RE: Game Commander configuration
An update: I've been unable to do any further experimentation until today. Here's what we tried, and the results: 1) Uninstalled the program, cleaned registry to remove any stray entries that may have been orphaned. 2) Re-installed AFPD to drive E, adhering to the recommendations for Windows Vista, that AFPD not be installed to the default path on drive C. 3) Installed the patch file that you specified earlier in the thread. Result? The rudder is on the right stick where the ailerons should be, and the ailerons are on the left stick, where the rudder should be. Elevator & throttle are ok. I don't understand why it's not coming up in Mode 2. Please advise.
Posted on: 8/12/2009 4:39 PM by Author "cbrillow" in the forum "Ikarus AeroFly Pro and Aerofly Pro Deluxe"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9011118

RE: Game Commander configuration
Thank you for the clarification. We'll give this a try when I can make it over to his house.
Posted on: 6/28/2009 10:21 AM by Author "cbrillow" in the forum "Ikarus AeroFly Pro and Aerofly Pro Deluxe"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8887891

Game Commander configuration
One of our R/C club members recently requested my assistance with some computer issues. Resolving the problems required using his system rescue disc to reinstall the O/S. (Vista) When everything was restored to its original system configuration, I reloaded his Aerofly Professional Deluxe and the True Scale Add-on pack. The sim started up without a hitch, but when he attempted to fly, it appeared that the controller he's using (the Game Commander) was set up as aircraft mode 1. (not surprising, as this is German software...) I stumbled around in the configuration utility and figured out how to reassign the radio channels so that he could fly using mode 2 stick assignments, and he was then able to fly airplanes. A week or so later, he called me and said that he has a similar situation when he's trying to fly the helicopter models. I didn't think it would be too difficult to figure this out, and went over to try to help. I was wrong. Not being a helicopter pilot, I don't know what channels need to be assigned to the sticks. To make matters worse, he wasn't able to tell me what channel/stick should be assigned to the rotor, etc., despite the fact that he (supposedly) installed the program initially and had no problems with either airplanes or helicopters. I'm sure it's a simple procedure to reassign things, but I just don't know what goes where. I'm hoping a seasoned Aerofly heli pilot can step in here and clear the fog from my eyes. Perhaps a couple of screen shots showing the Game Commander channels and what functions they're assigned to, would be helpful. I will be more than happy to supply any information that might be required in order for someone to help me solve this conundrum! Thanks for your consideration.
Posted on: 6/28/2009 8:12 AM by Author "cbrillow" in the forum "Ikarus AeroFly Pro and Aerofly Pro Deluxe"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8886398

RE: Game Commander configuration
Thank you for your prompt response. I'll copy the patch to a USB stick and load it the next time I visit. With respect to the rest of your suggestions, I'm afraid they're not all that helpful. As I mentioned, we have already gone through the stick assignments and calibrations necessary to fly basic airplane models, so I'm familiar with the steps that you've elaborated. Where we're stuck is making the assignments for helicopter models, as I have absolutely no idea what the function or component of a 'copter each stick is intended to control. I'm very surprised and a bit puzzled that it doesn't appear that AFPD installs a default configuration that allows first-time pilots to fly simple models "out-of-the-box." As I suggested in the first post, maybe it does, but it's Mode 1 because it's European? Should it be necessary to select a different controller configuration for flying a basic airplane vs a basic helicopter? My only flight sim experience is with a competing product, in which it's possible to switch back and forth at will, without having to take such a step. Again, thank you for your assistance.
Posted on: 6/28/2009 8:09 AM by Author "cbrillow" in the forum "Ikarus AeroFly Pro and Aerofly Pro Deluxe"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8887660

RE: Need your input on a Fuatba 7C FASST
Yes, I've read all the "stickies" and understand the polices, and appreciate the fact that there is an official presence authorized to address issues that are brought up in that forum. I've also noted that the JR rep was forced to abandon his position. All we were attempting to do is to help Futaba in their efforts to determine a potential cause of this failure, and to make others aware that it can happen as a result of the battery going flat. They have noted the possibility of the failure occurring a short on/off switch cycle, and I'd think that they would want to test for, and warn against users leaving their transmitters on, draining the battery pack. The more that's known about potential causes of this failure, the better prepared we are to try to prevent it.
Posted on: 6/17/2008 11:37 AM by Author "cbrillow" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7628931

