RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
[quote]ORIGINAL: sillyness Wilson, you truly are one of the dimmest. [/quote] Dimmest? What is that suppose to mean? Juvenile attacks. Now that's constructive. :)
Posted on: 11/6/2006 8:24 PM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4963521

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
[size=24][b]Kool!!![/b][/size] Smoke and mirrors. I [b]like[/b] it! Well why didn't you just say so! Count me in! :D :D :D :D LMFAOPIMP!!!!!
Posted on: 11/6/2006 6:36 PM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4963044

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
[quote]ORIGINAL: Phaedrus-MMVI This was posted on another forum by the heli pilot who successfully flew the XPS system in a TREX600 this weekend. I thought this was a worthwhile question. [quote]or those interested.......like me.......Jim said he is going to make the modules for the 14MZ and 12MZ! [/quote] I wonder how the software will handle this?? When I changed from a 72 module to a 50 meg module the radio recognized the new module and asked me if I wanted to use it. Has Jim hacked into the software to deal with this?? [/quote] I alluded to the same question just a few posts back but never got an answer. I'm guessing it's some more of that "magic" stuff. LOL If he does decide to support the 14 and the 12, I'd like to know too because there is great interaction between the firmware in the TX and the module. Although I'm sure it's not open source stuff, I have a high degree of confidence that most of the module information is fed to the TX at boot time via firmware in the module but I could be wrong. Hacked firmware in the TX? Not sure I'd want to go down that road but I'd feel very confident if it was just a series of variables being passed from the FW in the module to the TX at boot time. :) I know the 9C series of synthesized radios are dip-switched for channel selection but don't the JR radios with modules get selections on the menu screen just like the Futabas? I'm not that familiar with JR's stuff but if this is true, I think Jim has committed to supporting the JRs so he must [i]know[/i] something about the interactions between the TX and the modules.
Posted on: 11/5/2006 6:06 PM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4958733

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
[quote]ORIGINAL: JimDrew I won't explain the technology, that is what we consider trade secrets - and magic. Yes, we are using a variation of MaxStream's existing (and well established) technology, that was adpated for us. How do you know any of these things with the Spektrum system? You don't. I can tell you that just watching a specktrum analyzer with our system running and other 2.4GHz devices going, definitely shows that we have a much superior system for preventing any type of potential problem. [b]There is a 1 in 18.66 quintillion chance of a conflict with another XtremeLink system (and that is if we sold that many modules + 1). There is 0 chance of a conflict with any other system. Our radio system is far superior in noise rejection and sensitivity. Our data is encrypted and checksum'd to prevent someone from deliberately hacking the system to shoot people down (like some people do for fun with 72MHz). [/b] We are demoing large planes, small planes, by themselves, with other XtremeLink systems, and with Spektrum systems. We have never had a single hiccup with our system, not even with the prototypes. It actually is the first time that I have ever designed something that did not have a single bug in the first revision of the beta code. I plugged it in, and it worked. [/quote] That's a big fat mathematical zero where I come from and I'm formally trained so THERE. :p LOL Seriously guys. If you want to take sides with him and attack me, that's fine with me. I could care less really. I'm looking for answers from Jim, not from ya'll. Attack me. I could care less but my questions and challenges are legitimate to me and that's all that matters to me. :) That's a statement of infallability to me. It is, of course, subject to the interpretation of the reader.
Posted on: 11/2/2006 5:06 PM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4947238

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
[quote]ORIGINAL: JimDrew I won't explain the technology, that is what we consider trade secrets - and magic. Yes, we are using a variation of MaxStream's existing (and well established) technology, that was adpated for us. How do you know any of these things with the Spektrum system? You don't. I can tell you that just watching a specktrum analyzer with our system running and other 2.4GHz devices going, definitely shows that we have a much superior system for preventing any type of potential problem. [b]There is a 1 in 18.66 quintillion chance of a conflict with another XtremeLink system (and that is if we sold that many modules + 1). There is 0 chance of a conflict with any other system. [/b] Our radio system is far superior in noise rejection and sensitivity. Our data is encrypted and checksum'd to prevent someone from deliberately hacking the system to shoot people down (like some people do for fun with 72MHz). We are demoing large planes, small planes, by themselves, with other XtremeLink systems, and with Spektrum systems. We have never had a single hiccup with our system, not even with the prototypes. It actually is the first time that I have ever designed something that did not have a single bug in the first revision of the beta code. I plugged it in, and it worked. [/quote] That's a big fat mathematical zero where I come from and I'm formally trained so THERE. :p LOL Seriously guys. If you want to take sides with him and attack me, that's fine with me. I could care less really. I'm looking for answers from Jim, not from ya'll. Attack me. I could care less but my questions and challenges are legitimate to me and that's all that matters to me. :)
Posted on: 11/2/2006 5:03 PM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4947226

