RCMF

Level 1 => Radio Gear => Technical Discussions => Topic started by: FlyinBrian on August 18, 2010, 02:53:13 AM

Title: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: FlyinBrian on August 18, 2010, 02:53:13 AM
Most of us are aware that in 2011 (May?) various efforts will be made to get DSM and DSM2 type of 2.4Gig RC equipment outlawed at least in Europe inc UK.

It seems strange that non of the affected RC manufacturers / Distributors have made any comments on this nor have they given us customers that use the kit some direction as to what they will do to support the huge current user base if DSM / DSM2 becomes a no no.

My transmitters normally last me for eight to ten years . MPX can offer upgrades for equipment 20+ years old so I believe a proposed upgrade path to a frequency hopping system should be made available by manufacturers before we get to 2nd quarter 2011.

If current equipment can not be upgraded then it should be replaced for a nil or nominal cost per MPXs EVO tx upgrades to allow 2.4G use.

Perhaps we should all be lobbying JR/McG, Spektrum/Horizon on this, we seem to be acting in a very blase fashion considering all our expensive kit may have little value in a year or so.

Also should European modellers, their organisations and  governing bodies eg BMFA (along with RC manufacturers and distributers)  not be;

 a/ clarifying exactly what the issue is and why Cisco, an American company, are so concerned about DSM 2 at European signal strengths but don't seem to care about the US who operate at twice the signal power.

b/ Organising a defence to what CISCO are proposing

Maybe something is going on  within these various bodies but if so its being done very quietly and in a way that leaves us all "up in the air"

Should RCMF take up the fight



Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: HarryC on August 18, 2010, 10:03:36 AM
Perhaps it's because the model trade, in its contacts in the relevant EU organisations, feels it is extremely unlikely to be banned.  After all, why would EU staff decide to write a form of regulation that none of the rest of the world uses, because of lobbying by a Yank firm who haven't got it outlawed in their own homeland?
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: CHEL on August 18, 2010, 10:27:10 AM
This story is like the one about Chicken Licken going to tell the king that the sky is going to fall down and soon all of the annimals are going to tell the king that the sky is falling down.
What do Cisco care about 2.4GHz? They produce network switches and routers not liitle boxes that we use in the corner of our houses.
I do agree though that JR/Spektrum should issue a statement to clarify the situation and put an end to all this hearsay.

Phil.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: FlyinBrian on August 18, 2010, 11:05:47 AM
I found this statement on the "Modelflying" web site which is quite reassuring. BUT why are the manufacturers / importers not simply saying "there is no issue"

BY Peter Christy

1) Frequency Hopping is NOT the same as Spread Spectrum. It is simply ONE method by which Spread Spectrum can be achieved. DSM is another. Both are equally valid systems.
 
2) The current European regulations are a mess. However, there was a big meeting in Brussels, just over a year ago, when Cisco Systems (the computer networking people), amongst others, tried to get to get model control evicted from 2.4 GHz.
 
The BMFA, along with most other European Modelling National Bodies, as well as all the major European manufacturers and importers attended.
 
The result was that Cisco were told by the head Telecoms Honcho in Brussels to go forth and multiply! He also stated that the 2.4 GHz regulations were the most badly drafted he had ever seen, and told ETSI (?) (The European body responsible for drafting the regs) to go away and rewrite them.
 
Those countries that had forbidden model control on 2.4 GHz (from memory Holland and one other - France has additional restrictions) were told to lift the bans forthwith, as they had been based on a misunderstanding of the regulations.
 
The rewrite will say that ANY equipment that operates "politely" - ie in a non-interfering way - will be allowed to operate at 100mW erp. This will mean that both DSM2 and FHSS will be permitted at 100mW. Anything that doesn't check for free channels, or use any other method of not interfering will be restricted to 10 mW.
 
ALL THIS GUFF ABOUT SPEKTRUM/JR BEING BANNED IS PURE FUD.
 
The situation in Japan is completely different, which is why JR use DSMJ there. The Spektrum system started out as a full FHSS system, but they discovered they could get a 3dB (at least) improvement in S/N by going to DSM. From what I can make out, the DSMJ system is basically a degraded DSM2 system (reverts to frequency hopping) to get round the Japanese regulations.
 
I gather that all that is required to make Spektrum/JR stuff hop is a software upgrade. However, since the performance isn't so good under these conditions, why would anyone want to change?
 
Actually, the Spektrum/JR system DOES hop, but only between two channels. It doesn't transmit on both simultaneously - at least, not according to my Spectrum Analyzer!
 
Hope that clears up some of the doubt!
 
If anyone wants to confirm this, ring BMFA Head Office!
 
--
Pete Christy
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: FlyinBrian on August 18, 2010, 11:12:07 AM
This story is like the one about Chicken Licken going to tell the king that the sky is going to fall down and soon all of the annimals are going to tell the king that the sky is falling down.
What do Cisco care about 2.4GHz? They produce network switches and routers not liitle boxes that we use in the corner of our houses.
I do agree though that JR/Spektrum should issue a statement to clarify the situation and put an end to all this hearsay.

Phil.

Phil CISCOs range of networking equipment is huge from small home hubs / routers through huge intercontinetal networks with several telephone PABX type sytems attached.

I do agree though that JR/Spektrum should issue a statement to clarify the situation and put an end to all this hearsay.

ABSOLOOODLE
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: steamysheep on August 18, 2010, 11:13:17 AM
subscribed and watching with interest...
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: leccyflyer on August 18, 2010, 11:17:47 AM
Thanks Brian - I've been looking for some form of statement from the manufacturer for yonks. Hope that this can get something sorted out :af
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on August 18, 2010, 13:37:38 PM
Until next year when ETSI releases the latest version of EN300-328 which will set in stone the FUTURE equipments, it is pure speculation.


I will look at the relevant ETSI page to see what the current status is when I get home tonight. BUT, OFCOM stated that if the regs change so as to outlaw DSM/DSM2 FROM September 2011 ( i think that is when the new release is due) then it does NOR effect any current systems as they were legal at the time of purchase.  It will ony effect new systems brought in.

I agree, the current regs are a bag of worms to decipher.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: dd1961 on August 18, 2010, 14:14:43 PM
Work on EN300-328 is currently in Standstill, Imposed on 2008-01-04.

Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: satinet on August 18, 2010, 15:10:01 PM
This story is like the one about Chicken Licken going to tell the king that the sky is going to fall down and soon all of the annimals are going to tell the king that the sky is falling down.
What do Cisco care about 2.4GHz? They produce network switches and routers not liitle boxes that we use in the corner of our houses.
I do agree though that JR/Spektrum should issue a statement to clarify the situation and put an end to all this hearsay.

Phil.

cisco = Linksys

IIRC
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on August 18, 2010, 22:01:14 PM
http://webapp.etsi.org/workProgram/Report_Schedule.asp?WKI_ID=27760 (http://webapp.etsi.org/workProgram/Report_Schedule.asp?WKI_ID=27760)

Working Group approval due 15 October, Public Enquiry runs 24th December to 23rd April 2011, lots of other stuff.....   goes to vote August 2011, votes counted 12th October 2011, Standard published 26th October 2011.

Until then, it's speculation.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Lplus on August 18, 2010, 22:19:16 PM
Nearly 4 years from start of work to planned publication...

 $%&
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: FlyinBrian on August 18, 2010, 22:28:15 PM
[url]http://webapp.etsi.org/workProgram/Report_Schedule.asp?WKI_ID=27760[/url] ([url]http://webapp.etsi.org/workProgram/Report_Schedule.asp?WKI_ID=27760[/url])

Working Group approval due 15 October, Public Enquiry runs 24th December to 23rd April 2011, lots of other stuff.....   goes to vote August 2011, votes counted 12th October 2011, Standard published 26th October 2011.

Until then, it's speculation.


Macman - and that is exactly the problem.
The distributors / manufacturers could prevent wild speculation by an assurance they won't leave DSM/DSM2 users without a future come Oct 2011. A few "what if" scenearios could be run through.  

Hypothetical worst case!  
DSM/DSM2 outlawed & I have a bunch of JR and Spektrum rxs and a DSX9 Tx.
JR/Speki could just stop production of all DSM2 equipment and I am oarless up poo poo creek as far as kitting out new models goes.

Best case scenario would be for JR/Speki to state as soon as possible that they do or do not have an upgrade path if DSM2 is outlawed failure to do so causes the speculation you refer to.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on August 19, 2010, 00:13:34 AM
I see what you mean and I sympathise. 

I will try and find out what contingency plans are being made should the ETSI people (with the new regs) reclassify DSM/DSM2 as a lower power system.

In all honesty, it was allowed to be used at 100mW by liberal interpretation of the rules. 

I'll get back as soon as I find out anything.

JR and Spektrum will not stop production as the ETSI regs has no effect on the US/Rest Of The World  market, it's just us Europeans that suffer....   :banghead:
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: nasa_steve on August 19, 2010, 23:55:24 PM


JR and Spektrum will not stop production as the ETSI regs has no effect on the US/Rest Of The World  market, it's just us Europeans that suffer....   :banghead:

Which I think is exactly the case In point here I could do
With a new transmitter but i' not prepared to shell out in new equipment until we know where we stand. Watching with interest
Nasa
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: FlyinBrian on August 20, 2010, 01:53:02 AM
Which I think is exactly the case In point here I could do
With a new transmitter but i' not prepared to shell out in new equipment until we know where we stand. Watching with interest
Nasa

I totally agree and JR/Speki are doing themselves a marketing dis-service by keeping stum, I am allready looking at other options (FrSky modules etc)
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: leccyflyer on August 20, 2010, 07:49:08 AM
I totally agree and JR/Speki are doing themselves a marketing dis-service by keeping stum, I am allready looking at other options (FrSky modules etc)

They really don't seem to be getting the message though. It must be affecting people's buying decisions and the manufacturer/distributor could do a great deal to reduce that uncertainty by recognising the problem and stating what their plans are for dealing with it.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: markg on August 20, 2010, 08:00:10 AM
They really don't seem to be getting the message though. It must be affecting people's buying decisions and the manufacturer/distributor could do a great deal to reduce that uncertainty by recognising the problem and stating what their plans are for dealing with it.
Not really much because most people don't know about it.  If they were to go out of their way to tell everyone then they'd probably have a bigger problem.  What if their plans for dealing with it (if they even have one) are to just abandon DSM2 or to keep selling the RXs for just another couple of years or anything else which business circumstances might dictate and which people might not like?  They would just shoot themselves in the foot possibly over nothing at all.

I'm not in the least bit surprised that they aren't making statements like that on the basis of some highly speculative possible future change in legislation.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: leccyflyer on August 20, 2010, 08:32:03 AM
Not really much because most people don't know about it.  If they were to go out of their way to tell everyone then they'd probably have a bigger problem.  What if their plans for dealing with it (if they even have one) are to just abandon DSM2 or to keep selling the RXs for just another couple of years or anything else which business circumstances might dictate and which people might not like?  They would just shoot themselves in the foot possibly over nothing at all.

So, essentially it looks as if you're saying that if there is information that might prevent folks making buying decisions that might lock them into a dead end, and the manufacturer, being aware of that,  chooses not to reveal that information, and does not comment on the steps that they would take to mitigate against that, then you're okay with that?

I can't believe that to be the case Mark, so perhaps you are just stating that you are not surprised that they would not make an announcement, rather than actually supporting the not making an announcement.

Quote
I'm not in the least bit surprised that they aren't making statements like that on the basis of some highly speculative possible future change in legislation.

You're not supporting that though, right? You don't feel that the manufacturers actually owe some sort of clarification to their customers?
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Mole Hunter on August 20, 2010, 08:44:48 AM
I'm actually considering selling my DX7 and rx's and getting an Auroura 9 instead, as the rx prices aren't so far out, you get two extra channels, 4ch rx's are romoured to be released soon and there's no doubt about their future.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: markg on August 20, 2010, 08:46:53 AM
So, essentially it looks as if you're saying that if there is information that might prevent folks making buying decisions that might lock them into a dead end, and the manufacturer, being aware of that,  chooses not to reveal that information, and does not comment on the steps that they would take to mitigate against that, then you're okay with that?

