Topic: 2.4Ghz system?

Thats my assumptions too but the manufacturer that brings out a Tx that talks in all the other formats would surely be onto a winner.

That's never going to happen.   It would require licensing of protocols/formats/w.h.y. that each manufacturer has developed to make their product unique.
PeterO.

Thats my assumptions too but the manufacturer that brings out a Tx that talks in all the other formats would surely be onto a winner.

Ain't going to happen - any more than it did for the PCM formats, and for much the same reasons.

PDR

I'm not so sure that it won't happen full stop.  take the Nomadio car radios for example.  Not only do they work well with their own format radios on 2.4GHz, they also happen to work rather well with the Spektrum branded surface receivers.

I don't think any of the major manufacturers (Fut, JR, MPX, etc) will support any of their competitors formats really, but it would be nice to think that someone like Nomadio would do it.  They are supposed to be working on some aircraft radios too, and if they are anything like their React car radio, I would certainly be thinking about trying one

Cheers
Andy

Hi again John

Perhaps if Multiplex had the manufacturing base and marketing budget of Futaba, they'd sell considerably more equipment than they already do. For a relatively small r/c equipment manufacturer (about 50 people are employed by Multiplex in Germany) they enjoy excellent sales in most of Europe, particularly in Germany itself, and have done so for 40+ years. They've also been at the forefront of r/c technology for quite some time, being the first company to develop things like proportional control (1963), digital servos (1968), interchangeable Tx frequency modules (1978), PCM modulation (early 80's), 10kc channel spacing (1979) first programmable transmitter (1976) etc. Not a bad showing for a company with somewhat limited resources, compared to the big boys.

The German FTZ telecommunications regulatons mean that new Futaba and JR equipment as you know it cannot be sold in Germany. It simply does not comply with the regs as they currently stand. To get round these regs, both Futaba and JR have equipment built to FTZ standards specifically for sale on the German and other European markets. Futaba market their "German" sets as Robbe equipment, while the equivalent JR gear is branded as Graupner radio. These sets also have the "pizza box" European styling, presumably because German and other European buyers would shun sets not conforming to an accepted Euro "look".

The upshot of this John, is that Multiplex equipment is built to a standard far in excess of the minimum required. Multiplex radio equipment is used worldwide by the military for target drones and remote observation vehicles, such is it's reputation and reliability. Typically, in a ground range test with a fully collapsed Tx aerial, distances well in excess of 250 metres can be achieved. Multiplex themselves stipulate a minimum of 80 metres under ground range test conditions. Multiplex radio control equipment has been independantly tested (by a leading American r/c mag) as having just about the most secure rf link available. Surprisingly, HiTec equipment was found to have an rf link almost as good!

Absolutely awesome,  I am now presenting a toast to MPX for inventing all the features that make my JR a superior radio in 2007 

Come on Gord, I bet you didnt know all of that did you? 

CM

I think what you actually mean Clive, is that you perceive your JR radio to be superior. Which of course is what those nice marketing folk at JR want you to think. They wouldn't be doing their jobs otherwise.

And I'm sure Gordon knows. It's all general information Clive. Available to anyone who cares to look for it. 

P.S. I'm curious Clive. If you're such a champion of the JR cause (as you have every right to be of course), why are you interested in/contributing to a thread on Multiplex 2.4ghz radios?

Whilst it's easy to give a wry smile/smirk/laugh at the eulogies that Brian bestows on MPX, you can't take away the fact he does back up his comments, as I'm sure he'd be roundly shot down if he was a tiny bit wrong. MPX isn't pretty gear, but then I'm sure if they wanted it all plastic chrome and big shiney switches they'd get round to it. It is functional, and it does it well according to the guys I chat to in the club. No, they're not universal MPX, off the top of my head there's Graupner, Futaba, Jr, Spektrum, MPX, even the now defunct Fleet! Incidentally, why is JR superior?

If I get shot down Steve, I'll promptly eject and return with a vengeance! 

A Cabbie writes..

'I had that Chuck Yeager in the back of my cab once, that'll be fifteen quid please'

And I'm sure Gordon knows. It's all general information Clive. Available to anyone who cares to look for it. 

P.S. I'm curious Clive. If you're such a champion of the JR cause (as you have every right to be of course), why are you interested in/contributing to a thread on Multiplex 2.4ghz radios?

