Topic: The Profi TX - The legend is rebourn!

I'm flabbergasted Clive. I can't for the life of me understand what took you two hours to reverse a servo on an Evo. Obviously, you didn't "click" with the software. It's less than a 10 second job usually. 

I would agree with your other point though. I don't need 13 point curves or 8 flight phases either. I do appreciate that some may do though.......

I'm flabbergasted Clive. I can't for the life of me understand what took you two hours to reverse a servo on an Evo. Obviously, you didn't "click" with the software. It's less than a 10 second job usually. 

I think if you come at it expecting it to be hard, it will be hard.

I remeber trying to reverse a servo on a chaps royal evo before i took him up for his first lesson, i gave up after 2 hours on and off.  I could have done it on any other tx ever to come to the patch in seconds, that puts as many people off as it attracts i would imagine.

Funny how we find different radios different, I was helping a club colleague program with a JR 7 channel set ( a few years old I admit) and even with the manual we struggled. Took me 10 mins to set my first model up on an Evo, but if you were familiar with the Far East radio's then I could see the problem unless you had the manual.

I guess the biggest difference for a Fut/Jr user attempting to adjust something on an Evo would be the way the menus are structured. With an Evo you go directly to where you want to be without scrolling through menus you don't want. Plus there is more than one way to implement adjustments on an Evo, and that could cause confusion to "non" users.

I know it's probably me; but I think the video makes it look even more cheap and nasty than the still photos. what possessed them to finish it in gloss black, and that digi adjuster is an afterthought, did you notice how it rattles around? Compare and contrast with the still photos of the new Jeti...Does THAT look like it might justify a grandsworth of investment compared with the equally priced Profi TX?  . I doubt the Jeti will be lacking in features and programming capabilities.

Steve, you are welcome to your opinion, but having handled the Tx it is fabulous. From a build quality point of view it is certainly the bes tMultiplex have ever done. Personally I like the styling a lot, but each to their own.
Steve, when will the Jeti be available? Sorry, it's a trick question. I asked yesterday and they do not seem to know either. Perhaps we can have a Jeti Tx thread when the modertors have a moment. Tell me Steve, what features will the Jeti have exactly?

As far as i can tell the tx is months away from launch? And it has been said the software is in its early versions.  I think its highly unfair to totally slate it without any facts.  Maybe take a look at what it can do rather than what it cant.

I think its great that mpx have the foresight to use model templates.  Sure it might lose them a few programming geeks but it might make it more appealing to the rest of us who have been put off by the complexity of all the open programming bullshit.  I remeber trying to reverse a servo on a chaps royal evo before i took him up for his first lesson, i gave up after 2 hours on and off.  I could have done it on any other tx ever to come to the patch in seconds, that puts as many people off as it attracts i would imagine.
Wow what agreat attitude. Clearly you are too dim to understand the 4000 , even to the extent of what it does. Then you have the tememerity to tell peple that they should not be flying if they use these features. A troll I think.

Also you could try and persuade me for the next 20 years, you just dont need 13 point curves and 8+ flight phases, and if you really need them you should be banned from flying, period.

I have used mpx recievers for many years but the tx's have always been two complicated for my liking, this looks like a very positive move in a direction that may one day prize a 9xII out of my hands and others like me.

So from the one or two of the thousands of members bleeting on, we get the picture so why not let others who might want to actually buy one have some cyber space and stop slagging off something you havnt even seen touched or used yet.

CM

I remeber trying to reverse a servo on a chaps royal evo before i took him up for his first lesson, i gave up after 2 hours on and off.

I'm mystified as to what you could have spent those two hours doing, doc! You just press the "servo" button (the one with the picture of a servo next to it), select "calibrate", then select the desired channel and the adjust as required (end points, centre, throws, trim increments are all on that screen with a nice graph to show you what effect your changes are having).

In contrast on my old Futaba FFsuper7s (an excellent set, just not as powerful as the evo) you had to first press both "data" buttons together, then press the (I think) mode key about four times to get to the REV screen, the press the left/right keys to select the desired channel and then remember that the right data key would give you "reverse" while the left one would give you "normal" (even though the logical behaviour would be for either key to toggle between the two).