I can't believe that to be the case Mark, so perhaps you are just stating that you are not surprised that they would not make an announcement, rather than actually supporting the not making an announcement.

You're not supporting that though, right? You don't feel that the manufacturers actually owe some sort of clarification to their customers?
I mean that they are a business and I expect all businesses to act almost exclusively in the interests of profit.  It's up to them to decide how real they think this risk is and act accordingly.  It doesn't seem either realistic or reasonable to demand that they possibly commit commercial suicide by making some statement about something which they themselves might not even judge to be at all likely to be a problem and which the vastly overwhelming majority of their customers aren't even aware.  A statement which, nevertheless, many people would take to mean that it is a foregone conclusion.  I'm not sure that many businesses would be doing anything any differently.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on August 20, 2010, 13:08:54 PM
Another possible glitch is whether Horizon will allow MacGregors to upgrade from DSM2 to DSMJ [SHOULD (a) DSM2 be outlawed and (b) DSMJ gets Type Approval and CE marked.]

Horizon control the distribution of the relevant information and firmware for DSM2 and probably DSMJ  !

Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Lplus on August 20, 2010, 14:23:00 PM
Mac - man,

by that do you mean that Horizon might upgrade Spektrum to DSMJ in Europe but not allow JR to use DSMJ in Europe?
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on August 20, 2010, 16:55:17 PM
What I mean is that should DSMJ be acceptable and DSM2 be banned, then Horizon UK (being a subsid of Horizon Hobbies) will have access to the necessary tools to upgrade from DSM2 to DSMJ in house in the UK.

As MacGregors isn't owned by HH or JR, then it is very unlikely that Horizon will give us the necessary and JR won't be allowed to give us the necessary.  The NDA that was on the table was extremely limiting in what it would allow MacGregors to do in the 2.4 GHz market.

Horizon cannot control what is used in Europe (although I am sure they would love to have that under their control).

How this would pan out is unknown, perhaps an exchange ? I just don't know... 
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: nasa_steve on August 20, 2010, 22:23:44 PM
From what I've read in the past it seems the hardware on both the DSM2 and DSMJ are the same meaning it would in theory be just a software update how much if that is right I'm not sure. But I recall reading something on a US based forum that the actual receiver hardware is exactly the same in both cases $%&
Steve
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on August 20, 2010, 23:07:02 PM
Correct.

I had a DSMJ module that came with the pre-production 11X which naturally I had to open up     ;D

It is the same hardware from what I could see.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: bugsb on August 20, 2010, 23:13:27 PM
i bought a dx6i thinking give it a go a while back then just over a year ago i heard about this problem so sold the tx and 6 rx's and went back to 35mhz i am just waiting to see what happens over the next 2 years or so once the dust has settled before i think about 2.4g again
to many problems have come up with 2.4g over the last 2 years
Ron
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: nasa_steve on August 21, 2010, 07:45:34 AM
Correct.

I had a DSMJ module that came with the pre-production 11X which naturally I had to open up     ;D

It is the same hardware from what I could see.

   So in theory at least it's a software upgrade in the best
case senario fingers crossed we font have to gp that route
Steve
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Mole Hunter on August 21, 2010, 09:12:11 AM
Isn't DSMJ an inferior system, though?
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on August 21, 2010, 10:43:12 AM
Why do you say that ?
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Dizz on August 21, 2010, 14:49:18 PM
Why do you say that ?
-3db S:N on DSM2??
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: flappy on August 21, 2010, 23:23:54 PM
Actually, hasn't it been reported and the tests shown that the DSM2 system has a flaw, in that it can on boot up, choose its two frequencies so that they are right next to each other? This meaning that, if interference is in a small 'blanket' that covers the tiny bit of the spectrum that these 2 frequencies occupy, that the DSM2 system is then completley stuffed. It would appear that this can happen at any time, due to the DSM2 system randomly choosing its 2 frequencies out of any that are clear at the time of bootup and doesn't actually try to seperate them by a good margin. I would assume that the law of averages says that this wont happen very often, unless you are very unlucky of course.
Now, I have only read this, I haven't tested it, but I have had ummm, issues in the past that were totally unexplainable. Its possible that you could use DSM2 for the rest of your life and never get this situation arise, but if its true, its also possible that this could happen any time you switch on. Anyone else know anything about it?  $%&
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: spadulike on August 22, 2010, 07:33:51 AM
Quote
So, essentially it looks as if you're saying that if there is information that might prevent folks making buying decisions that might lock them into a dead end, and the manufacturer, being aware of that,  chooses not to reveal that information, and does not comment on the steps that they would take to mitigate against that, then you're okay with that?

We have been doing that with ,,,, set top boxes, although the system ws to be upgraded old style dogi boxes were still being sold.

Radios, even though the change to DB is coming we can still go and buy analogue radios, TV's etc.
Essentially, the manufacturers dont really care.... wel they do, as they see an opportunity.

A Tx is an expensive one off purchase, if i becomes obsolete due to circumstances beyond there control what will you do? buy a different make or purchase a new , revised compliant version that you can easily transfer your model memory to?


Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: FlyinBrian on August 22, 2010, 11:09:25 AM
Actually, hasn't it been reported and the tests shown that the DSM2 system has a flaw, in that it can on boot up, choose its two frequencies so that they are right next to each other? This meaning that, if interference is in a small 'blanket' that covers the tiny bit of the spectrum that these 2 frequencies occupy, that the DSM2 system is then completley stuffed. It would appear that this can happen at any time, due to the DSM2 system randomly choosing its 2 frequencies out of any that are clear at the time of bootup and doesn't actually try to seperate them by a good margin. I would assume that the law of averages says that this wont happen very often, unless you are very unlucky of course.
Now, I have only read this, I haven't tested it, but I have had ummm, issues in the past that were totally unexplainable. Its possible that you could use DSM2 for the rest of your life and never get this situation arise, but if its true, its also possible that this could happen any time you switch on. Anyone else know anything about it?  $%&


This thread is for discussion of the issue mentioned not a x is better than y slanging match  

In theory such a thing may be possible but the interference on both channels would have to be sufficient to stop the receiver recognising the bound Tx GUID for quite a while, so the interfering device (which should be operating to the required standards anyway) would need to be close to the flying model. Assuming said interfering does not listen before transmission or is of a very high [power output it is operating totally outside of the standards for 2.4g which are not there just for models!

Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Steve J on August 22, 2010, 11:15:31 AM
Actually, hasn't it been reported and the tests shown that the DSM2 system has a flaw, in that it can on boot up, choose its two frequencies so that they are right next to each other?

An output from a spectrum analyser was posted by Mpx which showed the two selected frequency bands 40Mhz apart.

Steve
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Dizz on August 22, 2010, 18:09:56 PM
An output from a spectrum analyser was posted by Mpx which showed the two selected frequency bands 40Mhz apart.

Steve
Just to put this scaremongering in to perspective, 40MHz is actually a bloody big number: 4000 times greater than the 35MHz band channel spacing.  Analogue TV had a bandwidth of 5.5MHz and HD 3D TV will require a bandwidth of approx 6MHz.
Pete
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: flappy on August 22, 2010, 20:20:35 PM

This thread is for discussion of the issue mentioned not a x is better than y slanging match  




Sorry, but was that meant for me? Because if what I had posted came over as a slanging match, it most definately wasn't. I apologise if it read that way, but it certainly wasn't meant to be. I was looking for more information about something, which as I stated in my post, was something I had read about and not actually tested myself. In the past, people on this forum who are very obviously experts in the electronics field, have been able to shed light on this kind of stuff and have helped turn what can be rumours and misguided info into factual information.

Again sorry if i offended anyone  :embarassed:
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: flappy on August 22, 2010, 20:23:12 PM
An output from a spectrum analyser was posted by Mpx which showed the two selected frequency bands 40Mhz apart.

Steve

Thanks steve, thats just the kind of response I expected, rather than the other one. And wow, I never knew that the signals were actually that far apart!! Big difference from 35mhz in that case.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Lplus on August 22, 2010, 21:36:59 PM
What I mean is that should DSMJ be acceptable and DSM2 be banned, then Horizon UK (being a subsid of Horizon Hobbies) will have access to the necessary tools to upgrade from DSM2 to DSMJ in house in the UK.

As MacGregors isn't owned by HH or JR, then it is very unlikely that Horizon will give us the necessary and JR won't be allowed to give us the necessary.  The NDA that was on the table was extremely limiting in what it would allow MacGregors to do in the 2.4 GHz market.

Horizon cannot control what is used in Europe (although I am sure they would love to have that under their control).

How this would pan out is unknown, perhaps an exchange ? I just don't know... 


Ah, so Horizon could update the Spektrum equipment to DSMJ but JR could only sell new DSMJ equipment?

BTW the info on the DSM2 picking 2 close frequencies is here http://www.rcmodelreviews.com/dsm2flaw.shtml (http://www.rcmodelreviews.com/dsm2flaw.shtml)
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on August 23, 2010, 20:48:39 PM
Quote
Ah, so Horizon could update the Spektrum equipment to DSMJ but JR could only sell new DSMJ equipment?

Near as dammit, because MacG's wouldn't sign the NDA with Horizon due to the very restrictive conditions, and that Horizon own the DSM/DSM2 and by the fact that the DSMJ is an extension of the DSM, we wouldn't get the necessary hardware/firmware to carry out the upgrades.

However, JR may upgrade/exchange DSM2 for DSMJ but it's only my personal feeling.

Only time will tell.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Pat Barnes on August 23, 2010, 21:08:10 PM
Hmmm...

Still sticking with 35MHz for the moment then!  :af  I go flying at the club and have the entire band, not just my frequency, to myself these days.  Peg on the board at the start of the day (the only one there!), and it only comes off at the end! Result!



Modified to say I still have a zero count of glitches/interference/shootdowns, and the likelyhood of any of those happening is diminishing daily!
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: CHEL on August 23, 2010, 21:52:54 PM
Hmmmm....

Well I'm sticking to my Spektrum 2.4GHz, I use in my boats and planes, it does what is says on the tin and I don't have worry about what other people are using.

As for the European talk shop, well they won't come to any decision for years.

I'm off to tell the King, the sky is falling.....


Phil.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: FlyinBrian on August 23, 2010, 21:53:28 PM
Ah, so Horizon could update the Spektrum equipment to DSMJ but JR could only sell new DSMJ equipment?

BTW the info on the DSM2 picking 2 close frequencies is here [url]http://www.rcmodelreviews.com/dsm2flaw.shtml[/url] ([url]http://www.rcmodelreviews.com/dsm2flaw.shtml[/url])


As I said, theoretically possible to pick up two close or even adjacent channels, however if all the other 2.4Ghz kit is working to the correct standards (checking the frequency is clear before transmitting and operating at the correct power o/p) there should be no issue.

I think the only thing that would cause such problems would be deliberate malicious action and if someone wants to be malicious they could equally splatter right across the part of the 2.4 Gig band modellers use then it won't much matter what protocol type you radio uses.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: CHEL on August 24, 2010, 09:07:06 AM
Quote
I think the only thing that would cause such problems would be deliberate malicious action and if someone wants to be malicious they could equally splatter right across the part of the 2.4 Gig band modellers use then it won't much matter what protocol type you radio uses.

What, do you mean it would even interfere with Mmmultiplex, gulp, what is this world coming too. My goodness, they told me it was bomb proof.

Phil.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: SteveBB on August 24, 2010, 09:18:03 AM
What, do you mean it would even interfere with Mmmultiplex, gulp, what is this world coming too. My goodness, they told me it was bomb proof.

Phil.

