|
Quote: Originally Posted by XJet |
|
|
|
|
|
As others have stated, I think it's important that this thread remains objective.
Those who have "faith" in XPS will never be swayed by any arguments put here so it's probably best we don't bother trying to mount cases for or against -- simply look at the data that's presented and draw your own conclusions.
I'll be posting a URL shortly for an article in which I hope to wrap up the XPS situation (again in an objective but "no punches pulled" manner) so that there will be a place on the web that those looking for informed information and opinion can go to find it -- without all the fanboys versus naysayers "noise" that has accompanied the presentation of such information to date.
In the meantime, we should wait for the rest of the test results to come in and avoid re-hashing long fought battles which really constitute little more than an irresistible force versus an immovable object. |
|
|
|
|
Xjet,
If you are going to write an article on the XPS system, I'd like to see a discussion of the benefits of the bidirectional communications between the transmitter and receiver (other than the telemetry aspect). I don't think any of the other systems have this feature and I think it does provide some benefits. For example, my understanding is that in situations where interference is short in duration, the transmitter system will retransmit data until the receiver acknowledges receipt of uncorrupted data. This may happen many times before the next frame, while other systems would have to wait for the next frame to transmit again. If the interference is continuous on the channel that an XPS system is currently using, then it would not appear to provide much benefit, but in real world applications I don't know how common this type of interference is (other than for example a wireless camera on board the aircraft and transmitting continuously). I don't see this aspect of the XPS system discussed much and I think it would be helpful for us to understand.
-Ed B.