And of course you then have to remember that on the FFs7 this actually reversed the *control* rather than the servo - if this control fed a mixer then you had to go down the chain to discover what else had been affected and correct it. On the Evo you can deal with each step seperately, so you decide whether you want to reverse the servo, or the control, or the mixer...

PDR

Hmmm.. some interesting comments and a surprising amount of scepticism.

I'm sure the new transmitter will deliver when it is finally ready for release 

I'm sure you're right Neil. Multiplex face what's probably considered an absolute marketing nightmare, in that they're kind of up against themselves here. They have to outgun the P4000 otherwise it's all pointless.

Both Gordon Upton and Mr. Mac have stated that the software isn't in it's final form yet, so our speculation/comments are somewhat irrelevant at this stage. As you say Neil they have to get it right at this end of the market, and I'm sure they will.

Hello
MULTIPLEX  has with this launch, "Profi TX - TheResurrection of a Legend!" themselves  to blame if they suffer harsh criticism. No one else. Nevertheless, as I hope and believe they sort out the storm, though one might think that their initiative was not the smartest one. Or so it is very clever marketing? Anyway, let's look ahead, please write constructive criticism that developers can take in, and that the Profi TX might one day reach the epithet.
/Ville 

I dont really want to get into these discussions in this thread but I was trying to reverse the servo not caalibrate it!  Then iirc its not obvious when your in that menu.  My 9xII has a menu item called servo reverse!

Secondly why would you ever (I cant wait to read the situation, because there will be one) set up mixes before you have set the primary servo direction?

You would set up the primary functions first, ie pull back, elevator goes up then set the direction of any mixes with the appropriate sign.  eg rugger to ele mix might be +5% if plane drops nose with rudder or -5% if the nose rises.  Then you would set any dead zone, assign a switch and a curve using the graph.

easy and intuitive!

I really hope the new 5000 has gone down this route, will offer much more flexibility

CM

Lots of reasons - eg elevons on a delta. You plug it all in and find that one elevon goes the wrong way. If it goes the wrong way for both elevator and aileron inputs then you want to reverse the servo. If it goes the wrong way for aileron but not for elevator then you want to reverse the aileron control input to the mixer. Same applies to flapperons, 4-servo wings etc. With the Evo setup you just choose the point in the chain where it needs reversing, but on other systems you're never quite sure WHERE the reverse will act, so you end up faffing.

PDR

I've got transmitters covering the full range from full handholding to fully flexible. There are good and bad points about all of them.

Where MPX have really gone wrong with this one is that the shiny shiny case is irrelevant to the main reason the 'legend' was a legend - that was all about programming and flexibility.

The few details released so far don't bode well.

Unless its like politicos when they 'leak' unpopular ideas early to see how much outcry there is, and gauge opinion about them?

I find the apprpriate mixer function is the place to go... in flapperon on the 9x there are no ailerons or elevator just a left and right flapperon.  No faffing, simple, you cant go to the point in the chain as there is no chain.  The only requirement is that the right and left side servo's go into the correct right and left channel on the rx, same with v tail

Same with crow brakes, there is a butterfly screen, set everything up from there.  direction, travel % of end points, any elevator comp, whether you want to assign to a stick and if you want that assignment switched, and if so which switch you want to use.  All from one screen where everything is simple and obvious, you even get the nice little graphs 

Again if the 5000 goes this way it will be a very positive move in my opinion.

CM

Lots of reasons - eg elevons on a delta. You plug it all in and find that one elevon goes the wrong way. If it goes the wrong way for both elevator and aileron inputs then you want to reverse the servo. If it goes the wrong way for aileron but not for elevator then you want to reverse the aileron control input to the mixer. Same applies to flapperons, 4-servo wings etc. With the Evo setup you just choose the point in the chain where it needs reversing, but on other systems you're never quite sure WHERE the reverse will act, so you end up faffing.