Perhaps it is; but no radio is frequency swamp proof.  :af
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Mole Hunter on August 24, 2010, 09:27:10 AM
So if MacG went to DSMJ the jap sets would become UK legal? :ev
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on August 24, 2010, 22:02:01 PM
Quote
So if MacG went to DSMJ the jap sets would become UK legal?

No, as they have not been CE tested.

There is something in the wind and I am waiting for permission to release the info.  Hopefully I will be allowed to say more next week.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: FlyinBrian on August 24, 2010, 23:05:37 PM
What, do you mean it would even interfere with Mmmultiplex, gulp, what is this world coming too. My goodness, they told me it was bomb proof.

Phil.
Well there is always an exception that proves the rule, I suppose you could say MPX is on a par with cockroaches, they are supsosedly nuclear bomb proof. ;D
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: FlyinBrian on August 24, 2010, 23:07:49 PM
No, as they have not been CE tested.

There is something in the wind and I am waiting for permission to release the info.  Hopefully I will be allowed to say more next week.

What is in the wind around here the last couple of days has been lumps of tree and roof tiles
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Steve J on August 25, 2010, 14:07:25 PM

This topic has cost me 50  :). After reading the report that said that DSM2 can pick adjacent frequencies, I went and bought a USB 2.4GHz scanner. I am happy to report that my DSX9 picks frequencies 40MHz apart. I'll post some scans in separate topic.

Steve
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: HarryC on August 25, 2010, 14:38:00 PM
I reported some months ago that using the scanner on my Weatronics system, it shows my DX7 always chose channels that were half the available band apart, so for example it would choose channel 1 and 41, or 10 and 50 and so on.  It never varied from that, it never chose 2 adjacent channels or even nearby channels.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: grayuk on August 25, 2010, 17:37:20 PM
what if the channels are busy? it may not be able to keep that spacing?
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on August 27, 2010, 11:26:32 AM
Okay, Have been given permission to release....

JR will be bringing out their own 2.4 GHz systems on new future systems.  Their new 7 channel system is undergoing full CE testing at the moment and for aircraft use it will be full FHSS.

It is hoped to be in production in October, they will be dropping the DSMJ system and from what I can gather, no longer manufacturing DSM2 FOR NEW SYSTEMS.

They will still be supporting the DSM2 for some period of time.

Their entry level set is called the XG7 and supports telemetry.  The receiver is fitted with 2 long antennas ( similar to Futaba/Hitec) and comes with a telemetry sender.  Currently it is for Rx battery voltage but you will be able to add additional probes to it.

For those of you heading to the NATS this weekend, it will be there.

Transmitter styling is that of the 2720/DX7.

As it is a completely new system and not based on Spektrums hardware, there is no compatibility or upgrade path with DSM2.

 
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Lplus on August 27, 2010, 11:58:26 AM
Thanks for the information mac_man.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: markg on August 27, 2010, 12:09:49 PM
Interesting.  So is this anything to do with questions over the legal status of DSM2 or is it just a split between Spektrum and JR?
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: FlyinBrian on August 27, 2010, 12:16:36 PM
Okay, Have been given permission to release....

JR will be bringing out their own 2.4 GHz systems on new future systems.  Their new 7 channel system is undergoing full CE testing at the moment and for aircraft use it will be full FHSS.

It is hoped to be in production in October, they will be dropping the DSMJ system and from what I can gather, no longer manufacturing DSM2 FOR NEW SYSTEMS.

They will still be supporting the DSM2 for some period of time.

Their entry level set is called the XG7 and supports telemetry.  The receiver is fitted with 2 long antennas ( similar to Futaba/Hitec) and comes with a telemetry sender.  Currently it is for Rx battery voltage but you will be able to add additional probes to it.

For those of you heading to the NATS this weekend, it will be there.

Transmitter styling is that of the 2720/DX7.

As it is a completely new system and not based on Spektrums hardware, there is no compatibility or upgrade path with DSM2.


Well a guess some news is better than none. :banghead:

From what you say there will be no upgrade path from DSM2 to JR FHSS.  JR are abandoning several thousand modellers who have bought JR DSM2 sets, even those bought recently!

If that is the case then thanks very much JR, it will be a long time before I buy anything with a JR label >:(

Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: satinet on August 27, 2010, 12:18:23 PM
it does say they will still be supporting DSM2 for a while though........
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Alan H on August 27, 2010, 12:29:45 PM
This topic has cost me 50  :). After reading the report that said that DSM2 can pick adjacent frequencies, I went and bought a USB 2.4GHz scanner. I am happy to report that my DSX9 picks frequencies 40MHz apart. I'll post some scans in separate topic.

Steve

Steve, I was thinking of buying a USB 2.4GHz scanner to replace my home constructed parallel port scanner (no parallel port on my new PC). I wondered which one you bought as the Wi-Spy is around 100.
Thanks, Alan
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Lplus on August 27, 2010, 12:50:10 PM
it does say they will still be supporting DSM2 for a while though........

Also this is for new systems - so will the old DSM2 systems still be made/sold for a while - and who will buy them?

It does seem like JR have little faith in the EU being sensible about non FHSS, although having to rely on someone else's system must grate with their management.

It may even be there are other things going on and the EU regulations are the least of JR's problems
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: satinet on August 27, 2010, 12:58:28 PM
I don't know anything about the way JR works. I am a, yes, multiplex user, but really I can't see in the long term that one of the two biggest rc electronic manufacturers in the world (?) is going to sell radios for ever that it doesn't wholly control in terms of the design and development of the RF part of it.

I might be way off the mark, but it seems an inevitability.   $%& 

Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: bugsb on August 27, 2010, 13:02:41 PM
i can see allot of sets going on the bmfa and ebay very soon  :D
Ron
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: markg on August 27, 2010, 13:13:25 PM
I don't know anything about the way JR works. I am a, yes, multiplex user, but really I can't see in the long term that one of the two biggest rc electronic manufacturers in the world (?) is going to sell radios for ever that it doesn't wholly control in terms of the design and development of the RF part of it.

I might be way off the mark, but it seems an inevitability.   $%& 


Not really relevant but that's made me wonder if that statement is still true.  Are JR/Futaba still the two biggest?  What with the behemoth enterprise that all falls under the Horizon Hobbies umbrella?
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on August 27, 2010, 13:19:50 PM
Basically JR found themselves in a binding contract with Horizon/Spektrum that left JR with no choice than to go with the DSM/DSM2 system if they wanted to go into the 2.4GHz game.  Not going to go into that but..........   :-X

I did say that ALL FUTURE radios will be the new FHSS system and therefore will NOT AFFECT any current user.  They will be supporting DSM2 for at least 2 years.  And anyway, the evil HH will keep their DSM2 line going for a long time yet to come.

No matter what the outcome of next years 300-328 revision will be, you will be safe.  Think back to 27 MHz days, it was still legal to use current systems but you could not buy new systems.

IF the new regs deem that DSM2 does not meet the new regs, then if you have a DSM2 system you can still use it but you wouldn't be able to buy a new DSM2 system.

Let's be honest, how many radios do you own ?  1 for definite, probably 2 and the more serious ones will have 3 or more.  How many receivers do you have ?  The receivers will still be available from JR for some years at least or alternatively, HH will still have them.

If anyone is complaining that DSMJ is being dropped from JR's offering, then sorry....  if you are in the UK or EU then lets be honest...  tough !  It's not been tested and therefore you shouldn't be using it !    :nananana:



As for the split....   as I said above, JR was stuck with DSM2 even though they had their own system.  The agreement was that JR did all the 9 channel and above under the JR branding but manufactured the Spektrum labelled radios for Spektrum.

With the introduction of the DX10, it looks like Spektrum have broken away first and that the likes of the DX5, DX6i and DX8, DX10 are NOT being manufactured by JR ( made in either China or Taiwan for the lower systems, and I believe the 8 and 10 are possibly being made in Malaysia but not certain about that)

As you may be aware, DSMJ is just a software upgrade to the DSM2 but from the limited testing I did when I had a DSMJ module, the hop rate did not seem to be that fast.  I may be wrong (frequently am) but the rate did not exceed 2 hops per second.  I looked at the signal on the latest Rohde & Schwarz spectrum analyser, I may have driven it wrong as I am more used to Hewlett Packard Spec Analysers.

Remember that the DSM2 was allowable because the regs were not really specific and there was a massive grey area.  Does listening to other channels really come under utilising them ?

Anyway, please remember that the new regs do not get published until after the vote and that is next October so anything else is speculation.  
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Steve J on August 27, 2010, 13:21:24 PM
JR and Spektrum splitting doen't bother me. My next radio was likely to be a DX10T anyway. I must say though, that this looks like suicide for JR.

I was thinking of buying a USB 2.4GHz scanner to replace my home constructed parallel port scanner (no parallel port on my new PC). I wondered which one you bought as the Wi-Spy is around 100.


An Ubiquiti AirView (http://www.ubnt.com/airview) from MS (Distribution) (http://www.msdist.co.uk/product_ubnt_airwave_24.php). Basic, but it does what I want and works on both PC's and Macs.

Steve
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Steve J on August 27, 2010, 13:53:01 PM
Their entry level set is called the XG7 and supports telemetry.

Look what I found -

[attachimg=#1]

Steve
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: propeak on August 27, 2010, 13:58:04 PM
i can see allot of sets going on the bmfa and ebay very soon  :D
Ron
Thats been going on for ages allready, mine will be joining them shortly but for a differant reason,

i thought something was brewing with j/r with brand new DSX9s being sold at under 300.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Lplus on August 27, 2010, 14:53:48 PM
A new acronym on the block - DMSS

Dual modulation spectrum system.

 $%&
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on August 27, 2010, 15:05:03 PM
LOL, good old DMSS....

DSSS for ground, FHSS for air.  Not in the same package though..   ???
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: HarryC on August 27, 2010, 15:21:34 PM
An output from a spectrum analyser was posted by Mpx which showed the two selected frequency bands 40Mhz apart.

Steve
Just spotted that.  I didn't say it was 40Mhz apart, it was showing as 40 channels apart in an analyser claiming 80 channels in the 2.4gig band. I have a feeling they are 1Mhz channels and if so then they would indeed be 40mhz apart, but I don't know so I can't claim they were 40MHZ apart, just 40 channels apart.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Barrye on August 27, 2010, 18:40:49 PM
This explains why all of the 11x's came in with DSM2 modules, not integrated. No doubt in a few months there will be a new module and a software upgrade for telemetry. :''

Mac Man - do you know if there will be an upgrade path for those of us with DSX9's and DSX12's. We could left with worthless trannies if DSM2 does infringe the new regs. Yes we will be still be able to use them and get Rx's from HH, but no one will want to buy them when we want to upgrade :embarassed:
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Gordon W on August 27, 2010, 22:35:12 PM
This explains why all of the 11x's came in with DSM2 modules, not integrated. No doubt in a few months there will be a new module and a software upgrade for telemetry. :''

Thanks for the info Macman.  Luckily I haven't managed to save up enough for a DSX12 yet , and now have another year to get the dosh together for one with the FHSS system.

So I'll carry on with ye olde and well loved 10X and Spektrum module/Rx's for now.  Which begs the question, do the 11X DSM2 modules fit the older modular Tx's such as my 10X, because if they do, and if a FHSS module comes out for the 11X, a cheaper upgade path will become available.

Gordon
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on August 27, 2010, 22:43:55 PM
The reason why the 11X came with modules is simple....  the integrated systems is not yet CE tested,  I prefer the module based system as it allows you to use a standard 35 MHz or 40 MHz module as well as the DSM2 module.

According to Horizon's John Adams ( technical bod) the 11X integrated cannot be upgraded to Telemetry.

I have a feeling that the 11X and possibly the 12X MAY be re-released sometime in the future with DMSS, depending on the rework necessary, there MAY be an upgrade path.

I must point out that this is my personal gut feeling seeing as how they both have the ability to be flash upgraded.

I think I can safely say that the DSX9 will be a non starter in the upgrade path as there would be too much hardware to change out.

