're flying giant scale and spending $4K+ on a model, why go all miserly and use a second-tier radio system when there are better solutions on the market for only a tiny amount more? Those who are enamored of their XPS gear say that the product holds its price really well so work out whether it's better to sell what you've got and pay a couple of hundred more for a system that will be far better equipped to protect your total investment from destruction. Or you could wait -- I'm aware that there's yet another 2.4GHz system coming onto the market later this year from a very reputable European manufacturer who's already selling into the giant scale and turbine markets. They've offered to send me a sample unit and I'll test it as soon as it arrives. It might be great, it might not but it is another option. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
| Tags |
| xps |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| JR-9303 2.4 Field Results | 1bwana1 | 2.4 Ghz Spread Spectrum Technology | 182 | 06-02-2009 01:23 PM |
| Xtreme Link Experiences | Fly3DWithStyle | 2.4 Ghz Spread Spectrum Technology | 1221 | 03-27-2009 12:37 PM |
| Independent tests prove lack of frequency hopping with XPS | XJet | 2.4 Ghz Spread Spectrum Technology | 1501 | 11-21-2008 10:24 AM |
| Final accurate 5955 torque testing results! | Extra260 | Transmitters, receivers, servos & Navigation | 124 | 02-06-2008 09:45 AM |
| ZDZ 210 is two noisy? | martin18152 | Gas Engines and Power | 28 | 04-23-2006 07:53 PM |