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
[quote]ORIGINAL: canavanbob Wilsonflyer, Please answer my request! By the way, give the post number where Jim said "radio failures are thing of the past". Bob [/quote] I see a reply up there asking EasyTiger for something. Link for what?
Posted on: 11/2/2006 4:57 PM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4947206

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
[quote]ORIGINAL: DadsToysBG Your funny [/quote] My funny what? You didn't finish the sentence. :confused:
Posted on: 11/2/2006 4:05 PM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4947031

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
[quote]ORIGINAL: DKjens ... you'd know why it's impervious to other 2.4GHz systems, [b]short of one or perhaps two scenarios[/b]. DKjens [/quote] Thanks for substantiating [b]my [/b]argument for me. I needed some help! :D :D :D
Posted on: 11/2/2006 4:03 PM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4947021

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
[quote]ORIGINAL: DadsToysBG I've not posted here yet, but most of what I read is getting to be a lot like the spam I try to keep off my computer. I wish I had never book marked this thing. Dnnis [/quote] Un[i]marking[/i] it is always an option. :)
Posted on: 11/2/2006 4:00 PM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4947011

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
[quote]ORIGINAL: EASYTIGER Wilson, you are weeing to windward on this. Don't waste your breath. Earlier on in this thread, I pointed out some plain old bald-faced LIES by Jim Drew. I called them what they were, LIES. I pointed out very clearly where he said one thing and then another. You know what happened? Some mysterious moderator deleted them, without saying anything or identifying himself. Just dissapeared. At any rate, you and I and many others have pretty much figured Jim out, if others can't, oh well for them. He seems to like the attention, so why give him more? [/quote] Best point I've seen yet. I think I will take [b]yours[/b] to heart. :) Thanks.
Posted on: 11/2/2006 3:57 PM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4946995

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
[quote]ORIGINAL: jonkoppisch Well.. It's been tested and demonstrated. So far, with no quarantee at all it's 10 times better than what we have!!!! Get it out Jim!!!! How long will we have to wait???????? [/quote] 10 times better based on what??? See. This is what I don't get. Let me try [b]one more time[/b]. Allow me to speculate some numbers to you for an example's sake. Let's say our average failure rate (JUST for argument) due to radio failure/glitches is one model in every 1000 launches (though I suspect it is significantly more failures than that in real life). What you're saying is that his new system will only have 1 failure in 10,000. That's great and I know you're only saying it's better and not literally claiming "10 times" better but the point is that ExtremeLink [b]is[/b] making such a claim. They are saying that radio failures are a thing of the past and that they will [b]never[/b] (at least not by real-world mathematical standards) happen again. That's a much bolder claim that what even you are making and that's the one I can't quite swallow yet. Make sense? :)
Posted on: 11/2/2006 3:55 PM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4946987

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
[quote]ORIGINAL: zope_pope In Jim's defense, the problem with a guarantee would be people claiming that it was radio interference, when it really was a linkage coming loose, a servo stripping, or just plain dumb thumbing. There are so many things that can go wrong in any aircraft, and it would be so easy and convenient to just say it was the 2.4ghz xtremelink and get your 2k back in your 30%. I think it is unfair to require a company to do such a thing. Jim is trying to run a business, and while we are the customer, we need to also put ourself in his shoes. If anyone has been in small business, you know what I mean... I have no clue why we are so strung out on attacking this guy when he is doing something to advance the hobby by leaps and bounds. If it never makes it to market, oh well. Maybe the big guys will finish the job, but atleast he is trying, and it seems to me that the system works. We'll find out when it comes to market, but in the mean time, just complaining, saying why it wont work, its just not helping the situation. Express concerns, yes, but attacking is totally uncalled for. I am all for constructive criticism, but this is just ridiculous! [/quote] Please quote for me where I have personally attacked Mr. Drew in any way. A business challenge is not an attack. This is all about business to me sir. I'm just trying to cut through all the hoopla and find out where the beef is. I want a system like this just as badly as anybody. Everybody can't stand around and be a cheerleader. Somebody has to challenge those involved with the [b]hard[/b] questions. Being in business ain't easy. I've run several successful companies for myself over the past 20 years and nobody knows any better than me that thes challenges are part of the process. My bet is that Jim knows this too or he wouldn't be where he is. I'm not here to be anybody's enemy; [b]nor anybody's friend[/b]. It's all about the business problem to me. I want it too but before I entrust my thousands of dollars of investments in this hobby to anybody's product (this ain't one .40 airplane here), I want something besides the equivilent of "Because I said so.". I think you should too but that's your call. Not mine. :)
Posted on: 11/2/2006 3:47 PM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4946957