I wouldnt say that I was a champion of the JR cause, I needed a radio fast as my zap had broken so I piled into modelshop (if only I'd gone to modelspot!) and said whats your best value radio and they sold me a JR 9xII 

As for why I'm contyributing to the 2.4GHz thread, I couldnt resist getting a nibble out of you Brian, I just love you encyclopedic knowledge of MPX rc gear and whenever I see a post like the one above I cant help but think of the phrase "I've started so I'll finish" 

CM

But Steve, Chuck Yeager was the first through the sound barrier, and wouldn't possibly take unecessary risks. Therefore I can't imagine him ever climbing into the back of a Cab in London. 

Ah right Clive. Things are a little clearer now. 

But if people don't contribute, there is no thread Clive! I'm simply keeping the fire burning. It's my Boy Scout training taking over Clive. Unfortunately I had to leave the Scouts due to my having insurmountable problems with my woggle.

But Steve, Chuck Yeager was the first through the sound barrier, and wouldn't possibly take unecessary risks. Therefore I can't imagine him ever climbing into the back of a Cab in London.  

Neither would I! Bad enough having to occasionally drive there for work related things (living in Gods own county-thats Yorkshire incidentally) , than trust myself to someone else. 

Yes Steve, Yorkshire (North Yorkshire at least) is rather pleasant. I do occasionally get to visit such places as Hawes and Leyburn. I'm in the Lake District myself.

Unfortunately I had to leave the Scouts due to my having insurmountable problems with my woggle.

Woggle.  Now there's a word you don't here enough these days 

I'm not even sure if this comment is relevant to the thread now, but I hope MPX do bring out a 2.4Ghz (or other "microwave" band) module for their existing radios, especially the Evo range.  The only reason I want to see that (and the only reason I am using a DX7 radio more than my Evo now) is for the little dinky aerials.  When your model is only 16" wingspan, the last thing I need is a half metre or more aerial trailing everywhere!

Having said that, I do prefer the feel of the Evo radio to the Dx7, and the programming options on the Evo are much easier to understand (IMHO).  For that reason, once my Spektrum module arrives, I'm going to be adapting it to work with my Evo, thus rendering my DX7 redundant

Cheers
Andy

Ps.  I thought Gods own Count(r)y was Wales?

Personally I'd say that for a newcomer to programable transmitters both the Futaba and Multiplex systems are equally easy/difficult to program (never used a JR Tx for anything significant, so I can't judge).

Replying to my own posts - hubris or what?

Anyway, as an addendum to this discussion - a colleague here is returning to model flying after a long layoff. He was a JR man before, so he bought a new mid-range JR set (I think it's the 2720, but I'm not sure). He's never had any kind of programmable Tx before. The other night he charged up the Tx and sat down to read the manual. After a couple of hours he said he was none the wiser - he's having a lot of trouble grasping what they're on about (he muttered something about the differences between a "system" and a "function" not being clear). I suspect this is largely a matter of being a poor manual - Kev has commented on the rather poor english in the manual (poor translation) and the apparently random punctuation which makes comprehension even more difficult. His solution, of course, will be to consult clubmates in his new club (I can't help him because I've never used a JR set).

What's my point? I'm certainly not having a go at JR, because I doubt they're unique in this respect. I think I'm suggesting that the industry assumes a certain minimum level of knowledge/experience in their customers and their documentation fails to provide a clear learning path for the raw beginner. At this point I was going to praise Multiplex for the way they DID provide a learning path for novices buying Evo series with the excellent Evo Tutorial and FAQ documents. And then I remembered that these weren't written by Multiplex - they were created by their customers. The actual Evo manual (supplied with the set) are probably no better and no worse than any of the others! the only things Multiplex do better are to technically validate these documents and to show users where to find them.

So I guess someone needs to write and distribute (ideally without charge, like the multiplex ones) similar tutorial documents for the FF9c, FF9z, Mx14, X2720, PCM9x etc etc.

PDR

Hi Andy

No, of course my comment wasn't strictly relevant. I just thought I'd throw a bit of light humour into the mix, as things did seem to be getting a little heavy. 

If I get a Royal Evo 9 set, will it definitely be compatable with any future 2.4 modules in the future? Same questions for the Cockpit as well....

Gordon has said that MPX are still looking at 2.4 so how can current MPX sets 'defiantly' be compatible with something they have not decided to do!!!

And then I remembered that these weren't written by Multiplex - they were created by their customers. The actual Evo manual (supplied with the set) are probably no better and no worse than any of the others! the only things Multiplex do better are to technically validate these documents and to show users where to find them.

