Kiwi's XPS test results are up.

[USN_POPS]

	Quote: Originally Posted by sweetpea
	Who cares about everyone..........are you happy? If you prefer the switch-- great, its your plane. I won't judge you no matter which system you fly.....even if it was orange.

Hi SweetPea: I'm not so sure about Orange actually.

But do agree with everything else you said.

[sweetpea]

I kid about the orange......I fly Red, that's the only reason I put that.

[adjonym]

	Quote: Originally Posted by phippsj
	OK. You guys win! I recently bought a JR X9303 2.4 radio and R921 receivers to replace XPS in my three planes. I was using my old trusty 9C w/ the XPS module. I really like the ease of programming on the X9303 and binding the receiver and radio is simple. The flight logger module is awsome. I HOPE EVERYONE IS HAPPY NOW! P.S. Anyone want to buy some used XPS equipment?

LOL:
The way I see these XPS threads is, there are no winners or loosers. From what I can tell, all that the critics wants is for XPS to use fair marketing, so that the customers can base their decision based on facts of what the system do, and doesn't.
If we come to that point, we are all "winners", IMHO.
If it turns out that XPS is a one channel system, with no redundancy, then you can base your purchase on that. If it turns out that it has redundancy, you can base your purchase on that.
The problem is that the manufacturer refuses to give this information to current, and to be customers.
So, no matter how it turns out in Swedish courts, hopping or not, we are all winners. We then would have correct information to base our purchase on.
That's what this is all about(again IMHO).

[Kiwi]

	Quote: Originally Posted by adjonym
	LOL: The way I see these XPS threads is, there are no winners or loosers. From what I can tell, all that the critics wants is for XPS to use fair marketing, so that the customers can base their decision based on facts of what the system do, and doesn't. If we come to that point, we are all "winners", IMHO. If it turns out that XPS is a one channel system, with no redundancy, then you can base your purchase on that. If it turns out that it has redundancy, you can base your purchase on that. The problem is that the manufacturer refuses to give this information to current, and to be customers. So, no matter how it turns out in Swedish courts, hopping or not, we are all winners. We then would have correct information to base our purchase on. That's what this is all about(again IMHO).

Perfectly said and right in line with the intention of this thread in the first place. It was certainly not intended to put people up against people.

I really look forward to the tests carried out by that magazine in Europe. If you can scan it and or even translate the key findings it would be appreciated.

[easytiger]

	Quote: Originally Posted by adjonym
	LOL: The way I see these XPS threads is, there are no winners or loosers. From what I can tell, all that the critics wants is for XPS to use fair marketing, so that the customers can base their decision based on facts of what the system do, and doesn't. If we come to that point, we are all "winners", IMHO. If it turns out that XPS is a one channel system, with no redundancy, then you can base your purchase on that. If it turns out that it has redundancy, you can base your purchase on that. The problem is that the manufacturer refuses to give this information to current, and to be customers. So, no matter how it turns out in Swedish courts, hopping or not, we are all winners. We then would have correct information to base our purchase on. That's what this is all about(again IMHO).

Except, it's already been shown, time and time again, that the thing does not hop. There are no problems with Kiwi's tests. You turn something on on the same frequency that XPS is using, and XPS does not hop to a clear channel. Instead, it just locks up. That's it folks, it's all over. End of story.

You can run the tests in Europe, they will get the same results. Like Einstein said.

[easytiger]

PS I am familar with that German magazine. They are not some sort of RF authority in any way, shape, or form, and are no more or less qualified to test it than, say, Kiwi is.
I have seen them deliberately sandbag an item before, they went into the review looking to make the item fail and write a bad review, which they did. They are not afraid of graupner or anybody else, doubt Graupner cares that much, they sell an awful lot of stuff besides XPS, and I suspect this particular magazine will slam XPS hard, and Graupner will still advertise there.
The item I saw them sandbag before, it was hardly a fair review, but the distributor did not care that much, and kept advertising in that magazine anyway. That magazine has their "schtick", and printing the occasional slam is part of that.
What's my point? That standing around waiting for some definitive "European Test" is pointless...they will find the same results that Kiwi did. And that Jim Drew will explain away the results using obfuscatory shenanigans.

[Woketman]

	Quote: Originally Posted by easytiger
	obfuscatory

You are my polysyllabic hero!!!

[cluster-buster]

I just wanted to add my experience here. Im am using an European (CE Approval) IFS (XPS derivate)from Graupner in my Robbe Futaba FC-28 together with the 20-channel Receiver. No problems so far. No outtages, no problems with the range of it. The only bad thing to say is that I am still waiting for the CE approved USB-attached device Programmer. But binding and Failsafe setting ca also be programmed without it, as the rest of the settings as well.