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
[quote]ORIGINAL: jonkoppisch Good luck getting a guarantee!!! I haven't seen any radio manufacturer guarantee anything yet!! I've lost a couple of planes to defective radios... 1 brand new futaba and 1 brand new airtronics. The only thing that they 'guaranteed' (barely) was their receiver that caused the crash!!! The loss of the airplane etc was just tuff luck!!! Jim shouldn't have to guarantee any more than the other radio manufacturers.... [/quote] I'm sorry but I think you may be missing my point. You've never been able to have any manufacturer to be in a position where they [b]could[/b] make that type of guarantee. That's kinda my point. 72mz [b]is[/b] vunerable. We all know that and we accept it as an associated risk of the hobby itself. This guy's proclaiming before God and everybody else that his system is [b]untouchable[/b] (His mathematical claims. Not my interpretation.). That's a pretty bold claim and a quantum leap if it's indeed true. All I'm saying is that the words are [b]meaningless[/b] unless there's some guarantee to back up the claim. I don't know this guy from [i]Adam[/i] and while I'm sure he's a great guy and his intentions are admirable, at the end of the day, I still don't know him so I have no reason to believe him anymore than you have reason to beleive me if I tell you tomorrow is the end of the world. Why wouldn't you believe me if I told you that? Because I have NO credability on the subject matter as far as you're concerned because I have never established such credability with you. Now... If I force the issue and say "I bet you a million dollars that the world will end tomorrow." then you are forced to rethink your conclusion based on different criteria. Now my credability (or lack thereof) does not matter to you. What matters is whether you think what you know is more likely to come true than what I know and you take the bet or not based on that belief system and mathematical probabilities based on historical facts. Either way, I've [i]backed my end up[/i] with the bet itself. [i]Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.[/i] Build a mousetrap guaranteed to catch all mice and never miss one (the equivilent claim that is being made here in my interpretation) and all other mousetrap vendors might as well close down shop. Do it without backing it up with some sort of incentive and it's business as usual for everybody. (Edited for spelling/typos and not for content)
Posted on: 11/2/2006 3:38 PM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4946914

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
[quote]ORIGINAL: JimDrew I won't explain the technology, that is what we consider trade secrets - and magic. Yes, we are using a variation of MaxStream's existing (and well established) technology, that was adpated for us.[/quote] Well established for what? Flying at 500 feet 3/4 mile out from the controller? Thanks. I seem to have enough magic in my airplanes and helis now without adding another proclaimed [i]magical[/i] component. [quote]Do you know any of these things with the Spektrum system? You don't. [/quote] Why answer a rhetorical question when you answered it for me. I didn't know that. Had nothing to do with the conversation about YOUR product as far as I know except like technology. Spektrum is a JR associated product and I fly strictly Futaba so I never had even enough interest in it to even pursue trying to learn anything about it. I will confirm now, though, that no radio information is available to the user. I find that very interesting... and very strange for a device that's received FCC approval. [/quote] [quote]I can tell you that just watching a specktrum analyzer with our system running and other 2.4GHz devices going, definitely shows that we have a much superior system for preventing any type of potential problem. There is a 1 in 18.66 quintillion chance of a conflict with another XtremeLink system (and that is if we sold that many modules + 1). [/quote] It ain't other Extremelink systems I'm worried about. I accepted your claim to that fact a while back. I cannot understand how you can proclaim immunity from any other manufacturer's 2.4 system that doesn't fall under the umbrella provided by MaxStream.[/quote] [quote]There is 0 chance of a conflict with any other system. [/quote] Talk about a BOLD claim. If there's a zero percent chance with anyone else's system and 1 in the quintillions chance of conflict with your own, I'm betting you're willing to back up the integrity and absolute non-volitility of your system by putting your money where your mouth is with your [b]warranty and guarantee[/b]. [/quote] [quote]Our radio system is far superior in noise rejection and sensitivity. Our data is encrypted and checksum'd to prevent someone from deliberately hacking the system to shoot people down (like some people do for fun with 72MHz). [/quote] "Far superior"? I thought it was absolutely invunerable. Which one is it. Better or the be-all/end-all to all RC systems? It's either absolutely not vunerable or it is vunerable. Which one is it. Please do us (your potential customers) the courtesy of taking a stance and make a claim one way or the other and stop teasing us with words. Talk's cheap. See warranty comment above. [quote]We are demoing large planes, small planes, by themselves, with other XtremeLink systems, and with Spektrum systems. We have never had a single hiccup with our system, not even with the prototypes. It actually is the first time that I have ever designed something that did not have a single bug in the first revision of the beta code. I plugged it in, and it worked. [/quote] Then back it up in the warranty amd guarantee and I'm in despite my objections but I will tell you this. If you're so company's stance is so arrogant as to claim absolute and 100% infallability in your radio system, then bully for you but I believe you're company's claim is full of KAKA. It's pretty arrogant to guarantee absolute integrity in a system where there is so much junk and garbage in the environment in which it runs (airwaves) that is absolutely beyondf your control but if you're willing to make such a guarantee, I'll be the first one in line to buy one... and the first one at your doorsteps when something goes amiss. :)
Posted on: 11/2/2006 12:56 PM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4946327