RE: Need your input on a Fuatba 7C FASST
[quote]ORIGINAL: bruce88123 Again, in spite of Futaba denials, this WAS seen and complained about before by more than one person. [/quote] And it was, apparently, buried before Jerry or I could see it. Perhaps, after the initial hubbub over the duplicate GUIDs settled down, I didn't check in at the proper intervals to read evidentiary posts before they were expunged. As a relative newbie, I have neither a great allegiance to, or an axe to grind with, Futaba. But I'm watching very carefully how they respond to this. I won't consciously give my $ to a company that doesn't have the integrity to own up to issues that potentially can result in the destruction of hobbyists' equipment, or personal injury. Any legitimate complaint, such as Jerry's, should be taken seriously and investigated to evaluate credibility. If found to be credible, even if the problem can't readily be duplicated, it should be noted in the Futaba forum, where other owners of the 6EX can see it. Withholding this information is a great disservice to us, the customers, and we shouldn't tolerate it. I'm quite content to give Futaba the benefit of the doubt with reference to the original oversight where transmitters were sold with identical GUID codes. We heeded their advice and were satisfied. But when something else comes up and their stance is to deny that a given scenario is possible or delete the cautionary words of fliers who've experienced a problem and try in good faith to report and enlighten us, I don't appreciate being left in the dark. If they want to say that it can't happen, or shouldn't happen, or "that's not the way it's designed", fine. But leave the post so I can learn from the experiences of others and take steps to assure that I'm not put into a position to experience the same failure. Denials and attempts to obscure evidence of malfunction breeds distrust and fuels the rumor mill. Would Futaba prefer to have an actual event documented or have wild rumors and 3rd or 4th party recollections of what "I read about one time in the forum, but it's not there anymore."? We invested in these radios with the intent to make our hobby safer and more reliable, for our benefit and the benefit of our fellow fliers. We want to be confident with our equipment and able to rebut uninformed members who stand before our club and say "I heard such-and-such about these Futaba FASST radios". We want to be able to point to the forum where Futaba has made their case in explanation about any given reported anamoly. It's pretty hard to do that when the posts disappear. Clubs are going to eventually be forced to address the rumors and will likely come up with alternate rules governing the use of Futaba 2.4gHz equipment ironic, because this equipment was designed to eliminate potential conflicts and afford a high degree of confidence to us, as users. I like being able to go to the field, skip the step where I have to obtain a frequency pin, and turn my radio on and off without having to worry about what other fliers are using. If I have to go through some pointless rigmarole to mollify somebody who heard or read a rumor that Futaba didn't address or tried to ignore, I'm going to be putting my dollars into another brand that doesn't have this excess baggage.
Posted on: 6/16/2008 9:43 PM by Author "cbrillow" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7627035