The current systems will not be worthless as they are still a viable working system, in the US the 72 MHz market has all but dried up, yet here in the UK, 35 MHz is still strong.  So with the advent of the DSX9, it hasn't really affected the market as such.

Oh one thing I forgot to mention.....   it goes support the quirky French channelisation of the 2.4 GHz band and France is listed in the Binding Options on the XG7

 :af
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on August 27, 2010, 22:46:00 PM
Hi Gordon,  yes the 11X DSm2 module fits any normal 5 pin module based Tx.

I tested the DSMJ and DSM2 modules on my 9XII. 
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: reyn3545 on August 29, 2010, 02:46:41 AM
Well a guess some news is better than none. :banghead:

From what you say there will be no upgrade path from DSM2 to JR FHSS.  JR are abandoning several thousand modellers who have bought JR DSM2 sets, even those bought recently!

If that is the case then thanks very much JR, it will be a long time before I buy anything with a JR label >:(




Well, it didn't take long for this post to make it across the Atlantic... now everyone is argueing on both sides of the pond about whether or not JR will continue support on DSM2.  I bet some of them still drive cars without power steering.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: FlyinBrian on August 29, 2010, 06:40:52 AM
A clubmate just bought a complete Turnigy system Tx & 2 rxs for c80 delivered. I flew it in an electric glider and it seemed fine, he flew the other rx in a Boomerang trainer and this also was fine.

The FRSky stuff seems very good and good value, I think I may be doing some experimenting soon.

Can anyone say (MacMan?) if the DSX9 has a convenient PPM signal that can be picked up to drive the FRSky module?Yes I am aware that some FRSky Tx modules have died but these all seem to happen at switch on with the model safely on the ground.

In the longer term I can see myself returning to the fold of MPX and :nananana: to JR
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Barrye on August 29, 2010, 08:38:44 AM
I think we should all thank Mac Man for his openness and honesty, remember don't shoot the messenger.

Unfortunately this presents a big problem from JR/Macgregor. Anyone who knows about this isn't going to buy a DSX9, DSX12 or 11z until it is clear what is happening with these JR trannies and also the new  legislation.

Some people will see this announcement as JR having inside knowledge on the new regs and pre-empting things, so there will be a reluctance to purchase new DSM2 kit (JR or Spektrum).

For DMSS to take off JR are going to have to do trade in deals on RX's because if people are going to move away from DSM2 then they will look at all offerings (Fut, Mpx, Hitec etc..)


Barry

Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Alan on August 29, 2010, 08:43:58 AM
I've stayed well away from 2.4 so far, since my prefered brand in JR, I don't get on with Futaba programming. Was toying with a 12X to replace my MC24, but since hearing about possible issues I have tried the FrSky system in my spare 9X and find it fine, so will be testing in the MC 24 also.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: propeak on August 29, 2010, 12:47:16 PM
A clubmate just bought a complete Turnigy system Tx & 2 rxs for c80 delivered. I flew it in an electric glider and it seemed fine, he flew the other rx in a Boomerang trainer and this also was fine.

The FRSky stuff seems very good and good value, I think I may be doing some experimenting soon.

Can anyone say (MacMan?) if the DSX9 has a convenient PPM signal that can be picked up to drive the FRSky module?Yes I am aware that some FRSky Tx modules have died but these all seem to happen at switch on with the model safely on the ground.

In the longer term I can see myself returning to the fold of MPX and :nananana: to JR

There should be no problem at all fitting the frsky hack module in a dsx9, people have allready done this with there dx7s, i was going to convert my dx7 but i picked up a futaba 7c which iv'e always considered a far superior tranny to the dx7 and converted that instead,

so there will be another dx7 and a load of receivers going for sale shortly.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: bullfrog_sc on August 29, 2010, 13:01:25 PM
I'm in the process of having to replace my Futaba FF9 as its been playing up lately. With all this going on, i'm now reluctant to upgrade to my chosen tx, the new DX8. What would most people do with the DSM2 saga, bite the bullet and get one or opt for something else.

Steve
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: leccyflyer on August 29, 2010, 13:32:37 PM
I'm in the process of having to replace my Futaba FF9 as its been playing up lately. With all this going on, i'm now reluctant to upgrade to my chosen tx, the new DX8. What would most people do with the DSM2 saga, bite the bullet and get one or opt for something else.

Steve

Personally I wouldn't dream of buying a DX-8 that might end up being obsolete in a year's time.

I've recently changed tack on buying receivers for my DX7 - aiming to at least get enough of them before any restrictions on DSM2 might be involved, such that the system and those I've already got will be enough to allow me to use them on most of my fleet.

I'm far from happy about that though and if I were at the stage of buying a new system from scratch I certainly wouldn't touch Spektrum with a barge pole. I think I'd be looking at HiTech.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: propeak on August 29, 2010, 16:35:56 PM
I'm in the process of having to replace my Futaba FF9 as its been playing up lately. With all this going on, i'm now reluctant to upgrade to my chosen tx, the new DX8. What would most people do with the DSM2 saga, bite the bullet and get one or opt for something else.

Steve
The DX8 might be a brand new transmitter and regardless of what happens next year it uses DSM2 which is now old technology, would you go out and buy a five year old mobile phone?,
thousands of people including myself have been using DSM2 with no problems but i personally won't be investing anymore hard cash in it,
there are now plenty of systems on the market which are far more up to date so have a good look round and study the forums before you spend your hard earned cash.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Steve J on August 29, 2010, 17:27:20 PM
I really don't understand some of the comments in this topic.

DSM2 is a proven system backed up by Horizon Hobby's exemplary customer care. It works.

I will be amazed if EN 300 328 is changed in a way that makes any existing system non-compliant. Horizon don't seem to be behaving as if they think that they won't be selling DSM2 systems in the EU in the near future. In fact they are releasing a transmitter that appears to be targeted at the central European market later this year.

Spektrum and JR going their separate ways is irrelevant as far as most users are concerned. The DX8 is going to kill the DX7 and I suspect that making the DX7 was where JR made money out of the deal. Are DX7's still being made ? I suspect not. The DX10T will hit sales of the DSX9. The people who are not going to be impressed by JR are the dealers with stocks of DSX9's and DSX12's.

Just my 2p worth.

Steve
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Steve J on August 29, 2010, 17:36:52 PM
The DX8 might be a brand new transmitter and regardless of what happens next year it uses DSM2 which is now old technology, would you go out and buy a five year old mobile phone?,

Most mobile 'phones are GSM which is lot older than DSM2....

Steve
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: CF-FZG on August 29, 2010, 17:58:22 PM
I really don't understand some of the comments in this topic.

Neither do I Steve $%&

You've got leccy with his usual panicking about the subject and now others have jumped on his bandwagon :banghead:
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: leccyflyer on August 29, 2010, 18:41:25 PM
Let's try not to get personal eh?

There's a good chap.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on August 29, 2010, 19:49:05 PM
Guys,


It does not matter what the TG11 rewrite of 300-328 ends up as.

Should DSM2 be no longer a valid system at 100mW after October 2011, if you have DSM2 based equipment, you are still allowed to use it.  All it means is that you cannot buy a new transmitter with DSM2.

Perhaps DSMJ was designed by Spektrum/JR not just for Japan but knowing how devious HH can be, perhaps as a contigency plan ??

JR did NOT WANT to use Spektrum's DSM but HAD to for legal reasons. Now that the agreement seems to be expired (or perhaps broken  $%& ), JR are now free to continue with their own system.

I think we are panicking over a small minor hiccup.

 :xx   :''
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation cha
Post by: bullfrog_sc on August 29, 2010, 20:09:33 PM
My worry is I spend 300 now on the dx8 then in 12months I'm unable to get any dsm2 rx's. Don't really fancy having to upgrade in 12mths time due to not being able to get any rx's.

Steve
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation cha
Post by: leccyflyer on August 29, 2010, 20:13:02 PM
My worry is I spend 300 now on the dx8 then in 12months I'm unable to get any dsm2 rx's. Don't really fancy having to upgrade in 12mths time due to not being able to get any rx's.

Steve

There have been plenty of folks who have said that you will still be able t buy DSM2 receivers, no matter what happens. The logic is that it's only the TX that is affected, since the regulations are different for 10mW transmission and 100Mw transmission. Since those folks consider the RX is irrelevant in terms of the transmission output their guess is that DSM2 receivers will continue to be sold. Plus, of course you'd be able to continue to use any ones you already had, including transmitters. Still sounds like a potential dead end to me though.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation cha
Post by: CF-FZG on August 29, 2010, 22:24:52 PM
My worry is I spend 300 now on the dx8 then in 12months I'm unable to get any dsm2 rx's. Don't really fancy having to upgrade in 12mths time due to not being able to get any rx's.

Why do you say that?  There's no logical reason to think that, as if DSM/DSM2 is banned restricted to 10mW in europe you'll still be able to buy the Rxs as they won't be affected :af
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation cha
Post by: bullfrog_sc on August 29, 2010, 22:55:10 PM
My thinking was that if they stopped selling the dsm2 transmitters then they would stop selling receivers for the same system. Sorry if I'm completely wrong but that was just my ill-informed logic.
Steve
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation cha
Post by: leccyflyer on August 29, 2010, 23:02:27 PM
My thinking was that if they stopped selling the dsm2 transmitters then they would stop selling receivers for the same system. Sorry if I'm completely wrong but that was just my ill-informed logic.
Steve

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that there would be no new models of DSM2 receivers, if the transmitters are phased out.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation cha
Post by: CF-FZG on August 29, 2010, 23:43:39 PM
My thinking was that if they stopped selling the dsm2 transmitters then they would stop selling receivers for the same system. Sorry if I'm completely wrong but that was just my ill-informed logic.
Steve

Your asuming that if the EU restricted DSM/DSM2 power output to 10mW then the system would die in the water.  However, the European market is small fry compared to the main Spektrum market, which is the US, then you have Australasia, the Far East (excepting Japan), Africa etc.  Having said that, even if the EU laws regulations are changed, we have been told the legacy systems would still be allowed, and there would still be a huge market in Europe for DSM/DSM2 Rxs, even if it means going to the US or elsewhere for the Rxs :af  (but I don't see HH stopping the sale of the Rxs in Europe for quite a while, as long as there's a market for them)

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that there would be no new models of DSM2 receivers, if the transmitters are phased out.

You're forgetting the 'rest of the world' market :''

Maybe I was wrong to say 'panicking' in a previous post, when I could well have said 'scaremongering' :banghead:


Mark
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation cha
Post by: leccyflyer on August 30, 2010, 07:15:19 AM
Your asuming that if the EU restricted DSM/DSM2 power output to 10mW then the system would die in the water.  However, the European market is small fry compared to the main Spektrum market, which is the US, then you have Australasia, the Far East (excepting Japan), Africa etc.  Having said that, even if the EU laws regulations are changed, we have been told the legacy systems would still be allowed, and there would still be a huge market in Europe for DSM/DSM2 Rxs, even if it means going to the US or elsewhere for the Rxs :af  (but I don't see HH stopping the sale of the Rxs in Europe for quite a while, as long as there's a market for them)

You're forgetting the 'rest of the world' market :''

Maybe I was wrong to say 'panicking' in a previous post, when I could well have said 'scaremongering' :banghead:


Mark

No, I'm not forgetting the rest of the world market. I'd consider carefully whether HH would go through the process of CE testing for those receivers, whilst presumably simultaneously selling whatever new system that they might adopt in the event of the decision going against them.

As regards scaremongering, it seems to me that the point of this thread is to seek clarification  from the manufacturers as to what their intentions are in the event that DSM2 becomes restricted to 10mw under the rregulations. It has produced a quick result in that, with the release of the statement made by Macman, and that must surely be of major interest to any user of JR DSM-2 equipment. The thread starter is to be commended for that, as is MacMan for his posting of the forthcoming JR switch of systems.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Barrye on August 30, 2010, 09:14:59 AM
The real issue is that the second hand value of your TX plummets (just look at 35MHz - on BMFA 9x2 +5RX's 240 vs  DSX9 Tx only 250)  and if you want to change your TX in the future you have to change all your RX's as well. I have over 10 DSM2 Rx's so that would be really expensive!