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
[quote]ORIGINAL: chrisF test pilot [quote](Edit: Afterthought) So let me get this straight (and I do understand it's gonna be much easier for the OEMs to get their equipment fully certified). This thing is gonna be FCC certified but not for use in specific TX's? Hmmm... I dunno about that one. I doubt the FCC's gonna certify anything that's not fully certified with any hardware associated with (either directly or indirectly) the module itself. The FCC don't play that crap which brings me to this... Are you guys gonna use this tech:[/quote] The radio modules are FCC certified by Maxstream. And the Tx is irrelevant in this case, if it were using the Tx antenna then yes it would have to be certified as part of the Tx. Since the RF deck is consolidated with the antenna all in one happy little package it doesnt require it. That is one of the reasons the module doesnt use the Tx antenna. [/quote] Ahhh... OK. [b]Now it looks like we're getting somewhere[/b] and down to the nuts and bolts of this [i]thing[/i]. This doesn't appear to be Extreme's technology at all but rather an implementation based on Maxstream through some sort of technology transfer or purchase. It appears that this technology (from Maxstream) is available to anyone and everyone with an idea and the $$$. [b]If[/b] that's the case and I'm reading between the lines here correctly, then what's to stop the manufacturing plant next door to my flying field from implementing a technology from one of thier providers that uses Maxstream's 2.4 technology too and create conflicts all over the place? Help me understand. If this is a crap-shoot where we all supposedly win based on the magnitude of the possibilities/permutations involved, count me out. I'm either guaranteed that a conflict is impossible or I'm not. Same as 72mz. I'll take my chances with the frequency board and the occasional DA that turns on his radio when he shouldn't have. http://www.maxstream.net/corporate/press/090403zeuswireless.php How does the TX module sync with the RX and negotiate a channel with no interaction with the software in the radio? How does the TX [i]know[/i] it has a functioning module in it? If there's no interaction with the software on the radio, what guarantees uniqueness of channel that can be verified if need be? Do we just take the little black boxes' word for it that they've made each other happy? What about the little black box just like it a block away that wasn't even powered up when all this negotiation between the first two secret boxes happened? What's it gonna do now that it's powered on? Seriously; seems like a lot of cloak and dagger going on here and I'm just trying to establish some sort of comfort level with what's actually going on so I can better understand the technology. Any help would be appreciated.
Posted on: 11/1/2006 10:36 PM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4944511