6EX FASST loses GUID, resets to "error" ID
Necessary background: 1) A friend and I purchased 6EX 2.4gHz transmitters this past winter. We were made aware of the duplicated Tx GUID codes that were sent out in a small batch of early units, requiring corrective action by Futaba. In late February, we took our transmitters to our LHS to have them checked by the Futaba-supplied test rig. Both were found to be "ok", meaning that they did not link with the test receivers. 2) We attended the Toledo Weak Signals R/C expo in April and spoke with a Futaba representative about the situation. We were informed that there were some reports of 6EX transmitters spontaneously changing their GUID, but Futaba's testing was unable to induce a change or confirm that some units had indeed changed. We were told of speculation that the GUID could be changed in situations where the power switch was cycled too quickly or before the unit had fully initialized, but Futaba was unable to duplicate the failure using this scenario. We were satisfied with the actions Futaba had taken to that point in their attempt to correct the "common GUID" situation. We were also told that Futaba has created a newer firmware designed to guard against changing the GUID, but that it was not required that we send our units in it was an optional step. As a precaution, we have both been very careful to avoid quick turn-on/turn-off cycles with our transmitters just in case. 3) Late last week, my friend performed some "hangar work" on one of the planes in which he has a FASST receiver, and inadvertently left his Tx turned on for several hours afterward. Upon discovering this, he charged the TX battery and then turned on the Tx & Rx to verify correct operation. The plane's servos did not respond to any stick movements. He tried the transmitter with the other plane in which he has been using the FASST system, and its receiver also failed to operate its servos. 4) Examining one of the receivers, he noted that the green Rx LED was blinking, meaning that the Rx was receiving signals, but was not bound to the transmitter sending them. 5) He went through the bind/link procedure, depressing the switch on the receiver, and his plane's servos were now once again under his control. He repeated the link procedure on the 2nd plane and observed identical results. Both planes were again controlled by the FASST system. The foregoing strongly suggests that allowing the Tx battery to drain completely resulted in changing the Tx GUID, which was observed after the battery charge was restored and the unit turned on. We have diligently read all the official comments and the service advisory found [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_6921377/tm.htm]HERE.[/link] As is stated in the last numbered point of that post, we understand that it is not normal for a Tx and an Rx to become unbound, requiring re-linking. Given that the Tx is the active half of this pairing, it's quite apparent that its GUID has changed, and that the unit requires return to Futaba for repair. We feel that this is an important area for Futaba to further investigate, because the GUID of the transmitter has obviously changed. In addition, we took both of our transmitters back to the LHS test facility where they both passed the test several months back. My friend's Tx now FAILED the test, as the test receiver immediately responded and recognized the GUID, producing the telltale solid green LED indication. His transmitter now acts as one of the "faulty" units mentioned in the service advisory, where it had previously been considered to be one with a unique GUID. My Tx, as expected, did not complete the link with the test receiver. Summing up, it is clear that, in this case, allowing the Tx battery to fully discharge has resulted in the transmitter's GUID to change. Furthermore, the change was to the GUID that was at the heart of the 'common GUID' situation addressed by the above-referenced service bulletin. We feel that it's important that Futaba attempt to duplicate the conditions under which my friend's Tx experienced a change of GUID, using transmitters with ALL revisions of the firmware. to determine if this is a predictable and repeatable failure mode. And we also feel that a summary of this incident would be appropriately displayed in this forum as a warning to others who may inadvertently bring about the same consequences by allowing their Tx batteries to fully discharge. This is about as close to a documented occurrence as you're likely to see, and you're cordially invited to call Rider's Hobby Shop of Ypsilanti, MI at (734) 971-6116 to confirm that the transmitter tested today, June 16th, 2008 at about 11:30 AM, met the failure criteria defined by the "common GUID" test.
Posted on: 6/16/2008 6:37 PM by Author "cbrillow" in the forum "Futaba Radios Direct support forum"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7626316

RE: 6EX software upgrade?
Thanks for the quick reply, which is helpful and dovetails with what we were told by a Futaba rep at the Toledo show. All the pieces now fit and my uncertainty has faded.
Posted on: 4/10/2008 11:40 AM by Author "cbrillow" in the forum "Futaba Radios Direct support forum"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7360909

6EX software upgrade?
Thought I had this all sorted out, but the sticky "Toledo!" post has me somewhat baffled. Over the winter, I bought a 6EX FAAST system that fell into the serial number range that required it to be tested to see if it was one with the duplicate ID coding problem. I took the transmitter to a hobby store where a testing station was set up and was told that mine did not have the problem, so I've been fat, dumb and happy ever since. At least, until reading the "Toledo!" sticky. That post mentions a software update that could be done on the spot at the Toledo show if the transmitter serial number fell within a certain range, and that those that fell outside the range of serial numbers would have to be sent to a Futaba service center for updating. Given that another post in this forum stated that fixing the ID code problem [i]could not be done with a software update[/i] -- that it required a board being replaced -- what is the software update intended to address? Is it an update that all 6EX systems are required or recommended to have? Would it be possible to list the relevant serial number ranges? Thanks for your consideration.
Posted on: 4/9/2008 5:45 PM by Author "cbrillow" in the forum "Futaba Radios Direct support forum"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7357522