The weird thing is, that sounds very similar to how my JR and Spekky works on the swashplate settings in Heli mode, wonder why they don't in elevon mode though

I find the apprpriate mixer function is the place to go... in flapperon on the 9x there are no ailerons or elevator just a left and right flapperon.  No faffing, simple, you cant go to the point in the chain as there is no chain.  The only requirement is that the right and left side servo's go into the correct right and left channel on the rx, same with v tail

Same with crow brakes, there is a butterfly screen, set everything up from there.  direction, travel % of end points, any elevator comp, whether you want to assign to a stick and if you want that assignment switched, and if so which switch you want to use.  All from one screen where everything is simple and obvious, you even get the nice little graphs 


Again if the 5000 goes this way it will be a very positive move in my opinion.

CM

Well I suppose an opinion of 1 is still an opinion. But tell us why you are on this thread rubbishing something that yiou clearly do not have the wherewithall to understand, when you clearly have no interest In ever buying anaything MPX. You have your 9X, off you go and good luck..

Well I suppose an opinion of 1 is still an opinion. But tell us why you are on this thread rubbishing something that yiou clearly do not have the wherewithall to understand, when you clearly have no interest In ever buying anaything MPX. You have your 9X, off you go and good luck..

Excuse me but where have i rubbished this product?  Everyone else has rubbished everything from the case to the colour to the programming, i was trying to point out that going to a template software system isn't the end of the world and you can still do everything perfectly well.  I was using my JR as an exaple of a modern templated system showing things have moved on since PDR rubbishing the vintage template systems.

As for no intention of ever buying anything mpx?  I guess thats why i have spent £400 in 2.4ghz receivers since my brother got me a jr m link module for xmas?  I guess it also explains why i have about 20 ipd receivers for my 35MHz planes?  also why i have maybe 20 tiny-s, tiny-mg, nano, tiger servo's?  also why i have a blizzard, a parkmaster and a gemini?  not forgetting a mpx cg guage!

In fact a tx is about the only thing i dont have MPX and heres why.  The profi series are pizza boxes no good for me.  I seriously considered the evo when i got the 9x, but i didn't like the sticks, the trim positions weren't natural to me, the two rows of switches meant i had to look down to get the right ones, i also wasn't keen on the template's programming,  However the biggest problem was that the amount of exponential wasnt adjustable for high and low dual rates.  One of the most important programming functions for aerobatic planes.  The cockpit was just too simple and also felt very light in my hands.

However i like the look of this one, its stylish, it isnt an out an out pizza box so could be held easily.  The trims are conventional positioned, the blurb says the sticks are some of the smoothest ever produced, and the idea of a templated programming system is very appealing.

I hope thats cleared up any issues you seem to have with me.

CM

In fact a tx is about the only thing i dont have MPX and heres why.  The profi series are pizza boxes no good for me.  I seriously considered the evo when i got the 9x, but i didn't like the sticks, the trim positions weren't natural to me, the two rows of switches meant i had to look down to get the right ones, i also wasn't keen on the template's programming,  However the biggest problem was that the amount of exponential wasnt adjustable for high and low dual rates.  One of the most important programming functions for aerobatic planes.  The cockpit was just too simple and also felt very light in my hands.

Don't want to turn this into a REP argument, but you could have assigned different expo values to different flight phases and had expo adjustment that way, also you could have assigned expo adjustment to the digi adjusters and then had the ability to easily adjust them in flight and set them to your preferences. Also things like rudder - elevator/aileron mixing to take out knife edge coupling could have been treated the same way.

Two rows of buttons are only used for programming so not sure why you need to look down at them, I guess you don't use the JR screen when flying. But if you don't like the sticks/feel of the transmitter then thats a personnal preference, trims are a bit different but you do get used to them.

But it does sound like the new profi might address some of your MPX Tx reservations..........

But it does sound like the new profi might address some of your MPX Tx reservations..........

I couldnt agree more, I'm now commited to MPX by using their 2.4 M-link system, and my current Tx isnt going to last for ever, so this approach definately lessens my worries about having to goto the Evo.  It will be all about how it feels in the hands though, thats the main thing for me.

CM

Without getting to a pointless debate the concept of a template is not something that wasn't present in the p4000 (or other multiplex TXs like the evo).  The 4000 actually had loads of pre-set model types. I can't remember how many, but there were a lot. Everything from aileron trainer to F3b model. 