Barry
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation cha
Post by: FlyinBrian on August 30, 2010, 09:27:12 AM
My thinking was that if they stopped selling the dsm2 transmitters then they would stop selling receivers for the same system. Sorry if I'm completely wrong but that was just my ill-informed logic.
Steve

I suppose, assuming the customer base is big enough, DSM2 rx will still be available as Horizon / Spectrum will sell it if its in demand and legal.  There are DSM2 rx available from Hobby King now and if it was not viable there would not be 3rd party equipment being made.

It just pees me off when manufacturers continue to sell stuff they are about to make obsolescent
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: nasa_steve on August 30, 2010, 12:09:24 PM
would it not be a good idea for JR to seek to write a firmware upgrade for the Spektrum recievers to allow those that supported them when they went to DSM2 in the first place to move onto the new JR system that way they would retain some of their customer base. surely that would be a way of appeasing their current customers and possibly a way forwards to gain some more customers maybe??
steve
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Alan Smithie on August 30, 2010, 14:41:15 PM
Aside from the legal/IPR issues it may not be physically possible - the spectrum hardware may not be sufficiently compatible.

PDR
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: FrankS on August 30, 2010, 19:52:23 PM
We seem to be assuming here that JR are stopping using DSM2 due to upcoming EU regulations, but if you look at it from a worldwide basis JR probably regretted jumping in with another manufacturer so quickly, especially if it then excluded them from the entry level sets. But maybe at the time they thought that the DSM2 system was the way to go and development of the alternative would take too long and they didn't want to do a Multiplex and be late to the market.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on August 30, 2010, 21:14:55 PM
IF JR wanted to get into the 2.4GHz market, they HAD to use Spektrums DSM/DSM2.  They had their own system but that had to be put to one side.

As I said, DSMJ was a stopgap measure for their home market as the Japanese authorities deemed the DSM based system as being DSSS and therefore limited to 10mW.

Here in the EU, the regulations were not as cut and dried as the Japanese and DSM was accepted as a FHSS based system.

Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: stuey on August 30, 2010, 21:25:17 PM
If anyone is interested, here are my thoughts having read the thread.
When I started reading about this, I assumed that if the EU ruled against the current DSM/DSM2 equipment anyone with it may have to stop using it all together. If you continued to use it you could be in breach of the law, club regs, insurance policies etc. This would be most unfortunate for anyone that had invested in the kit, like myself with a Spektrum module in my Futaba FF9 and possibly 10 rx's.
Now having read that any existing equipment will still be allowed to be used (if the rules change), I am now relaxed about it. Whilst my module still works, can be repaired or replaced, I can use all of the equipment I have bought for many years to come. If a situation arises where new TX devices cannot be sold with DSM2, there are still a lot of people that have them, and Rx's are still going to be available as existing stock or from other world markets. I would have thought that the easiest way to make the manufacturers stop providing RX's, would be if everyone panics and tries to sell their DSM2 kit and destroy the market. Who would want to buy the glut of DSM2 equipment anyway if it is doomed? Keep hold of it and get your moneys worth I reckon.
Spektrum kit may have to change in the future for some reason, but I think there is plenty of life left in it yet.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: danishpasty on August 30, 2010, 21:54:16 PM
Where does this leave the new JR 11X zero DSM2 tranny. Up on blocks before its even left the showroom. I was recently thinking about upgrading my trusty DX7 and looked at a cheap DSX 9. Glad I didn't take the plunge. Like lots of others on here, I think there will be plenty of DSM2 RX's available for years to come even if the TX are no more( but I hope it doesn't come to that  :xx).
Cheers, Rob.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: CF-FZG on August 30, 2010, 21:56:03 PM
I would have thought that the easiest way to make the manufacturers stop providing RX's, would be if everyone panics and tries to sell their DSM2 kit and destroy the market. Who would want to buy the glut of DSM2 equipment anyway if it is doomed?

A very good point :af  as to the second part, I'd be up for some cheap Rxs ;)
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: taximan on August 30, 2010, 22:41:42 PM
Hang on a minute, is DSM2 definitely going to be illegal to buy from next year or is it all speculation?
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Alan Smithie on August 30, 2010, 23:20:44 PM
-3db S:N on DSM2??

I suspect this is another example of Spectrum's rather imaginative approach to marketing.

 :''

PDR
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Alan Smithie on August 30, 2010, 23:27:58 PM
I reported some months ago that using the scanner on my Weatronics system, it shows my DX7 always chose channels that were half the available band apart, so for example it would choose channel 1 and 41, or 10 and 50 and so on.  It never varied from that, it never chose 2 adjacent channels or even nearby channels.

I meant to come back on this Harry - are you saying that it *always* selects pairs that are 40 channels apart? Is there any way you could check against another DSM2 Tx to find out if they all use a 40-channel pair or if it varies from one Tx to another? If they all use the same spacing then this would concern me, because it seems to remove some of the potential robustness from the system. On switch-on the Tx selects one of 40 possible channel sets, and if two did happen to select the same pair (because the second Tx was temporarily masked from the first) then BOTH of its chosen channels would conflict and they would be relying solely on the low duty-cycle for continued communication, which would be rather risky!

PDR
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: CF-FZG on August 30, 2010, 23:34:48 PM
Hang on a minute, is DSM2 definitely going to be illegal to buy from next year or is it all speculation?

Speculation :af
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Kambalunga on August 30, 2010, 23:46:42 PM
On switch-on the Tx selects one of 40 possible channel sets, and if two did happen to select the same pair (because the second Tx was temporarily masked from the first) then BOTH of its chosen channels would conflict and they would be relying solely on the low duty-cycle for continued communication, which would be rather risky!

PDR

This is not a problem for DSSS. DSM2 use 49 different spreadingcodes and 32bit GUIDs.
If an undesired transmitter transmits on the same channel but with a different PN sequence (or no sequence at all), the de-spreading process results in no processing gain for that signal. This effect is the basis for the code division multiple access (CDMA) property of DSSS, which allows multiple transmitters to share the same channel.

CYWUSB6935: Forty-nine spreading codes selected for optimal performance (Gold codes) are supported across 78 1-MHz channels yielding a theoretical spectral capacity of 3822 channels.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Alan Smithie on August 30, 2010, 23:55:23 PM
...which is fine for a data network where the "clogging" simply causes slower data rates and a few dropped packets, but in real-time control applications it causes paradoxes.

But my real point was simply surprise at the fixed channel seperation - it reduces the options to 40 potyential channel pairs rather than 1600 (402) potential channel pairs.

PDR
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: steamysheep on August 31, 2010, 08:17:55 AM
Fascinating thread. I wish I could add more to the dialogue than "welcome back Pete, we missed you" and my own position.

I am one of the early adopters, fed up with waiting for my channel at flyins, and then getting shot down, and went for the DX7 when everyone was crying "2.4g that's the Work of Satin". Now nearly three years later I am satisfied with that choice..

I never keep a radio for more than three years and am nervous about having "old" receivers in my planes so my oldest Rx would be sold on before it's 5 years old. Both TX and Rx get a lot of use and I value the airframes more than the radio.

I have recently changed from the DX7 to the DSX9 as part of the "keeping the radio new" policy. That will give me another three years when it'll be time to change out most of my receivers and get another new tranny too.

Hopefully all this debate will done and dusted by then.

BUT, with modern technology I think we will be looking at the next major development then and will be pondering X.X delivering super duper downlink capability that will make the next generation obsolescent by 2014 anyway!

So I feel for the people who take a long term view on radio; and when I retire that will be me too. Wonder what the debate be around in 2018 to 2023? I'll probably go back to 35mucky cycles..
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: stuey on August 31, 2010, 08:34:23 AM
Unfortunately its going to be hard to take a long term view if you ask me. The whole 2.4gig concept is still maturing and new innovations coming out, so picking the right horse to bet on will be hard. Every manufacturer wants their system to be the best new thing around, trying to woo the crowds onto their side. At least on 35meg it is a mature system, with cross compatability between manufacturers giving us more choice.
Until I am told it is illegal to use my DSM2 kit and what I have still works, I see no reason to change. I do however understand that people have reservations about buying it new now. But, Spektrum seem to be putting a lot into their new 8 channel radio, if they were to abandon customers in a year or so's time that WOULD be very bad for their image, and would suffer a great deal afterwards.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: HarryC on August 31, 2010, 09:11:06 AM
I meant to come back on this Harry - are you saying that it *always* selects pairs that are 40 channels apart?

I wouldn't worry about it Pete, as we don't know it's channel choosing procedure.  When I tested mine, it was always an environment where there was only one other fixed channel transmitter, my home wifi, showing on the scanner.  The wifi was a low power spread wide across several channels and didn't prevent the DX7 from sometimes choosing channels the wifi was using, the DX7 showing much taller, narrower spikes.  It could be that the DX7 rules are (and these are pure speculation for illustrative purposes);
1. Scan all band. Pick 2 free channels that are 40 channels apart.  If none, go to 2.
2. pick 2 free channels that are 39 or 41 channels apart.  if none go to 3.
3. pick 2 free channels that are 38 or 42 channels apart.  and so on and on.

That would allow for mine always picking 2 channels half the band apart because there was nothing else using the band, and would allow for it to vary that if conditions required it, even picking 2 adjacent channels in extremis.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on August 31, 2010, 09:45:44 AM
Quote
Where does this leave the new JR 11X zero DSM2 tranny

The current version is as you know modular (unless you bought one outside the EU), the CE approved version has not been released yet.

I'll be honest here, I do not know if the DSX11 is going to be DSM2 or DMSS....  I will try and find out.  If it is DSM2 then (to me) it's a bloody weird business model to follow !

Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Lplus on August 31, 2010, 14:49:52 PM
Hi Gordon,  yes the 11X DSm2 module fits any normal 5 pin module based Tx.

I tested the DSMJ and DSM2 modules on my 9XII. 

Does that include the old 388 and 347?  If so there'd still an upgrade path to JR DMSS for me too, if JR bring out that type of module.

What!?  so, I like them and I'm a skinflint - so what  ;D
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Kambalunga on September 01, 2010, 09:36:48 AM
Macman - and that is exactly the problem.
The distributors / manufacturers could prevent wild speculation by an assurance they won't leave DSM/DSM2 users without a future come Oct 2011. A few "what if" scenearios could be run through.  

Best case scenario would be for JR/Speki to state as soon as possible that they do or do not have an upgrade path if DSM2 is outlawed failure to do so causes the speculation you refer to.


Horizon Hobby abou the DSM2 conformity.
http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rc-network.de%2Fforum%2Fshowpost.php%3Fp%3D1904763%26postcount%3D1&sl=de&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8 (http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rc-network.de%2Fforum%2Fshowpost.php%3Fp%3D1904763%26postcount%3D1&sl=de&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8)
http://www.rc-network.de/forum/showpost.php?p=1904763&postcount=1 (http://www.rc-network.de/forum/showpost.php?p=1904763&postcount=1)


The BNetzA about DSM2 and the validated conformity of DSM2.

http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rc-network.de%2Fforum%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D216192&sl=de&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8 (http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rc-network.de%2Fforum%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D216192&sl=de&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8)
http://www.rc-network.de/forum/showthread.php?t=216192 (http://www.rc-network.de/forum/showthread.php?t=216192)

We should not forget, Horizon Hobby is a ETSI member.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: pchristy on September 01, 2010, 14:00:18 PM
Forgive my late arrival at this topic! I've only just discovered this forum, but I see someone has kindly copied a message I posted on another forum at the head of this thread.

