Kiwi's XPS test results are up.

[easytiger]

	Quote: Originally Posted by klhoard
	R/C Report magazine out of Huntsville, AL always "Tells it like it is". . . .

Or...that's what they want you to think. That's their "schtick", cheap paper and the rep that they "tell it like it is" as opposed to the glossy magazines. Sure.

[klhoard]

Careful, I'll forward this thread to Gordon. . .

[cptsnoopy]

	Quote: Originally Posted by jonkoppisch
	Surprisingly switches etc don't seem to be a problem for fasst and spektrum....

I have had great luck with spectrum. Only lost one heli in the last two years using it and that failure was attributed to a bad motor bearing. The statement you made above is absolutely incorrect as switches have caused problems well before 2.4ghz was a dream for r/c use. I did see first hand an airplane crash using spectrum equipment (not an AR6100 either) on its maiden flight. The problem was a switch that was intermittent. Once the switch was out of the loop the radio equipment has not failed since then. (over 3 months ago) I was surprised to see someone of your caliber and background making such an absurd statement. It looks like you're being affected by JD's rhetoric.

[jonkoppisch]

I was posting that in context that jd faults a majority of the problems with xps to faulty switches, regulators, li ions, li pos, wet grass, whatever... I thought it was interesting that all of these things seem to work fine with the other brands of 2.4. Has a switch or regulator ever failed causing a crash? Yes. As a matter of fact, that's one REASON THAT I USE 2 SWITCHES AND BATTERIES. For redundancy in case 1 or the other failed, there would be a backup.

[capgains]

	Quote: Originally Posted by easytiger
	Or...that's what they want you to think. That's their "schtick", cheap paper and the rep that they "tell it like it is" as opposed to the glossy magazines. Sure.

Good grief... does everyone have a motive in your world? Ever think that something is the way it is... because it is? Lighten up Francis...

[easytiger]

	Quote: Originally Posted by capgains
	Good grief... does everyone have a motive in your world? Ever think that something is the way it is... because it is? Lighten up Francis...

Because it ain't?

Like "sperical radiation technology"?

Like "all the magazines are conspiring with the manufacturers to make bad products look good?"

Like "you have to go on the INTERNET to get the REAL scoop!"


Whatever. I know how this argument goes on the internet. It's old. It's like talking to the AMA bashers. No matter what you say, what evidence you show to the contrary, AMA is just a bunch of old boy network guys getting rich off our dues who have never paid out an insurance claim. It's like talking to XPS fanboys, no matter what, even if their own plane crashes immediately upon putting in the XPS receiver, it;'s sunspot activity or Paul Beard hiding in the bushes with a jammer, whatever. Same with the magazines. The magazines are simply ruled by the advertisers, and spend most of their time trying to make completely defective products look totally awesome, so they can get more advertising. Except for ol' Gordon, who likes pizza, unlike them glossy magazine editors, who are all eatin' lobster and caviar with the Horizon executives. Besides which, who cares about the magazines anyway? The internets are ten times more powerful anyways, nobody reads magazines anymore. Right?
I've heard all this before. It's a classic internet argument. And it goes nowhere. It's the ego of the internet talking: "oh, me and my five friends are chatting about it, so the WHOLE WORLD is talking about it!" I know, the internet dominates public opinion, and everybody reads it. So how come when I go down to the field, not one in twenty people has even HEARD about, say, XPS?

Ahhhhhhh....nothing like a nice precaffinated early morning rant....one that is perfectly true, but one that you know in advance is not going to penetrate even one skull that is preloaded with a preconceived notion, and I'm secure in the knowledge that my words are completely wasted, no matter how true they are. Pearls before swine, as always, when you go out and start playing chicken on the electronic highways.

Okay, you win. RCreport goes to 11. It has Sperical Radiation Technology, too. It's built into that cheap rag paper stock.