What the 4000 allowed you to do, if you chose, was to use a base type that had no predefined mixers types in. So you could choose to set things up your own way.  It was always quite easy to fly models with one of the templates provided. They just didn't over the flexibility of the "universal" type.

once you understood the system it was actually easier to use the universal base type. For example if you had a simple 2 channel model, only those two channels would exist in that model memory and everything else extraneous to that simply wasn't there.   Even if you did use the universal base type there was a boat load of predefinied mixers that you could use (indeed there was a delta mixer you could use in the example above).

If multiplex are talking about 5 or 7 mixers then it clearly isn't japanese/asian style mixer list. on my hitec A9 it has lots of mixes for everything where you adjust the settings for a particular function. E.g the b-fly menu has settings for aileron, flap, elevator etc. 

Clearly you would soon need more than 7 mixers for a lot of models (indeed my A9 has way more than 7 mixers).  However, you wouldn't run out of mixers in multiplex style mixing because it is not the same as that methodology.

It follows the logic of:
input - mixer - output

Basically the settings for each channel are grouped together, rather than the setting for each mixer.  on the p4000 each channel has a separate mixer, on the evo channels can share mixers.

The way it works is that each channel/mixer has a setting for all the inputs that go in to it. So if you want to alter the up travel of your aileron in crow braking, you don't go in to the bfly mixer (because there isn't one), you go in to the aileron mixer and alter it in there.

Actually you could fly an f3f/b glider using only 2 mixers on type of programming it sounds like the Profi TX is going to have. (i.e can reuse mixers on different channels).

Mixer 1 - Wing (both ailerons and both flaps could use this mixer)
inputs:
aileron
flap
elevator
crow

mixer 2 - Tail (both vtails, or rudder and tail)
inputs:
elevator
crow
flap

what you would have, in fairness, is a streamlined way to alter all the settings.

Going back to current TXs, the difference between, say an evo and my A9 is that on the A9 the "mixers" are for functions (e.g bfly, ele -> cam, rudder - aileron etc), whereas on the Evo the "mixer" settings are altered by going in to the aileron channel(s)'  mixer.

It's a slightly different approach.  Both work fine. It doesn't have anything do with "templates" though.  It's just that on the p4000 you could make up your own mixers with the mixer inputs you felt like.  on my p4000 I had created a f3f model template (i.e model memory) and could set up a new model in a matter of a few minutes.  Of course you can alter the mixers on the evo but because they are global it can effect all your model memories.

hope that helps clarify things. Multiplex are not suggesting that it has function type mixers, because that would never work with 5 or even 7 mixers.  Function mixers are not the same as templates.  Although I never liked the evo, with the glider template it was easy to set up a model very quickly.  But once I had created my own tempalte in the p4000 it was even quicker and was exactly how I wanted it.

Sorry if it doesn't make sense to  non plexers, I sure evo owners will know what I am talking about.   Probably if someone put up a screen shot of one of the Evo's mixer screens it would make sense.



Anyway, time will tell if it is any good. I don't really see the point of bringing out a simpler TX because they are already exist in huge numbers and much cheaper than the Profi TX (i.e the evo).  It Multiplex want to hit the market with a good all round mid range set, then replace the evo, not 'resurrect the legend'. Assuming multiplex bosses are not daft, there should hopefully be more to the Profi TX than initial reports suggest. 

Hi Gordon, I have another request, can it please come with pointy edged stick tops for those of us who fly thumbs on top.  Smooth topped sticks that came with the 4000 and as shown on the demo Profi Tx are impossible to use!

I think he said you could use cockpit SX stick tops.

on my 4000 I ended up gluing JR stick tops to the shafts, for that very reason.

Hi Gordon, I have another request, can it please come with pointy edged stick tops for those of us who fly thumbs on top.  Smooth topped sticks that came with the 4000 and as shown on the demo Profi Tx are impossible to use!

Au Contraire - please put sharper points (with red-hot heaters and electric shock systems) on the sticks so that these thumb-bandits learn to fly in proper nipple-tweak style, as god intended.

PDR

 

Au Contraire - please put sharper points (with red-hot heaters and electric shock systems) on the sticks so that these thumb-bandits learn to fly in proper nipple-tweak style, as god intended.