First a disclaimer: I don't work for JR, Futaba, MacGregors, RipMax, or anyone else, though I do know a number of people who work or who have worked there (Hi Mac-Man!). I am NOT privy to any secrets they may have! The following is based on some knowledge and some speculation, but I believe it to be an accurate summary of the situation (warts and all)!

The EU VERY CLEARLY stated at the meeting in Brussels over a year ago that they have NO INTENTION of banning or power restricting DSM systems. It simply is NOT going to happen. Why not? Because every single wireless router on sale in PC World, Currys, etc and made by every big network manufacturer uses a variant of DSM! They do NOT frequency hop!

If a ban such as has been suggested in this thread were implemented, the howl of outrage from the computer industry would be heard on Mars!

2.4 GHz in an "industrial dustbin" band - like 27 MHz and 459 MHz. It is not exclusively for RC. Nor is it exclusively for computer networks. Any regulations specified will be for ALL users, not just for RC or computers. There will be no way of drawing up different specs for different applications!

I know this band seems very important to us - and it is. But remember, we are minnows compared to the computer industry! If the EU banned DSM it would immediately and effectively ban every single existing computer network and router in the country! Its simply ISN'T going to happen!

What may well happen is that there will be a shift in alliances in the commercial world, and the new JR sets may well be the first symptom of that. Futaba are a giant in the electronics industry, making not just RC sets, but components for a wide range of electronics gadgets. The chances are that the fluorescent display on the front of your DVD player is made by Futaba!

From what I have been able to gather, when Spektrum came out with their 2.4 GHz sets, it caught the Japanese completely flat-footed! They hadn't seen it coming! Futaba already had industrial 2.4 GHz systems, so it didn't take them long to modify them for model control use. JR are nothing like as big as Futaba. I seriously doubt that they had enough in-house talent to design a system from scratch once they realised how big it was going to be. I'm guessing that the only way they could get a system on the market quickly enough to keep up with Futaba was to do a deal with Spektrum. This would have been aided by the fact that their US importer was Horizon, who also own Spektrum! The US is their biggest market, so this scenario makes a lot of sense!

I would guess that in the intervening time, they've been busy recruiting 2.4 GHz engineers to design their own system. It must have been quite embarrassing for them to have to admit that they could only compete by "buying in" an existing design, and saving face is very big in Japan! It looks like they are now ready to start testing the water with their own design system. Interestingly, it looks like they are - initially at least - keeping to the bottom end of the market with the new system, leaving the top end stuff as DSM2. No doubt once the system is proven, they will begin migrating their top end stuff over too, but I would expect that to be at least a couple of years away yet.

So no, DSM2 is not going to vanish over-night. Nor is there any likelyhood that it will be subject to power or any other restrictions in the redrafted regulations.

This has all to do with corporate politics and FUD, and very little to do with any technical arguments!

--
Pete Christy

"No matter how hard you push the envelope, it will still be stationery!"
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Didg on September 02, 2010, 08:35:44 AM
Just found out about this...... subscribed.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: pchristy on September 02, 2010, 11:33:26 AM
Some further reading:

If you want to know what the situation REALLY is, you have to go to the horses mouth, ie: Ofcom

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/spectrum/spectrum-policy-area/spectrum-management/research-guidelines-tech-info/interface-requirements/mso9140.pdf (http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/spectrum/spectrum-policy-area/spectrum-management/research-guidelines-tech-info/interface-requirements/mso9140.pdf)

This link takes you to the document which is Ofcoms implementation of ETS 300 328, the EU regs governing 2.4 GHz.

The important bit (for us) is table 2.1 at the top of page 6, which I recreate in text form here:

                                         Table 2.1: Minimum Equipment Requirements
                      Lower Frequency Range                      Upper Frequency Range               
                           2400 MHz                                               2483.5 MHz

Minimum aggregate bit rate               250 kBit/s

Modulation                      Frequency hopping, direct sequence or other forms of spread spectrum modulation

Effective Radiated Power                  -10 dBW (100 mW)

Power Density                    Frequency hopping-10 dBW (100 mW) per 100 kHz
                              Other forms of spread spectrum modulation-20 dBW (10 mW) per 1 MHz


As you can clearly see, direct sequence (DSM) is permitted just as much as frequency hopping.

BOTH are permitted an erp of 100mW.

What most people misinterpret is the last two lines (power density)

Trying to put this in laymans terms, this is saying you can either put your pint of beer in a tall, thin glass (100mW per 100KHz), or a short, fat one (10mW per MHz). In either case it is still a pint of beer (100mW erp)!

DON'T confuse erp with spectral density. This is where the confusion arises!

I think this cleary demonstrates that there is NO regulation against DSM - nor is there likely to be.

Any changes JR may (or may not) be making have all to do with corporate politics and contracts, and nothing to do with technical merit!

Just relax and buy what works best for you. DO NOT be put off by all the FUD and mis-information currently doing the rounds!
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Lplus on September 02, 2010, 12:01:27 PM
Hmm, fascinating.  So FHSS can put all its 100mW power into a 100KHz band whilst others must spread their 100mW over at least 10MHz?

As I haven't invested a lot in 2.4, and still have plenty of 35meg I'm not averse to using cheap stuff for now and upgrading to JR when(or if) suitable modules are available.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: pchristy on September 02, 2010, 12:15:03 PM
Hmm, fascinating.  So FHSS can put all its 100mW power into a 100KHz band whilst others must spread their 100mW over at least 10MHz?

That's over 1 MHz, not 10 MHz!

As I said, don't read too much into that power density figure. The thing that's really important is signal to noise ratio (S/N). This is what ultimately limits your range / performance.

You can improve your S/N ratio either by using more power density, or by using more bandwidth. If you look at the above figures, you will see that DSM uses 10 times the bandwidth, but the power density is 10 times less, so you end up in exactly the same place!

In addition, DSM is perfectly capable of recovering a signal from below the noise floor - something that logic tells you is impossible! I was given a good analogy of how this works a while back: If you go to Heathrow to pick up your son/daughter/spouse, you will have no trouble picking him/her (the signal) out despite the crowds around him/her (the noise). This is because you know what you are looking for, and can pick it out from the surrounding mush. So a DSM receiver can pluck a signal from noise that may actually be greater than the signal!

Yes, it makes my brain hurt as well......!!
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Lplus on September 02, 2010, 12:59:52 PM
That's over 1 MHz, not 10 MHz!

You can improve your S/N ratio either by using more power density, or by using more bandwidth. If you look at the above figures, you will see that DSM uses 10 times the bandwidth, but the power density is 10 times less, so you end up in exactly the same place!

Sorry, I understand now.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: CHEL on September 02, 2010, 19:46:49 PM
A big thank you for Pete Christy for clearing up this nonsense about Euro regs and DSM. It was nice to have the situation explained in laymans terms.

Well done Pete  :af

Phil.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: leccyflyer on September 02, 2010, 19:57:18 PM
Seconded :af

Thanks Pete.

Now, why couldn't Horizon have said that?
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: taximan on September 02, 2010, 22:49:57 PM
Probably because nobody would have believed them.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: markg on September 02, 2010, 23:36:33 PM
Probably because nobody asked them.
Fixed
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: leccyflyer on September 03, 2010, 10:10:47 AM
Fixed, but not true. They were asked.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: CF-FZG on September 03, 2010, 11:07:40 AM
What was their reply Brian?


Mark
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: leccyflyer on September 03, 2010, 11:22:40 AM
What was their reply Brian?


Mark

As it was related to me, second hand, it was that there wasn't a problem and that it was just an internet rumour.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: steamysheep on September 03, 2010, 11:25:32 AM
I almost started to worry about this subject until last night...

Cool evening, bright blue sky, 5 mph steady breeze.

DSX9 in hand, 1/3rd Scale Pup aloft doing lazy eights, stall turns and slow low passes across the field... Only stopped flying when there was no gap left between the sun and the horizon to fly between...

Magic....  
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: CF-FZG on September 03, 2010, 11:31:04 AM
As it was related to me, second hand, it was that there wasn't a problem and that it was just an internet rumour.

So going by Pete's recent statements on the whole of the 2.4GHz band, it was a pretty accurate answer $%&
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: leccyflyer on September 03, 2010, 12:16:06 PM
We'll have to wait and see I guess, but the uncertainty is clearly there, it's been discussed and threads like this one demonstrates that it is an issue. However Pete's statement goes a long way to allaying that uncertainty and that can only be a good thing.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: CF-FZG on September 03, 2010, 12:40:35 PM
Agreed, but I should have clarified my post by saying that they, HH, could have explained why they thought it wasn't a problem $%&
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: leccyflyer on September 03, 2010, 17:28:09 PM
Agreed, but I should have clarified my post by saying that they, HH, could have explained why they thought it wasn't a problem $%&

That's all I've been looking for over the past six months.

In that time I've bought five Spektrum receivers and would have liked a bit of reassurance that there really wasn't going to be a problem.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: pchristy on September 03, 2010, 18:43:23 PM
To be fair to HH, I think you have to give them a little bit of space here.

If they rushed out a statement every time someone started a rumour, they wouldn't have time to work! And as someone earlier pointed out, would they have been believed if they had said anything? It leaves them open to the old Mandy Rice-Davies charge that "they would say that, wouldn't they?"

(For those of you too young to remember, google the Profumo affair!)

Sometimes its just better to let the facts speak for themselves, even if that can be frustrating for end users....
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Phil_G on September 04, 2010, 21:29:40 PM
The only way is to be patient, wait & see if the World ends in April.  I've contacts throughout Cisco management and have a favour or two to call in but I've failed to find out anything, other than it seems likely the case will be presented on the 11th as discussed.   $%&

Phil
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: DB P7966 on September 13, 2010, 21:24:10 PM
Well explained Pete :af,

I have a saying, "KISS"  keep it simple stupid :''

Sometimes these threads can get a bit heavy but glad to say you brought it down to a level so that most people can understand and keep up with what is being said.

Cheers

DB
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: R_Belluomini on September 14, 2010, 21:21:13 PM
Interesting that JR would decide to produce a system following the other major manufacturers
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: fireblade5437 on September 14, 2010, 21:50:45 PM
I wonder if JR ever consider employing the Weatronic system? I kinda feel that if they do design their own 2.4Ghz system I bet it probably will not be much different to the functionality of the Wea system!

Alan
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: CF-FZG on September 14, 2010, 22:23:22 PM
Interesting that JR would decide to produce a system following the other major manufacturers

According to reports, JR were developing their own FHSS system before the tie-up with Spektrum, so that would be before all the other manufacturers ;)
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: fireblade5437 on September 14, 2010, 22:33:06 PM
Apart from Futaba, I worked on a very large industrial crane way before 2.4 was used for modelling and the 2.4 control system made by? ... Futaba... ;D

Alan
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Alan Smithie on September 14, 2010, 22:56:10 PM
Futaba (the parent organisation, of which the hobby control side is a very, very small division) developed significant chunks of the spread-spectrum communications technology and actually hold a lot (or even most) of the patenents on the enabling technologies. Not that this meansmuch for the model-control applications, it's just that a lot of modellers don't realise that the Futaba corporation is a big player in the electronics industry, where JR aren't.

PDR
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: emmpeabee on September 25, 2010, 18:47:02 PM
Being a johny come very much lately, I'm glad I didn't find it earlier  ;)
I read it all in one afternoon, and it beat the telly - even the resolution was (almost) unexpected - short sharp and simple.
Thank you all for the enjoyment and enlightenment.
My Early Adopter DX7 can rest easy - its not on the way to EBay,  :)
& maybe I'll try a compatible rx as well  ;)
Mike
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: FlyinBrian on September 25, 2010, 22:27:32 PM
A big thank you for Pete Christy for clearing up this nonsense about Euro regs and DSM. It was nice to have the situation explained in laymans terms.

Well done Pete  :af

Phil.

Absolutely, I have just recently returned from holiday and seen Peter's posts - thanks Peter.