[klhoard]

.
.
I guess the 'easy' in 'easytiger' means 'easily' provoked . . . .
.
.
Anyway, I doubt that any magazine, glossy or non-glossy is going to waste their time digging into the technical details required to prove to their readers that XPS is junk. The simple reason is that there are far too few of the systems out there to waste the time and money hiring experts to waste their time analyzing a system that comprises less than 1% of the R/C systems on the battlefield.
.
.
Honestly guys, when you are out at your club or go to a fly-in or a contest how many people have even HEARD of XPS? And, more importantly, except for the one or two guys at your club that still own and use an XPS system, how many MORE are considering buying an XPS system? None. There is ZERO growth for XPS in the USA. I know that Graupner sells the re-branded XPS systems, but that well is about to run dry also. If there was an actual future for XPS, we would see reviews and articles and the true "big-name" flyers switching over . . . but there is not. We would see XPS distributed by hobby shops around the US. . . but its not. Where can you find an "authorized dealer" re-selling XPS? . . . . there isn't one. And finally, if there was a future for XPS we would see more than two guys working out of a garage in Lake Havasu (or at least all of the vaunted "outsourcing"). The poor guy had to have Terminix spray his booth at Joe Nall for crickets. . .
.
.

[easytiger]

	Quote: Originally Posted by klhoard
	. . I guess the 'easy' in 'easytiger' means 'easily' provoked . . . . . . Anyway, I doubt that any magazine, glossy or non-glossy is going to waste their time digging into the technical details required to prove to their readers that XPS is junk. The simple reason is that there are far too few of the systems out there to waste the time and money hiring experts to waste their time analyzing a system that comprises less than 1% of the R/C systems on the battlefield. . . Honestly guys, when you are out at your club or go to a fly-in or a contest how many people have even HEARD of XPS? And, more importantly, except for the one or two guys at your club that still own and use an XPS system, how many MORE are considering buying an XPS system? None. There is ZERO growth for XPS in the USA. I know that Graupner sells the re-branded XPS systems, but that well is about to run dry also. If there was an actual future for XPS, we would see reviews and articles and the true "big-name" flyers switching over . . . but there is not. We would see XPS distributed by hobby shops around the US. . . but its not. Where can you find an "authorized dealer" re-selling XPS? . . . . there isn't one. And finally, if there was a future for XPS we would see more than two guys working out of a garage in Lake Havasu (or at least all of the vaunted "outsourcing"). The poor guy had to have Terminix spray his booth at Joe Nall for crickets. . . . .

Very well said. But there is another factor...why waste pages in a magazine to write negative reviews when it takes up space that could be used for GOOD items?
As an aside...I did speak to the editors of the two largest model airplane magazines in the world, about XPS, about six months ago. Neither were inclined to review XPS, and it had nothing at all to do with XPS not being an advertiser. They had doubts about the veracity of the system and its maker. They DO NOT want to recommend something and then hear back from their readers about problems. In the past, both have rejected advertising from companies that made bad products or gave bad service.

I bet XPS sold more systems in Europe through Graupner in a week than they did in a year in the USA. Graupner has a serious dealer network.
It was pretty funny to read Jim Drew trying to convince us that Horizon and Great Planes were shaking in their boots because of XPS...they LAUGH at XPS. The market share is so infinitesimal. No advertising, no distribution, a couple of guys in a storefront in Arizona trying to puff themselves up to look like a serious operation, Horizon can see straight through them, even without pulling a Dun and Bradstreet file on them.

[easytiger]

"Anyway, I doubt that any magazine, glossy or non-glossy is going to waste their time digging into the technical details required to prove to their readers that XPS is junk."

Therein lies another problem. It's just wrong to go into a review trying to prove something is junk. That's not right to do, even to XPS. I saw that in a German magazine, I'm not going to say what product, but it was a very sardonic piece that meant to do the product in from the start. It came out later the writer worked for a distributor of a rival product.
Negative reviews do get written, by the way. You know what happens to them? They don't get published. You know what the manufacturers usually say? "Tell us what to fix, we'll do better next time." And they send something new.

[Kiwi]

Easy Tiger,

You hit the nail on the head totally. I have friends who write for those glossy magazines and I promise you not everything they get to test and write up makes it too the printing press. It simply falls off the radar and the distributor goes away to fix the problem and try again.

[easytiger]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Kiwi
	Easy Tiger, You hit the nail on the head totally. I have friends who write for those glossy magazines and I promise you not everything they get to test and write up makes it too the printing press. It simply falls off the radar and the distributor goes away to fix the problem and try again.

Damn straight.
And those guys don't get in dutch with the distributor for it. And if some company tried to get all pushy, the editor would tell them to go pound sand. And they HAVE. Remember, a review is a great gift to the distributor, three of four pages of free advertising...for the cost of a model or product, it's a no brainer. And the big distributors send one of everything to the big magazines, with no promise whatsoever that it will get reviewed. There is no quid pro quo. But if a model is given with the agreement that a review is done, the onus is on the writer to actually complete the project, and to give an honest review. Reviewers who actually can get the job done and write about it are not so easy to come by.
Ask your friends if any company or magazine has EVER asked them to "polish a turd" and make something bad look good. See what they say.
But, hey, just ask on the internet! The mags are all conspiring with the manufacturers to gloss over horrible products!