RE: Hardened Allen Wrenches and Screwdrivers
Wow! Thanks for all the advice and recommendations guys. This thread oughta be made as a reference sticky because you can only imagine how many of us have asked ourselves this question when in the [i]throws of battle[/i] only to forget about it until the next time it happens. Unfortunately, as is the case many times for me, I may have jumped the gun on this one even after my plea and declaration that I was going to wait this morning. I went by my LHS today and voiced my complaint to him (for the umptenth time) only to hear, "Oh. We use these Integy drivers for cars and they work great." Arrrgh!!!! I've asked him 100 times only to get a blank stare like I was crazy. Oh well... I bought the Integies and I have to tell you that so far I'm really impressed for my $30. You can find them here to see how badly I got screwed (since nobody here has even mentioned this brand): http://integy.automated-shops.com/cgi-bin/webc.cgi/st_prod.html?p_prodid=160&p_catid=11&sid=4wSJJh1VU5Hf7HC-29106458481.89 I told the guy (at my LHS) to go ahead and order the matching screwdriver set for me too. I think I still want the Duratrax set (big one from Tower; I found it after making my original post this morning) for Christmas but I'm gonna see how happy I'll be with what I just got for the next 30 days first. I've thrown a lot of money at this problem over the years so I may still end up trying some of your suggestions. I do appreciate them. At least now I know they exist and from multiple vendors. As far as the guy who asked about solutions available from Snap-On; the guy at Rick's Helis says on his web page that "all" L-shaped allen wrenches are created equal (equal CRAP LOL) so I suspect Snap-On has nothing on our hobby suppliers on this one. RTL has what appears to be a NICE set of screwdrivers they swear by if anybody's interested. I may try a set of them too. :D Thanks again for all the help and response. It is truly appreciated. Now if I could only find grade 8 metric 3mm allen head screws to go with my new drivers... :D :D :D
Posted on: 11/1/2006 8:59 PM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4944044

Hardened Allen Wrenches and Screwdrivers
I am sick and tired of soft allen wrenches and screwdrivers over the years. It's always been a problem with my airplanes but since I got into electric helis, it's really become an annoyance since all the heads are so SMALL on the micro stuff. I am continually rounding off the head of a screww due to soft screws and/or soft tool ends. I want to at least fix PART of the problem! Does anybody know of where I can buy what I would call case-hardened steel tip allen wrenches and screwdrivers? I've tried ball-end drivers from Craftsman and Hobbico and they're all crap after a couple of months. What got this all started was when a friend was over yesterday helping me fix one of my broken T-Rexes. He had a set of metric Duratrax allen drivers and they worked extremely well and he just ranted and raved about how good they were after he heard me bitch about my experiences over the years. I looked at Tower and they didn't seem to have a set. :confused: Since Tower didn't have a set, I decided to stop for a minute and see if anybody else here shared my experiences and had found a solution better than the crap I've been using and an emory wheel or if anybody had found anything better than the Duratrax stuff. An endorsement for the Duratrax stuff maybe? They looked pretty good and this guy works on his stuff a lot so I trust his opinions but I was [i]raised[/i] in a garage and body shop and I've never run across any case-hardened allen wrenches so I'm not sure these Duratraxes are and I [b]think[/b] that's what I really want while I'm looking. Any ideas or shared experiences would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, bob
Posted on: 11/1/2006 7:34 AM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4941238

RE: Keep extra TREX 450SE or trade?????
I have 3 T-Rexes. Why? So I can TRY to always keep at least 2 in flying condition. There's nothing I hate more than to be flying and have a dumb thumb boom strike or something like that and have to stop to do repairs or worse yet, wait for parts I don't have on hand. Keep'em/build'em both [b]to fly[/b] and count your blessing for the deals you got. ;) Can I be brutally honest with you? If you think you might need to sell one to buy servos, etc., you may be getting into the wrong hobby (helis). Crashes are part of the life much more so than airplanes (IMO and I fly both). This is an expensive segment of RC. It's not for the weak of heart or pocketbook. Not saying that you said so but just reading between the lines a little (my interpretation of what you said). Good luck!
Posted on: 10/31/2006 1:22 PM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "T-Rex heli"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4938136

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
[quote]ORIGINAL: chrisF test pilot And latency doesnt really have anything to do with resolution. The latency intriduced in PCM systems is the PPM>PCM translation that takes place. So it is possible for the XPS system to have less latency but not any more measurable resolution. And alot of times what people claim they can or cant feel is latency. That was one of the big improvements with the 14MX besides the 2048, the due to the processor and I would assume better coding the latency is less than half of previous systems. [/quote] Good point. I hadn't thought about that. :)
Posted on: 10/30/2006 11:55 AM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4933267

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
I may have just found the answer to my resolution question. Seems it is 16 bits or >65000. WOW! If that's true, that's a quantum-like leap in resolution. I ran across this while reviewing the questions and answers section. [quote]1 in 18,446,744,073,709,552,000 chance of being on the same channel as another module (and that's only if we sold that many systems + 1!) Up to 160 modules in use simultaneously. [/quote] That seems to be a contradiction of sorts to me (as a mathematician). Not that >160 modules in use concurrently should ever be a problem (but given the proclaimed range, it very well could be) but which one is it? Could someone please clarify the above claim to me and explain exactly what is meant by it? Thanks.
Posted on: 10/30/2006 11:45 AM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4933231