For me, it is irrelevant if hopping occurs or not, since there can be up to 10 IFS modules on the same frequency at the same time. My tip: Switch off the RC components after your flight, and switch it on for the next flight. That way, even if somebody else uses IFS nearby it even safer ! But I did that also when using 35 MHz equipment, so no changes of standard behavior from a handling point of view needed.

Best regards
Markus

[XJet]

I also tend to be a little skeptical of magazine reviews.

Having been a part-time free-lance writer and product reviewer for nearly three decades, I have personally had very few of the negative reviews I've written actually reach the pages of a magazine. This is also true of most other writers I know who have written the occasional negative review.

Some publishers are quite blatant and tell you what they want your review to sound like (I've always told them to find someone else if that's the case) and others will simply fail to print a bad review (usually citing a lack of space or some other excuse). Interestingly enough, there have been several occasions when I honestly and objectively reviewed something and found it to be poor, only to have that review not published. Then, a month later, another review (painting the product in a glowing light) does appear in the pages of the same magazine -- with a full-page ad for that product on the facing page. Yes -- that's the way it works I'm afraid and the reason I started RCModelReviews.

It is economic suicide for a magazine publisher to publish a review that is critical of a product sold by one of their major advertisers.

What a lot of people don't realize is that the cover price you pay for a magazine in the shop only just covers the cost of printing and distribution - the publisher's *profits* come from advertising. To upset a major advertiser can have a very significant effect on the bottom-line. This is even more true for a niche-publication such as an aeromodelling magazine.

For this reason, I would be very surprised if:

a) the tests carried out are scientifically valid (magazines don't have the money to employ suitably equipped and qualified testers).

b) the results are completely objective (or even partially objective).

Now I may (I strongly hope) be wrong in this instance, but at a time when so many magazines are facing huge pressures from the internet and a lot of niche-publications involving hobbies are struggling to keep their heads above water, I very much doubt it.

[Kiwi]

Well lets wait and see Bruce, there is also the consumer complaint to be tested and maybe they have the backing to see if what XPS say in their literature is true is in fact true.

[XJet]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Kiwi
	Well lets wait and see Bruce, there is also the consumer complaint to be tested and maybe they have the backing to see if what XPS say in their literature is true is in fact true.

Yep, I wait with bated breath :-)

But here's a question to consider in the meantime... when was the last time you read a truly negative review about a product from a major model company in a magazine?

Just something to bear in mind when reading *any* review from a source that solicits advertising from the very companies whose products are being written about.

[Kiwi]

I answered that question a good few threads back. I have friends who write for the top magazines and yes they do write bad ones. Actually they dont get written, they send the stuff back. You wont find them printed because the advertiser pulls them, often to fix the defects found during the assembly , flight test etc. Once they overcome the issues often they are done again and printed.

But you know there is a fine line between good and bad when it comes to models and RC equipment. The planes my 10 year old flies are fantastic for him, I can write you an article on a Phoenix Models Rainbow for instance that will be glowing with praise. Its a $100 kit, cheap, paint on the cowl does not match the covering. You need to space the aileron servos up 1 mm so they dont top out on the covering. It does not 3D, its as light as a feather, but to an advanced pilot it would likely not be considered an exceptional kit. But for my young guy its a killer kit. He built most of it, he will fly to heck out of it.

How would you rate that then? From an expert point of view or a beginner point of view. To me it is what's relevant in the potential owners eyes that counts.

One mans junk is another mans treasure. Its hard to find that middle of the road and in fact if you did it would still be poor in the eyes of the expert and more than desired by the beginner. I think we all tend to want to take the high road with RC but it is still a hobby, yes there is junk along the way, its good to find it and expose it, but in who's eyes is it junk?

I actually like most of the magazines, the reports are good reading in the John and the adverts keep you up to speed with what is going on in the new stuff world.

Thats my take on it.

[Simpleton]

That's why I was skeptical when RC Reports was mentioned. Unless they have an RF lab and skilled techs on the payroll (yeah, right), then their honest review of XPS might come off as positive. Unless they flew it long enough for a lock out to occur, they might well conclude that it works just fine and write a glowing review based on their limited experience with the system. I doubt many magazines would have the staff to do an in-depth frequency hopping expose' of any 2.4 system. If they hook it up and it works, then that's likely what they'll report.

[easytiger]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Woketman
	You are my polysyllabic hero!!!

I'm not polysyllabic, I like girls!

[easytiger]

,