[XJet]

My biggest bitch with magazine (and online) reviews is that so often, the reviewer knows very little about the type of model or item they're reviewing.

I have lost count as to the number of times I've seen a 3D model reviewed by someone who can't even hold a hover and thinks that "3D" consists of doing lots of loops at 300mph.

These reviews inevitably contain phrases such as "this plane is a very capable 3D machine, handling loops, rolls and inverted flight with ease".

And if there's a video associated with the review, there's a half-hearted attempt to hover at 300 feet along with lots of full-throttle straight-line or "on the wing" maneuvers.

That tells a real 3D flier (who must surely be the target market and the person most interested in the review) absolutely *nothing*.

This can mean that a plane which might be a *really* good 3D bird can be marked down because the CJ reviewing it thinks it's excessively sensitive on the controls and doesn't handle wind well.

[capgains]

	Quote: Originally Posted by easytiger
	Because it ain't? Like "sperical radiation technology"? Like "all the magazines are conspiring with the manufacturers to make bad products look good?" Like "you have to go on the INTERNET to get the REAL scoop!" Whatever. I know how this argument goes on the internet. It's old. It's like talking to the AMA bashers. No matter what you say, what evidence you show to the contrary, AMA is just a bunch of old boy network guys getting rich off our dues who have never paid out an insurance claim. It's like talking to XPS fanboys, no matter what, even if their own plane crashes immediately upon putting in the XPS receiver, it;'s sunspot activity or Paul Beard hiding in the bushes with a jammer, whatever. Same with the magazines. The magazines are simply ruled by the advertisers, and spend most of their time trying to make completely defective products look totally awesome, so they can get more advertising. Except for ol' Gordon, who likes pizza, unlike them glossy magazine editors, who are all eatin' lobster and caviar with the Horizon executives. Besides which, who cares about the magazines anyway? The internets are ten times more powerful anyways, nobody reads magazines anymore. Right? I've heard all this before. It's a classic internet argument. And it goes nowhere. It's the ego of the internet talking: "oh, me and my five friends are chatting about it, so the WHOLE WORLD is talking about it!" I know, the internet dominates public opinion, and everybody reads it. So how come when I go down to the field, not one in twenty people has even HEARD about, say, XPS? Ahhhhhhh....nothing like a nice precaffinated early morning rant....one that is perfectly true, but one that you know in advance is not going to penetrate even one skull that is preloaded with a preconceived notion, and I'm secure in the knowledge that my words are completely wasted, no matter how true they are. Pearls before swine, as always, when you go out and start playing chicken on the electronic highways. Okay, you win. RCreport goes to 11. It has Sperical Radiation Technology, too. It's built into that cheap rag paper stock.

Wow... you seem kinda tightly strung. All that from a simple question.

[easytiger]

	Quote: Originally Posted by XJet
	My biggest bitch with magazine (and online) reviews is that so often, the reviewer knows very little about the type of model or item they're reviewing. I have lost count as to the number of times I've seen a 3D model reviewed by someone who can't even hold a hover and thinks that "3D" consists of doing lots of loops at 300mph. These reviews inevitably contain phrases such as "this plane is a very capable 3D machine, handling loops, rolls and inverted flight with ease". And if there's a video associated with the review, there's a half-hearted attempt to hover at 300 feet along with lots of full-throttle straight-line or "on the wing" maneuvers. That tells a real 3D flier (who must surely be the target market and the person most interested in the review) absolutely *nothing*. This can mean that a plane which might be a *really* good 3D bird can be marked down because the CJ reviewing it thinks it's excessively sensitive on the controls and doesn't handle wind well.

Absolutley, yes. Wrong reviewer for the wrong plane. It happens a lot.
The online reviews I read on RCgroups in particular are often absolutely horrible, done people people who have no idea of what they are doing.
"I've never built an EDF model before, so here is my review!" Dumb stuff.
I really do NOT believe in reviews done by beginners. I want reviews done by experienced modellers. Even if the audience is going to be beginners. And a 3d plane needs to be reviewed by a 3d pilot, period.

[Julez]

Its amazing how similar magazines are all over the world

I heard the british and french ones are better, though.