Incidently I went flying in S Africa and visited a couple of model shops. They have JR DSM2 and DSMJ equipment in use there and had heard no mention of the issues aired in this thread. They were very suprised when I told them JR were dropping DSM2 technology.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: onewasp on October 01, 2010, 21:18:26 PM
Absolutely, I have just recently returned from holiday and seen Peter's posts - thanks Peter.

Incidently I went flying in S Africa and visited a couple of model shops. They have JR DSM2 and DSMJ equipment in use there and had heard no mention of the issues aired in this thread. They were very suprised when I told them JR were dropping DSM2 technology.

_________

Suggest you read this letter from JR.

Hardly dropping DSM2 !

To Our Valued JR Customers:

During the recent BMFA Nationals, a new JR 7 channel radio system using DMSS was shown by our UK distributor. This system uses a technology that is incompatible with DSM2 in order to meet a market need where DSM2 is not available to JR. Unfortunately, several individuals made statements that JR finds very misleading and require correction.

JR remains committed to future development with DSM technologies and to our customers who currently own JR equipment using the DSM standard. JR will continue to manufacture, sell, and support DSM equipment in all markets currently allowed by agreement.

It is our goal that this communication clears up any questions about JRs intentions and that JR remains confident in and committed to the future of DSM technology around the world.

We thank you for your continued support.

Kind regards

Mooney Takamura.
International Sales Manager
JR Propo
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: CliffordH on October 02, 2010, 17:41:22 PM
Interesting phrase there...



Quote
JR will continue to manufacture, sell, and support DSM equipment in all markets currently allowed by agreement

I detect the heavy hand of Horizon Hobbies USA leaning down on JR,  I could be wrong but seeing and knowing what they done in the past, it would not surprise me.

 :P
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: BrianB on October 02, 2010, 17:50:33 PM
And of course Clifford, HH still have a mountain of DSM gear they want to sell......

And note Mr Takamura's guarded use of the word "currently". Does this perhaps imply impending change?
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: pchristy on October 02, 2010, 20:16:14 PM
A couple of points:

1) Remember that English is not his native language before trying to read too much into it!

2) I think you'll find that "by agreement" refers to legal requirements rather than contractual - for instance DSM is not legal in Japan.

Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: nasa_steve on October 02, 2010, 20:16:31 PM
And note Mr Takamura's guarded use of the word "currently". Does this perhaps imply impending change?

And thus the seed of doubt is once again planted. ::)
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: onewasp on October 02, 2010, 22:32:04 PM
And thus the seed of doubt is once again planted. ::)
___________________________

True, BUT, only if you wish it to be that way.     :af

I understand both forms of English and "The man said DSM2 is here to stay."

It would seem that the US form of  "litigation lottery"  response to rather plain English has been adopted by my UK brethren.     ::)

I had so hoped for more from you.  

 I shall now repair to my tepee  to allow the unending discussion to go on, ----, well without end.
As in sans wine, sans song, sans singer, sans end.  (the Rubaiyat, I believe)

Cheers.



Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on October 02, 2010, 22:34:06 PM
Mooney has a good command of the English Language and is a very nice guy to talk to.

However, have just read the original email I received and there is no doubt about what I had posted.  There may have been some mis-translation when the information was first passed on to MacGregors but reading the info I was given and authorised to release, what more can I say ?

IF (and I do mean IF) I made a mistake then I will step up to the mark and apologise.

Time will tell.....  and in the meantime I will be found  :study:

Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: nasa_steve on October 02, 2010, 23:31:20 PM
___________________________

True, BUT, only if you wish it to be that way.     :af

I understand both forms of English and "The man said DSM2 is here to stay."I had so hoped for more from you.

I was being Ironic hence the raised eyes smiley. I was merely outlining that as soon as someone puts the rumour to bed another tries to read beyond the meaning of such statement thus the irony of "planting the seed of doubt"  :study:
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: onewasp on October 02, 2010, 23:56:11 PM
I was being Ironic hence the raised eyes smiley. I was merely outlining that as soon as someone puts the rumour to bed another tries to read beyond the meaning of such statement thus the irony of "planting the seed of doubt"  :study:
__________________

Agreed, and TOTALLY understood. 
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on October 03, 2010, 00:24:00 AM
Pete,

Just out of curiosity, what other country (apart from Japan) doesn't allow DSM2 at the 100mW level ?  Surely that is where the DSMJ is marketed ?
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: onewasp on October 03, 2010, 01:45:26 AM
Pete,

Just out of curiosity, what other country (apart from Japan) doesn't allow DSM2 at the 100mW level ?  Surely that is where the DSMJ is marketed ?

____________________

mac-man

Your question (quoted here, above) and this sentence from JR's letter:

"This system uses a technology that is incompatible with DSM2 in order to meet a market need where DSM2 is not available to JR. "

------say two entirely different things.
"WHERE DSM2 IS NOT AVAILABLE TO JR" would include any geographic area where Horizon has been marketing Spektrum to date and not JR as well, in that same area.
Obviously you are painfully aware of this in the UK.

The question you ask:    ".........what other country (apart from Japan) doesn't allow DSM2 at the 100mW level ? "

------------covers an entirely different aspect of the DSM2 and JR distribution scheme ('chosen business relationship' to avoid the negative aspect of the word scheme).

I see how you got there but it is the wrong trail.

Capiche?

BTW I am an American Veteran  and long. long time RC'r ,who happens to still live in the USA so my participation in this forum is strictly as a guest.
In short, I have no dog in this hunt !
I KNOW my usage of DSM2 is assured ad infinitum so my input is intended to be informational only.
 I hope you take it that way.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: JohnB on October 03, 2010, 07:15:59 AM
_________

Suggest you read this letter from JR.

Hardly dropping DSM2 !

To Our Valued JR Customers:

During the recent BMFA Nationals, a new JR 7 channel radio system using DMSS was shown by our UK distributor. This system uses a technology that is incompatible with DSM2 in order to meet a market need where DSM2 is not available to JR. Unfortunately, several individuals made statements that JR finds very misleading and require correction.

JR remains committed to future development with DSM technologies and to our customers who currently own JR equipment using the DSM standard. JR will continue to manufacture, sell, and support DSM equipment in all markets currently allowed by agreement.
Are you saying that in the UK DSM2 is not availble to JR because of contractural issues with HH or because of the potential changes in law? It would seem to me that if you're so commited to DSM2 that this new radio (hate the looks BTW, should have stayed with the conventional layout) should be available in both DSMJ & DSM2.

I have been fighting the JR corner since the start but this statement has now unsettled me for sure.

J

Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Steve J on October 03, 2010, 08:39:03 AM
And note Mr Takamura's guarded use of the word "currently". Does this perhaps imply impending change?

Give it a rest Brian.

Just out of curiosity, what other country (apart from Japan) doesn't allow DSM2 at the 100mW level ? 

Croatia
France only allows 100mW between 2400 & 2454 MHz
Greece
Portugal
Spain

(taken from the FAI site)

It would seem to me that if you're so commited to DSM2 that this new radio (hate the looks BTW, should have stayed with the conventional layout) should be available in both DSMJ & DSM2.

The XG7 looks like a 2720/DX7 with a different RF stage. Are you thinking about the 11X (which comes with a DSM2 module) ?

Steve
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on October 03, 2010, 08:41:30 AM
Quote
"WHERE DSM2 IS NOT AVAILABLE TO JR" would include any geographic area where Horizon has been marketing Spektrum to date and not JR as well, in that same area.

I think the light has just clicked on.  From what you are saying; where there is a DX5, DX6, DX7 and DX8, this is where the XG7 is going to be promoted as there is not a JR branded system in that arena.

LOL...   that's a global market then.

:)
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on October 03, 2010, 08:43:21 AM
Thanks Steve, didn't realise that Greece, Portugal and Spain were on the list !
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: TonyKing on October 03, 2010, 09:45:16 AM
Croatia
France only allows 100mW between 2400 & 2454 MHz
Greece
Portugal
Spain

(taken from the FAI site)

Oh Rollocks, I was going to convert my planes in spain to Spectrum 2.4 this Tuesday coming.   :'(


Tony
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: BrianB on October 03, 2010, 10:11:21 AM
So Tony, it appears the plane in Spain is obviously now a pain....?  ;)
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Steve J on October 03, 2010, 10:33:41 AM
I was going to convert my planes in spain to Spektrum 2.4 this Tuesday coming.


http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/system/files/Frequencies_ESP_20100316.pdf (http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/system/files/Frequencies_ESP_20100316.pdf)

Steve
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Barrye on October 04, 2010, 18:05:22 PM
I think I have worked part of the JR statement out.

JR's agreement with HH stops them selling low end DSM2 sets where Spektrum are available, so to get this slice of the market they have to do something different (DMSS)

Therefore XG7 will be sold world wide apart from the USA, because HH are the JR distributor in the US and won't want to stock a competing set.

What intrigues me is what it means for the 11z  - does the "DSM developments" mean there will be support for DSM2 telemetry?

Whilst the statement is helpful to a point JR needs to communicate their vision of what they are going to do on 2.4, and then do it quickly. Whilst there is confusion people will keep their wallets in their pockets. The longer it goes on the worse it will get.

Probably the 2 telling questions are


Will JR be supporting DSM2 telemetry

Will there be DMSS versions of 9x, 11z, 12x and will they have telemetry (my guess 11z, 12x yes, 9x no)


Barry
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Alan Smithie on October 04, 2010, 18:09:02 PM
You need to add "when will they be offering M-link compatability" to the list as well.

PDR
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: onewasp on October 05, 2010, 00:19:23 AM
_________________
I think I have worked part of the JR statement out. -----------

________________________________

Do you happen to be the speech writer for  Muammar al-Gaddafi  ????

I think it might be the similar reasoning patterns ----------------------       :)

The most accurate interpretation generally (almost always)  is  also the most simplistic .
He wrote a very clear concise letter for a very specific purpose .  
You are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear .
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Pitstop000 on October 05, 2010, 01:19:12 AM
_________________________________________________

Do you happen to be the speech writer for  Muammar al-Gaddafi  ????

I think it might be the similar reasoning patterns ----------------------       :)

The most accurate interpretation generally (almost always)  is  also the most simplistic .
He wrote a very clear concise letter for a very specific purpose .  
You are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear .

Onewasp, what is the purpose of your post and your agenda here?  :study:

Can you not understand why this letter was released by JR ?  :-X

We get it, youre a DSM2 Fan, Great !  :'(

Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: onewasp on October 05, 2010, 01:21:53 AM
Onewasp, what is the purpose of your post and your agenda here?  :study:

Can you not understand why this letter was released by JR ?  :-X

We get it, youre a DSM2 Fan, Great !  :'(



___________________________

I am simply "poking fun" at those trying to make the simple JR letter say things it never intended .

No sense of humor ???

I happen to have been the poster of that letter on this forum ------ of course I know what it said and I fly more than one brand of Tx / system .

What the hell rattled your cage ?
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on October 05, 2010, 01:23:58 AM
Quote
Will JR be supporting DSM2 telemetry

Unlikely as it is only on a Spektrum based DX8 and probably on the Spektrum DX10. (But possibly in the future ???)

Quote
Will there be DMSS versions of 9x, 11z, 12x and will they have telemetry (my guess 11z, 12x yes, 9x no)

9X - Very much doubt it but possible some time in the future...  XG9 anyone ?

XG11 - probably next year

XG12 - possibly next year but who knows.

Please note that all my comments are based on personal gut feeling and are NOT insider knowledge. (Just in case BB is watching  :'')
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Pitstop000 on October 05, 2010, 01:46:20 AM
I think I have worked part of the JR statement out.

JR's agreement with HH stops them selling low end DSM2 sets where Spektrum are available, so to get this slice of the market they have to do something different (DMSS)

Therefore XG7 will be sold world wide apart from the USA, because HH are the JR distributor in the US and won't want to stock a competing set.