PDR

What I find strange is that the Engineer, back at the factory, writes the software, that the user needs but the Manufacturer generally is unable to produce a manual that explains how to use it or what is available. This is certainly true of Futaba, their 9C manual covers a small part of its capability but someone back at Futaba must know what the modeller need to put the software together to cover it in the first place.

What I find strange is that the Engineer, back at the factory, writes the software, that the user needs but the Manufacturer generally is unable to produce a manual that explains how to use it or what is available. This is certainly true of Futaba, their 9C manual covers a small part of its capability but someone back at Futaba must know what the modeller need to put the software together to cover it in the first place.

That reminds me of a visit to the Multiplex stand at Sandown the first year the 4000 became available in the UK (can't remember what year that was).
I asked an elderly gentleman on the stand what the new 4000 could do. The result was that he was still demonstrating precisely what it can do a whole hour later when I had to stop him saying that as I had not found my 3030 lacking in any way in spite of it's considerably advanced age even at that time I would stick with it for the time being!

I bought my 3030 the first year they came out (dark brown case) when a Combo of only Tx, PCM Rx and a Tx charger lead was in access of £800:00!
I've forgotten what year that was but it was at least 15 years ago and the set still out performs the vast majority of even the topline opposition and while I had serious doubts about the value for money at that time I needn't have worried.
Does anyone know defiantly what year the 3030 came out?       

That reminds me of a visit to the Multiplex stand at Sandown the first year the 4000 became available in the UK (can't remember what year that was).
I asked an elderly gentleman on the stand what the new 4000 could do. The result was that he was still demonstrating precisely what it can do a whole hour later when I had to stop him saying that as I had not found my 3030 lacking in any way in spite of it's considerably advanced age even at that time I would stick with it for the time being!

I bought my 3030 the first year they came out (dark brown case) when a Combo of only Tx, PCM Rx and a Tx charger lead was in access of £800:00!
I've forgotten what year that was but it was at least 15 years ago and the set still out performs the vast majority of even the topline opposition and while I had serious doubts about the value for money at that time I needn't have worried.
Does anyone know defiantly what year the 3030 came out?       

I defiantly dont know but do know that I defiantly stand by my own 3030, best money (and most money c£300) I have ever spent on a Tx.

Either 91 or 92 Rob. £800 spread out over 15 years is peanuts for 100% rock solid reliability though Rob!

And for the doubters, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Quality doesn't cost you, it pays you!

What I find strange is that the Engineer, back at the factory, writes the software, that the user needs but the Manufacturer generally is unable to produce a manual that explains how to use it or what is available.

This is generally true and is the paradox of technical manuals. Engineers are quite good at providing information on what something does, but generally can't tell a typical user how to use it. That's the realm of technical authors and training specialists. These are people who communicacte with engineers to find out what something does and how it works, and then try to divine how a user might want to use it. One of the more difficult aspects is that they have to make assumptions about the skill levels and experience of the target audience. This is difficult enough in fields like manuals & training for military aircraft (where the "input standard" is fairly tightly defined), but for something like a high-end RC transmiter it's probably a nightmare because the customer might be anything from an experienced and highly skilled user of similar products (someone like our own Mpx) to a wealthy raw newbie. The former needs to know the underlying concepts of the architecture and the details of specirfic implementations, whereas the latter needs a general education in the general concepts of RC transmitters (what's a rate switch? What is travel adjustment? when might I need to use a mixer and for what?).

So what is really needed is anything from two to ten different manuals, all written for different audiences. And here the "cost" thing rears its head again, as usual. Manuals are expensive to author and maintain. I doubt even the larger RC manufacturers can afford to have a professional technical authoring department, and whilst there are agencies and companies that do this sort of thing it's even more expensive to do this with non-staff because of the cost of acquiring the basic knowledge in the first place. As a basic reference cost, the complete suite of manuals for a military fast jet (aircrew manuals, maintenance manuals, repair manual and parts catalogues) cost roughly the same as the purchase price of 1 to 1.5 aircraft for the initial issue, and can be expected to cost 10% more per year to keep up to date. It's an expensive business to do well.

But apart form this, I suspect the main reason why the Profi4000 manual and the 9c/9z manuals are so limited is simply that the engineers really didn't KNOW how the users would use the facilities. They provided things for users to play with - only in-service feedback would tell them HOW the users ended up using these things. This is someting that is generally true of the weapon system moding and the navigation modes of aircraft - engineers provide lots of options and pilots find out what works best for them in particular scenarios during the OEU and initial in-service phase.

PDR