PDR

 

    
Ian (thumb bandit extrodinaire)

Without getting to a pointless debate the concept of a template is not something that wasn't present in the p4000 (or other multiplex TXs like the evo).  The 4000 actually had loads of pre-set model types. I can't remember how many, but there were a lot. Everything from aileron trainer to F3b model. 

What the 4000 allowed you to do, if you chose, was to use a base type that had no predefined mixers types in. So you could choose to set things up your own way.  It was always quite easy to fly models with one of the templates provided. They just didn't over the flexibility of the "universal" type.

once you understood the system it was actually easier to use the universal base type. For example if you had a simple 2 channel model, only those two channels would exist in that model memory and everything else extraneous to that simply wasn't there.   Even if you did use the universal base type there was a boat load of predefinied mixers that you could use (indeed there was a delta mixer you could use in the example above).

This is exactly my view. Where the Evo/Pro went wrong is that they did not stick to the above, if they had, then a lot more people would have made sense of it who were used to MPX as it was. It was much easier to load on of the preset models then alter it about to suit your needs.

Hello

Is it possible to bind any number of receivers for channel expansion on the Profi TX, like Graupner Mc32 does?
Would be nice to use one M-link 5  and one M-link 6 light an then have 11 channels, and use the telemetry funktion from the 5 channel receiver

Excuse me but where have i rubbished this product?  Everyone else has rubbished everything from the case to the colour to the programming, i was trying to point out that going to a template software system isn't the end of the world and you can still do everything perfectly well.  I was using my JR as an exaple of a modern templated system showing things have moved on since PDR rubbishing the vintage template systems.

As for no intention of ever buying anything mpx?  I guess thats why i have spent £400 in 2.4ghz receivers since my brother got me a jr m link module for xmas?  I guess it also explains why i have about 20 ipd receivers for my 35MHz planes?  also why i have maybe 20 tiny-s, tiny-mg, nano, tiger servo's?  also why i have a blizzard, a parkmaster and a gemini?  not forgetting a mpx cg guage!

In fact a tx is about the only thing i dont have MPX and heres why.  The profi series are pizza boxes no good for me.  I seriously considered the evo when i got the 9x, but i didn't like the sticks, the trim positions weren't natural to me, the two rows of switches meant i had to look down to get the right ones, i also wasn't keen on the template's programming,  However the biggest problem was that the amount of exponential wasnt adjustable for high and low dual rates.  One of the most important programming functions for aerobatic planes.  The cockpit was just too simple and also felt very light in my hands.

However i like the look of this one, its stylish, it isnt an out an out pizza box so could be held easily.  The trims are conventional positioned, the blurb says the sticks are some of the smoothest ever produced, and the idea of a templated programming system is very appealing.

I hope thats cleared up any issues you seem to have with me.

CM

Fair play to you Doc you are heading towards the MPX convert route! those of us of old school that like the old programming of the 4000 and to be honest my favourite the 3030, are going to be a little sceptical, I have a 4000, 3030, Evo 12 & SX for the Missus, my 2 favourites are the 3030 & 4000 and you can guess the least favs!

I have to fess up I am comfortable working my way round these and getting too long in the tooth for too much change

I am going to reserve judgement until I can see and hold one as I never seem to get rid of anything as is evident, I do hope I like the new one, if I don't I have not lost anything anyway as I have ones that do the job for me.

I hope it is your thing, then we can welcome you properly to the dark side!    

Good luck.

Nige.   

The 3030 was my favourite too Nige. I was rather disappointed when Mpx announced the 3030 was ceasing production. At that time I had began to consider buying a second 3030 to complement my first, which I'd had a while. Unfortunately when I tried to buy a further 3030 all the stockists I rang had sold out. I ended up diving in at the deep end and bought both a 4000 and an Evo.

However, to say I was taken aback by the 4000 would be something of an understatement. It was just so different to use after the 3030 (which I liked a lot), I eventually found myself using it less and less and using the Evo more.

I eventually sold the 4000 to a forum member on here.

I doubt I'll be a purchaser of the new Profi Tx, as the Royal Evo offers me 99.9% of what I'm looking for from a radio.

Speaking as a techie rather than a p4000 user it looks like a complete own goal.

Four phases are enough for 'most people' - why not give them 8, they don't have to use the rest, and it will please almost everyone.

Five/seven point curves? Why?