Agreed!  :af
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Lplus on October 05, 2010, 07:28:34 AM
[url]http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/system/files/Frequencies_ESP_20100316.pdf[/url] ([url]http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/system/files/Frequencies_ESP_20100316.pdf[/url])

Steve


What's the difference between "pra" and "pire" output power?  The 35 meg output is "pra" and the 2.4 gig is "pire"

there must be some difference or it wouldn't be mentioned.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: JohnB on October 05, 2010, 08:19:00 AM
What's the difference between "pra" and "pire" output power?  The 35 meg output is "pra" and the 2.4 gig is "pire"

there must be some difference or it wouldn't be mentioned.
I believe it's different methods used to measure power from the Tx, I'm sure PDR or Macman will be along shortly to give chapter and verse.

One thing for sure, I've been a Futaba user for years until changing to Spektrum and then on to DSX9. I've been very happy with JR, the programming and the quality of the Tx. I now however wishing I'd stayed on 35MHz because this is a complete shambles. I won't be jumping ship yet, Spektrum and DSX9 fits my purpose but in the future I will be looking round for a manufacturer that supports it's products with backwards compatability, clearly JR don't see the need for this but I'm sure many users will.

J
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Leszek_K on October 05, 2010, 09:19:58 AM
PIRA = EIRP = Effective isotropically radiated power
No idea what PRA means.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Windy on October 05, 2010, 11:13:03 AM
Power radiated anisotropically? Just guessing.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: FlyinBrian on October 05, 2010, 11:33:01 AM
_________

Suggest you read this letter from JR.

Hardly dropping DSM2 !

To Our Valued JR Customers:

During the recent BMFA Nationals, a new JR 7 channel radio system using DMSS was shown by our UK distributor. This system uses a technology that is incompatible with DSM2 in order to meet a market need where DSM2 is not available to JR. Unfortunately, several individuals made statements that JR finds very misleading and require correction.

JR remains committed to future development with DSM technologies and to our customers who currently own JR equipment using the DSM standard. JR will continue to manufacture, sell, and support DSM equipment in all markets currently allowed by agreement.

It is our goal that this communication clears up any questions about JRs intentions and that JR remains confident in and committed to the future of DSM technology around the world.

We thank you for your continued support.

Kind regards

Mooney Takamura.
International Sales Manager
JR Propo


And I suggest you read Macmans post earlier in the thread!!,  perhaps Europe is not "in all markets currently allowed by agreement.

DSM technology does not = DSM2, DSM covers the whole gamut of protocols used by R/C systems.

DSM2 is a HORIZON HOBBIES / SPEKTRUM proprietary protocol and JR licenced it. They are/have developed their own DSM protocol which is NOT DSM2.

JR, afaik, has no intention to continue producing DSM2, support of existing sets is a different matter!

Brian

Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: markg on October 05, 2010, 11:44:24 AM
DSM technology does not = DSM2, DSM covers the whole gamut of protocols used by R/C systems.

No it doesn't.  In this context DSM refers to Spektrum's original 2.4GHz DSSS protocol and DSM2 refers to the updated version of it.

edit: I wasn't sure myself after typing that but yeah:


http://www.spektrumrc.com/DSM/FAQ.aspx (http://www.spektrumrc.com/DSM/FAQ.aspx)
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on October 05, 2010, 12:49:45 PM
Guys,

There is no reason to get our knickers in a twist over this.  We can interpret Mooney's wording until the cows come home and it still won't affect anything at all.

DSM2 from Spektrum is here to stay, JR will continue to support it (under licence from Horizon/Spektrum) for some time yet.  The new DMSS is appearing in the XG7 in the not too distant future and will appear again in other new JR systems.

This all stems from the meeting a few years ago when a certain company wanted to ban us from the 2.4 GHz band.  Unfortunately the rules where written in such a way that they were open to misinterpretation and until the new rules appear next year all we are doing is speculating and panicking.

No need to, lets all just relax and fly with what we have chosen as best for your needs.

 :study:
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Leszek_K on October 05, 2010, 15:23:56 PM
DSSS (direct-sequence spread spectrum) is not a protocol, nor is FHSS (frequency-hopping spread spectrum). They are different ways to create a spread spectrum signal.
And do not take a channel hopping, as in all decent 2.4GHz RC systems, for FHSS. It is different level.
All existing RC systems are DSSS, no matter what manufacturer claims.
Now back to DSM against DSM2. The only difference between them is that DSM could occasionally allocate its 2 working channels close together, so, for example, video signal on 2.4GHz could jam it, DSM2 is a bit smarter and allocates those 2 channels far apart. End of a story.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: HarryC on October 05, 2010, 16:26:08 PM
All existing RC systems are DSSS, no matter what manufacturer claims.
And in the USA in its application for FCC approval, Futaba specifically says that FASST is DSSS, they do not claim it to be FHSS.  I notice that no official Futaba marketing literature uses the phrase FHSS or "frequency hopping", they use the phrase "channel shifting", so whilst giving the impression it is FHSS they are scrupulous in avoiding actually using that phrase.
What of the others though such as Multiplex, Weatronic, Hitec etc who do specifically use the phrase FHSS?  Why not say channel hopping rather than say FHSS?
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: g4rko on October 05, 2010, 16:54:34 PM
And in the USA in its application for FCC approval, Futaba specifically says that FASST is DSSS, they do not claim it to be FHSS. ..........

Probably why they call it FASST  ;)
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Leszek_K on October 05, 2010, 18:38:58 PM
I think it is all down to local laws in some countries. DSSS is limited to 10mW while FHSS can emit up to 100mW eirp.  All because of different nature of a signal.  One can say that channel hopping actually is frequency hopping. . . . . .
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: onewasp on October 05, 2010, 23:47:01 PM

And I suggest you read Macmans post earlier in the thread!!,  perhaps Europe is not "in all markets currently allowed by agreement.

DSM technology does not = DSM2, DSM covers the whole gamut of protocols used by R/C systems.

DSM2 is a HORIZON HOBBIES / SPEKTRUM proprietary protocol and JR licenced it. They are/have developed their own DSM protocol which is NOT DSM2.

JR, afaik, has no intention to continue producing DSM2, support of existing sets is a different matter!

Brian



DSM stands for Digital Spectrum Modulation . Which IS patented by Horizon / Spektrum / Paul Beard . John Adams is also included.

You are thinking DSSS  Direct Sequencing Spread Spectrum, which is the generic .

Makes little difference in the long run but it does clarify its use in the JR letter .
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Leszek_K on October 06, 2010, 07:58:30 AM
Onewasp - what the hell they patented. The whole thing was well known long before anyone of them was born.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: satinet on October 06, 2010, 08:31:49 AM
Spelling spectrum with a 'k' perhaps....?
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: markg on October 06, 2010, 08:40:51 AM
Surely it's just the name they have given to their protocol, which is the thing that they patented.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Leszek_K on October 06, 2010, 10:22:25 AM
Hmmmm, they don't use any special protocol. It is just fairly standard serial transmission. No rocket science in it.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: markg on October 06, 2010, 10:27:57 AM
I didn't say that it's "special" or "rocket science" or anything else you want to imagine that I wrote.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Leszek_K on October 06, 2010, 15:14:36 PM
I know you didn't. I am just wondering what was there to patent. That's it.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: markg on October 06, 2010, 15:19:31 PM
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=MT6rAAAAEBAJ&dq=Digital+Spectrum+Modulation+radio+control (http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=MT6rAAAAEBAJ&dq=Digital+Spectrum+Modulation+radio+control)
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: onewasp on October 06, 2010, 16:09:13 PM
Onewasp - what the hell they patented. The whole thing was well known long before anyone of them was born.
________________________

Ask them, they're the ones with the patent and the disclosures.
  

He who can explain, (with logic) the essence of Patent and Copyright Law could probably own the world .   :)


Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: skirmish on October 06, 2010, 17:09:41 PM
[url]http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=MT6rAAAAEBAJ&dq=Digital+Spectrum+Modulation+radio+control[/url] ([url]http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=MT6rAAAAEBAJ&dq=Digital+Spectrum+Modulation+radio+control[/url])

That's quite a patent. Interesting that the description is very long yet there are only five relatively short claims.
The strength of a patent is always in the claims.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: onewasp on October 06, 2010, 17:26:42 PM
That's quite a patent. Interesting that the description is very long yet there are only five relatively short claims.
The strength of a patent is always in the claims.

_________________________

Deep pockets and Law Firm connections are mitigating factors .

While that should be in jest it unfortunately is not jest at all, but reality.
Simply the way the world works .

I hate to even think of what it cost me to learn that .
Trust me though I learned well, if expensively .
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Leszek_K on October 06, 2010, 18:09:15 PM
O.M.G.  :o :o :o

Quote
The concept of frequency hopping was first alluded to in the 1903 U.S. Patent 723,188 and U.S. Patent 725,605 filed by Nikola Tesla  in July 1900. Tesla came up with the idea after demonstrating the world's first radio-controlled submersible boat in 1898, when it became apparent the wireless signals controlling the boat needed to be secure from "being disturbed, intercepted, or interfered with in any way." His patents covered two fundamentally different techniques for achieving immunity to interference, both of which functioned by altering the carrier frequency or other exclusive characteristic. The first had a transmitter that worked simultaneously at two or more separate frequencies and a receiver in which each of the individual transmitted frequencies had to be tuned in, in order for the control circuitry to respond. The second technique used a variable-frequency transmitter controlled by an encoding wheel that altered the transmitted frequency in a predetermined manner. These patents describe the basic principles of frequency hopping and frequency-division multiplexing, and also the electronic AND-gate logic circuit.
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: pchristy on October 06, 2010, 18:17:15 PM
Sorry for not having been around much lately! A combination of the dreaded "lurgy" and a mountain of work on my return has kept me well away from a computer for quite a while! And this weekend, I'm off on my travels for a few days....

However, back to the topic! I'm not going to try and repond to all the queries individually, as there have been so many, and the story seems to have moved on!

The point I was trying to make in my last post was that the JR statement should probably be taken at face value - and nothing more! I hear what Mac-man says about the gentleman's excellent English, but I feel his note was being subjected to a level of analysis and scrutiny that a seasoned British politician would have found hard to withstand! I think people are trying to read into his statement something that simply isn't there!

I thought that following the Brussels meeting of a year or so back, all the European countries that were dragging their heels over 2.4 GHz had been instructed to get their act together. This is, after all, a European standard - and any country trying to prosecute an individual for using ANY CE approved 2.4 GHz equipment could well find themselves being prosecuted themselves!

The only possible exception might be the French, as they only allow the use of part of the band at present, though that is due to change soon.

My comments at areas not allowing DSM2 was primarily aimed at those that come under Japanese influence. Most of the world seems to fall in line with either US or EU standards, depending on history and political allegiances! But that doesn't mean that there won't be places that are more restrictive than the relatively liberal US or EU regulations, and I would imagine that was what the letter was referring to!

In the meantime I shall continue to fly both my DSM2 and FHSS systems with every confidence that I will be able to continue with both for many years to come. And any future purchases will be dictated by suitability and research, and not by scurrilous internet rumours!
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: onewasp on October 06, 2010, 18:37:41 PM

In the meantime I shall continue to fly both my DSM2 and FHSS systems with every confidence that I will be able to continue with both for many years to come. And any future purchases will be dictated by suitability and research, and not by scurrilous internet rumours!
____________________________

at last !   
May the cryptography sect disband .

Hear, hear .    :)
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on October 06, 2010, 20:30:47 PM
Quote
May the cryptography sect disband

But that was one of my favourite fields when I was in the Forces....    :'(
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: onewasp on October 06, 2010, 22:19:35 PM
But that was one of my favourite fields when I was in the Forces....    :'(

_____________

Ahhhhhhh, making magic smoke .

Still a useful occupation is it not ?
From that standpoint it is really but a change of venue for you ----- using a little stretch of course .   ;)
Title: Re: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes
Post by: Theaton56 on October 06, 2010, 22:57:35 PM
Nick,

Hardly any cause for it in what I do now.... 

 :ev