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
[quote]ORIGINAL: mu2driver [quote]ORIGINAL: Phaedrus-MMVI Darcy - I am curious about the comment about the latency of the XPS compared to the Futaba PCM. What does this mean real world? How was it determined? What exactly were you looking at or feeling when the difference was observed? [/quote] Bill, when you have the 1024pcm module setup and move the sticks it is fast and pretty smooth, then when you switch out to the Xlink it is a faster responce and clearly smoother from a Pilot perspective. I flew both systems back to back with no adjustments to the programing, it was a quicker feel, just like the 512 is to the 2048mz, its that kind of difference, from a pilot feel. dirtybird, all in due time! I was also at the shootout hangin out with my many friends Thursday and Friday, I left there to Test this system in a 40%. Now it works, and as soon as Jim feels its ready to give out to the masses you will se it poping up at Flying Fields across the Nation and eventualy across the World [/quote] So what [b]is[/b] the claimed resolution? It either is better or it isn't but it certainly posseses a [i]resolution[/i]. How can it possibly be any better than the receiver it's comunicating with since that's where the resolution is controlled (and MUST exist by definition). What exactly is the resolution of the RX? Feel don't cut it. Feel is subjective. Resolution is a measureable and provable mathematical quantity. It either is higher resolution or it isn't. Which one is it? Thanks.
Posted on: 10/30/2006 11:28 AM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4933175

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
Since I've been challenged and called out so much in this thread for simply sharing a comment about my opinion that this is a poorly designed product, I've decided to make it my job to be the voice of negativity and [b]objectiveness[/b] in this thread as well. It seems some of you [b]want[/b] this product so badly (we ALL do) that we have seemingly lost our sense of objectivity here. So I ask this... What exactly does the video prove (I watched it)? From what I see and for all I know, the [i]man in the moon[/i] could be flying that airplane. All I see it proves is that: 1) The pilot is obviously a good pilot 2) The 9CXX does its job properly 3) The radio system does its job (assuming it is indeed an ExtremeLink radio system which was never shown in the videos I watched on the 40%'er) within the geographical bounds of an average parkflyer. Where's the beef? That's actually a rhetorical question because I doubt there's any way to [i]prove[/i] such a technology via video anyway. This is all simply a leap of faith that Jim is developing and willing to deliver the product he says he's working on. I believe him. I [b]never said I didn't[/b] contrary to some of the implications above. At the end of the day, hopefully, we will all benefit from the technological barriers he's breaking but for the record, I still don't like the [b]design[/b] of the TX module because of the antenna protrusion. I never will and that is all I ever said to begin with. I was really hoping Jim would jump in here after my first post and say that this was a prototype and that the final design won't be like this one. He still may. I've yet to hear from [b]the man[/b] on the subject. 'Nuff said about the so-called "video". (Edited for typos and not for content)
Posted on: 10/30/2006 11:22 AM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4933023

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
[quote]ORIGINAL: Woketman For WilsonNC: You are still missing the point. In a new system that uses this technology from the get-go, it could indeed be designed with an antenna sticking out the top. But Jim's stuff is aimed at retrofitting existing module based systems with his 2.4 GHz modules. As such, it makes sense to have the wee-wee antenna (to use analogous terminology to what you have used) sticking out the back. But that might be better anyway. Due to the strongest radiation being orthogonal to the antenna (discounting the claimed XPS spherical stuff), and the fact that I guess I hold a transmitter at about a 45 degree angle while flying, the antenna out the back makes more sense (with a little strong stubby thing like Jim's). The traditional 72 MHz antenna could obviously not protrude from the back. But this one can. If it were out the top, there is a higher likelihood of it being aimed at the aircraft. [/quote] Thanks for sharing with me that I [i]missed the point[/i]. I didn't realize that I did. Wow. This whole thread is simply an educational experience! I really don't see that what you explained had anything whatsoever to do with the point I [b]was[/b] making. BTW, "dick" is a term commonly used by engineers and the general populus to refer to anything that protrudes from another object in a stick-like matter. Not sure what a "wee-wee" is relative to this conversation. Before you start trying to explain the physics of the movements of radio waves relative to the transmitting authority (in this case, the antenna on a TX), maybe you should educate yourself on the types of waves and wavelengths produced by [b]both[/b] technologies involved in the discussion. Thanks for attempting to explain how [b]FM[/b] transmissions work. It was a futile but admirable attempt to make your point. Unfortunately, relative to this discussion; spread spectrum radio technology works nothing like that so a discussion of FM transmissions relative to this discussion is totally irrelavent. Wonder who missed the point now. :) Have a great day! :)
Posted on: 10/30/2006 7:34 AM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4932456