It all smacks of a very under powered CPU being used. At that price there's no reason a really powerful ARM or whatever couldn't go in there.

Also, given this thread and the no doubt parallel threads in many other RC forums, why not release two firmwares, a P4000 style all singing all dancing version for experts, and a handholding version for the Nintendo generation?

I am glad you reminded me of this point Yoyo. I thoought about 2 different software standards, but then forgot to mention the idea to Christian. I will pass this point on.

Hi Brian

100% with you on that, I have got into the 4000 more now but I am the same as you I seem to use the Evo/Pro mostly because I fly the models that are progammed into it more! I still use the 3030 for my serious gliders because I can programme it almost with my eyes closed
I have a few in the 4000 but I really bought as it was a secondhand bargin and only a year old at the time, I was going to use it for jets but I never went there then, maybe in the future.
I have been put off it a bit as I have had the RAM 6 ERROR twice and just not sure why, mind you Mike Ridley did sort itthe last time so I do, should have confidence in it.
I know a lot of people feel the same about the 3030 and did as you wanted to do got a second one.
I have always been indignant about the global mixers on the Evo and find them limiting, but when I thought about it I usually keep everything very similar anyway 

I still find it limiting on occasions but that seems less and less these days.

Cheers


Nige.

Au Contraire - please put sharper points (with red-hot heaters and electric shock systems) on the sticks so that these thumb-bandits learn to fly in proper nipple-tweak style, as god intended.

PDR

 

Hmmm, I am immpressed that you can still get into the satin basque and high heels Pete.  I have had to give it up so fly thumbs only now

I am glad you reminded me of this point Yoyo. I thoought about 2 different software standards, but then forgot to mention the idea to Christian. I will pass this point on.

If he uses it, send me a P5000 and both firmwares for review 

It's interesting how people's experience of a Tx varies so much.  I find the Profi 4000 to be ridiculously simple to program, the simplest and most straightforward, logical tx I have ever programmed, far simpler than any of the futaba/JR that I owned before it, yet at the same time capable of immensely complex tasks.

Yep. Same here. Simple once you understood it. Never once used one of the preset model types.

I first started with a 3030 and admit that for the first few months I struggled with programming but suddenly it just 'clicked', once you get a feel for the logic it is very straightforward.

One of the problems with products (like transmitters) that offer flixibility and user-control of complex functions is that they inherently require a small degree of effort on the part of the purchaser to learn how to use them. The classic example is the top-end "performance" BMWs which offer the user a vast array of engine maps, gearbox bodes, suspension setups etc all controlled from a software interface. So someone buys it, jumps in and then two minutes later complains that the i-Drive interface is incomprehensible and it takes 20 minutes to set the basic modes to drive off.

Basic transmitters can be simple to use because they onl;y do basic, pre-defined things. If you want variation and complexity you have to be prepared to put just a LITTLE bit of effort into reading the manual [etc] to learn how it works. For instance the following comment from E-BOF comes over as one from someone who is completely vbersed in the details of Evo programming. Yet in a recent email E-BOF complained that an Evo limitation was the way it needed a 7channel Rx to fly a 4-servo wing [the Evo has completely unfettered channel assignabilitgy - it's the Cockpit that suffers this limitation].

This is exactly my view. Where the Evo/Pro went wrong is that they did not stick to the above, if they had, then a lot more people would have made sense of it who were used to MPX as it was. It was much easier to load on of the preset models then alter it about to suit your needs.

The irony here is that, if you'd actually looked into it, this is exactly what the Evo DOES do. The Evo has templates (similar but not identical to those in the P4000) and you select one when defining a model. Aside from the Helicopter ones (as mentioned earlier) they mainly select global settings like assignment lists (which are a level of complexity you don't need to worry about if you don't want to do clever stuff), and you add those mix functions you want through simple butten selections. But the templates do the hard stuff for those who won't read the manual. As with the P4000, most people use the "basic" ACRO template and construct their own setup because there's no point in having a powerful Tx without using the features - it would be like dreaming of Noira Batty while making love to Michelle Pfeiffer.

No wonder this is such an emotive subject!

PDR

I think most 4000 users used the "universal" base type.

I agree - like most Evo users use the basic "acro" type regardless of what they're doing. But the discussions above are from people who are suggesting that the P4000's Templates are something the Evo lacks, and are the feature which makes the P4000 easier to programme. Which isn't true, of course.

PDR

It was a sad day when the 4000 when out of production. Maybe it’s a bit stupid because we don’t know much a about the Profi TX software yet, but reading the hints in this thread I can’t help feeling a little bit sad again. I really hope Multiplex do what they say, to resurrect a ledged, but the hints points more to something in-between the Evo/Pro and the 4000.

The 4000 being intricate and difficult to understand and program, and the Evo/Pro being much easier, I believe is a complete misconception - mostly. That some might have had a hard time getting around the 4000, and finding the Evo/Pro easier, I think has nothing to do with the software and programming structure itself, but only the user interface. Due to the Evo’s larger display and graphics it’s much easier to “see” how it works, than on the 4000’s small display where only four text lines. On the Evo you actually scroll down a list of mixers, and programming a mixer you get a list of all inputs for a mixer in one display. On that very limited display of the old 4000, you don’t get the visual list-effects on screen, but have to form them in your head. When I got my 4000 5 years ago, to get a grip on the software I had to walk through the whole software, writing everything down, in order to build a visual/mental map of the software. When I got that map into my head the 4000 was really simple.

With today’s large display I see absolutely no reasonable reason for Multiplex not to implement the Profi TX software to the same standard as the 4000. Disregarding global mixers, the concept of assignment lists, and some other details, the basic software/mixer structure is the same from the Evo to the 4000.

The 4000 have one first level per servo (servomixer). For ailerons for example, you had to make two mixers, one for each aileron, both set up the same and doing the same thing. On the Evo this changed, and you needed to set up only one mixer that is used on both ailerons. But there have been instances where people have found the needed to make separate mixers for each aileron on the Evo also.
There is no opposition between these two, and I see no reason not to make it possible to have one mixer per servo, as on the 4000. On the 4000 each servomixer is tied to one servo only, but there should be no problem separating the mixers from the servos, as on the Evo, so that one mixer can be used on several servos, but still have enough mixers to be able to make one mixer per servo if you want to. Today memory and processing power should not be a limitation at all.

Then there is the second level multimixers on the 4000. If they only expand the number of mixer, and make it possible to use a mixer as input in another mixer, then the multimixer concept should be covered. (Of course, somehow they have to guard against mixer loops, where mixer A is input in mixer B and mixer B is input in mixer A.)

All mixers on the 4000 have 8 inputs. As we can read that will also be the case on the Profi TX. Then there is the mixer curves. On the 4000 each mixer input is a true curve up to 13 points. On the Evo, basically each mixer input is 3 point curve, with two parameters controlling two points on the curve, and a third parameter defining where those two points are. Those cryptic symbols which I could never remember the meaning of – "Asymmetrical", "Single-sided with curve", "Single-sided, linear with offset", etc.  "Asymmetrical" you get a simple three point curve where the end points can be controlled, but not the center point. "Single-sided with curve" you get a three point curve where the center point and one end point can be controlled, but not the second end point. Etc, etc.  Curves for mixer inputs are (to me) very limited, much more cryptic and hard to understand than the true curves on the 4000. I can’t see any other reason for the Evo “curves” than to save memory.

On the 4000 each single input in every mixer can be turned on/off with whatever switch you like (and a switch on the 4000 is everything from to simple on/off switch to analogue switches). On the Evo, turning inputs on/off is limited to the three Mix-1/2/3 switches.

Enough for now. I just wanted to point out is should actually be a simple matter to expand the basic Evo/Pro software to the level of the 4000, and that more power and flexibility does not mean hard and complex. With a proper user interface and graphics, 4000 level programming is just as simple (if not simpler) than Evo/Pro programming.

... it would be like dreaming of Noira Batty while making love to Michelle Pfeiffer.

 

I agree - like most Evo users use the basic "acro" type regardless of what they're doing. But the discussions above are from people who are suggesting that the P4000's Templates are something the Evo lacks, and are the feature which makes the P4000 easier to programme. Which isn't true, of course.

PDR

I never said it did lack it.

You didn't, but others seem to be saying it.

PDR