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
[quote]ORIGINAL: flyinrazrback I really dont care how it works as long as it does. To the people who dont think it is possible or with doubts, it wasnt that long ago that people laughed and said its not possible when someone said we should go to the moon or mars, etc. To quote the movie Armaggedon, "Their NASA for crying out loud, they got guys just sitting around thinking $h!t up", and I know that the same out here in the rest of the world with designers, etc. [/quote] I don't recall reading where [b]anybody[/b] in this thread said or implied that the technology itself [i]wouldn't work[/i]. Please point me to the post(s). BTW, it was 45 years ago that was said. That's a pretty long time in the scheme of most human lifetimes. :) Oh... and it's "they're" as in "they are" not their. "Their" says that it belongs to [i]them[/i] and we haven't even established who they are at the usage point in the sentence above. They're, their and there. Why don't you [i]look that $hit up[/i]. Have a GREAT day! :)
Posted on: 10/30/2006 7:23 AM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4932438

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
[quote]ORIGINAL: chrisF test pilot The reason for the antenna is technical, apparently the circuit board also doubles as an antenna of sorts so the antenna and circuit board have to be 90 degrees to each other. Also, if you used the Tx antenna you would have to have the whole unit FCC certified, which would be a nightmare. Having it built into the module and not using the TX RF gets around the certification issue. [/quote] So what you're implying is that we'll never see a module-based technology from the likes of Futaba, JR and Hitec that doesn't have this [i]dick thing[/i] protruding out it's rectum because it's impossible to engineer such a device because of the limitations of the technology itself. Is that what I'm suppose to believe??? LMFAOPIMP!!!! :D :D :D That's rich! If it is true, the tech's too finicky for my tastes anyway. If it's not, then the guy's proclaimation above (Assuming it's there as you say it is. I haven 't verified it. I'm taking your word for it.) means he's full of KAKA and his engineering skills shouldn't be trusted either because he doesn't even understand the tech he's supposedly designing. [b]Either way[/b], like I said above, ya'll knock yourselves out. ;) (Edit: Afterthought) So let me get this straight (and I do understand it's gonna be much easier for the OEMs to get their equipment fully certified). This thing is gonna be FCC certified but not for use in specific TX's? Hmmm... I dunno about that one. I doubt the FCC's gonna certify anything that's not fully certified [b]with[/b] any hardware associated with (either directly or indirectly) the module itself. The FCC don't play that crap which brings me to this... Are you guys gonna use this tech: 1) If it's not FCC certified at all (read: ILLEGAL)? 2) If it's not certified on your brand/model TX? Wow. You guys obviously don't have investments like I do or your money comes much easier than mine one. :( (EndEdit Afterthought)
Posted on: 10/29/2006 10:29 PM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4931396

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
[quote]I resent that Statement...you have no idea of my, or anyone elses skill level here! [/quote] So you've never dumb-thumbed one in? My apologies. I bow to your proclaimed expertise and skills. [b]You[/b] have no idea how many [b]skilled[/b] pilots [b]I've[/b] seen blame crashes on RF interference. Why? Dunno. Egos and failure to accept their own short-comings? RF interference happens and if you or anyone else here thinks it's all going to end with the introduction of SS technology at an acceptably amplified signal rate for big-birds and the like, I think you're all in for a rude awakening here [b]after[/b] your [i]hard-earned dollars[/i] are already spent. I see Rat-Shack crap run at a [b]park[/b] with no interference. Throwing a $7k 40%'er up is untested territory, at least not to an extent that there is not near enoiugh verifiable mathematical evidence to support and lend viable creedance to the assumption most seem to be making that this is the answer to everyone's prayers. Everyonme thought the same thing when FM came out too. I heard it all then too. [quote]You have no idea of the money I (or anyone else) has spent on RF problems at their field! [/quote] Then your field is [b]unsafe[/b] and it should be [b]shut DOWN[/b]. If it's that damn unsafe, it's unsafe for the public-at-large and should be considered by the AMA and your community as an unacceptable risk to the health and general well-being of the general populous of the area. shame on you for continuing to fly and support such an admittedly dangerous field (conditions). And we wonder why it's so hard to find places to fly these days! :mad: [quote] Nor have you had to watch perfectly good planes that were flying wings level with good airspeed that just Nose over and plant themselves! [/quote] I've probably seen as many or more than you have. Some of them my own as a matter of fact. :( Dumb-thumb. Mechanical failures. Crashes [b]too catastrophic to reasonably deduct what the true culprit may have been[/b]. And yes, real RF induced ones too; in my own back yard. My stance is this (and I have come to this conclusion based on years of experience in and around this hobby). RF crashes are an anomolly and not the norm. More times than not, someone turning on another radio on the same channel (or a NEAR channel with a poorly tuned TX) cause most FM crashes when the radio is to blame. All I'm saying is this isn't the ascension of Christ to our beloved hobby. The horror stories (some probably different from what we've become accustomed to over the years) will come with SS too just as soon as the products to run the [i]big stuff[/i] have been in the field long enough and in enough numbers to draw some scientific data. It may be better. I hope it is as much as anyone but throwing someone's knock-off, no-brand-name module, with a dick sticking out the back of it, in my $2k TX and risking it on my $5k planes ain't the way I'm gonna test the technology. Knock yourselves out. ;)
Posted on: 10/29/2006 10:09 PM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4931338

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
[quote]ORIGINAL: Woketman It seems trivial because it is trivial. [/quote] That's your opinion. Mine was stated above. [quote]ORIGINAL: Woketman Assuming Jim's system (and other soon to be 2.4 GHz systems) delivers as advertised, is there anyone that would really stay on 72 MHz, with all of the advantages allowed by 2.4 GHz, because of an aft-transmitter antenna? Are you serious? [/quote] Dead serious. Sorry if I didn't sound serious enough for you. [quote]ORIGINAL: Woketman If I had to have an antenna protruding from my forhead to get the benefits of no shoot downs, far less chance of tragedy due to interference, telemetry, and so on, then so be it! [/quote] Everybody's got an opinion. I didn't say you weren't entitled to yours. I'd sincerely appreciate it if you didn't tell me I wasn't entitled to [b]mine[/b]. (Dismiss my comments as [i]trivial[/i]... :p) ... I hate people that think they're smarter than everybody else (and especially when they dismiss the opinions of other simply because they don't share said opinion. Dismiss me like I was a 12 year-old... :mad: It just seems to me that anyone investing this much in this technology with an across the board release to support all major manufacturers would have designed something integrated with the radio like the pros would have done it. I'll waiting on Futaba's solution anyway (especially with this engineering design). Maybe you guys should study dumb-thumb. What are you going to blame mistakes on iif (that's not a typo. It means [b]if and ONLY if[/b]) this technology really does prove to be all that and a bag of chips? I was just asking a question. Sorry for butting in with my years of experience. I bow to your obviously superior intellect.
Posted on: 10/29/2006 6:04 PM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4930187

RE: XtremeLinkâ„¢ - 2.4GHz for Futaba, JR, and Hitec radios
I know this is going to seem trivial and trite to some in the scheme of a product like this but I have a question. I've watched this thread with great anticipation and skepticism like many others. One thing that disturbs me is the finger-like antenna that protrudes from the back of the module. I wouldn't have one if it was the greatest thing since sliced bread simply because of this design. It looks like an accident waiting to happen to me and it looks like a handling and storage nightmare. Are there any plans to support the existing antenna or better yet, a ducky antenna on systems like the 14mz where the antenna is easily user-replaceable? Like I said, it may seem trivial and trite to some but this is a deal breaker to me. I wouldn't have it the way it is; at least based on the pictures of the prototype.
Posted on: 10/29/2006 8:13 AM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4928249

RE: head speed on CP Pro
Just for purposes of accuracy, Horizon recommends the use of an [b]8 tooth[/b] with the E-Flite 4100. I have one. Works great. What's the headspeed? GNFI. Care even less. :)
Posted on: 10/27/2006 8:14 AM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "E-Flite Helicopters"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4920583

RE: Loose Tail Rotor
Retract tubing works exceedingly well though it is TIGHT and MUCH less flexible. I found out about this quite by accident after my LHS didn't have any Durbo Small fuel tubing in stock and I decided to buy a pack of the retract tubing and try it. I now keep an ample supply of both, though admittedly, I now use air retract tubing for most everything. :)
Posted on: 10/24/2006 1:27 PM by Author "WilsonFlyer" in the forum "E-Flite Helicopters"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4908751