2.4Ghz system?

[RCMF Chatroom]

RCMF Chatroom

No Users in Chat

Hi there
Do you find this message annoying?
Why not make a post and get rid of it?

[markg]

Can't comment on this one, I have no knowledge what it is, I can say however that in 20 years of model flying I have never had a Futaba Tx fail. Thats good enough for me
Isn't that just the same as mixing 2 channels together, 100% couple with master and slave selectable?
Surely the important fact here is how much stick time you get from a charge eg, if a Tx takes 1.5 amps and has a 1500 battery you would get around 1 hour of operation whereas if a Tx only take 0.5 A and has a 1000 battery fitted you would get 2 hours. I don't know in either case what the relevant operational time is with the batteries installed.
If it's so good, why would you need to? (tongue in cheek comment)
Again, not sure I see the advantage of this either
I don't see why this can't be done on the FF7
Well, how many times is a user going to do this, this one is a really valuable option, sorry, this is a joke IMHO
Yep OK, this does have 'some' uses, I suspect most users wont use it much.
I think we're scraping the bottom of the barrel a bit here, again, why would you want to adjust this? Maybe if you change battery chemistry, I wouldn't consider this when decideing which Tx to buy. I have it on my (z's and have never adjusted it.
Well I feel this has limited value but it is a feature as you rightly say.
Accept this has some value.
There are some features, I would hardly call any of them essential and I don't think it puts it head and shoulders above the rest. As I have said before, there are no bad Tx's from the mainstream manufacturers, they all have different features. If one system has the features you like then go for it. Me personally, I'm leaving the Futaba camp and going to JR when the 2.4 GHz high end sets become available in the UK.

Regards - J

I ended up getting a DX7 for various reasons but the Cockpit SX was at the top of my shortlist of 35MHz sets.  What you neglected to mention in any of that is the price, you're comparing it to a FF7 when if you look at the price it should be the 6EX (Futaba's entry level computer set) otherwise it's apples and oranges.  If you do this then the Cockpit SX's feature set wins hands down.

[BrianB]

Couldn't have put it better myself Mark. For the price the Sx offers amazing value.

 

[PDR]

In a strictly "debating over a pint" tone (ie not trying to pick a fight):

Can't comment on this one, I have no knowledge what it is, I can say however that in 20 years of model flying I have never had a Futaba Tx fail. Thats good enough for me

Me neither (and in my case make that 30+ years before switching to the Evo earlier this year), although it does give some additional confidence that it's designed and qualified to a national standard for electronic equipment.

Isn't that just the same as mixing 2 channels together, 100% couple with master and slave selectable?

More or less, but you don't have to use up one of your precious mixers to do it, and you can do it with the OUTPUTS of mixed channels rather than just the stick inputs.

Again, not sure I see the advantage of this either

The St/Stl antenna is easier to keep clean, stronger and has better conductivity than the usual chrome-plated brass ones. The optional short "rubber duck" antenna is mor convenient for many types of user, and whilst people have fitted them to other makes of Tx this is one of the few that is available as a fully "DA-Approved" item which can be fited without invalidating the CE Approval, which could put the user in a better position if they find themselves facing a criminal damage or manslaughter charge.

I don't see why this can't be done on the FF7

The 4-servo-wing facility gives switchable full-flapperon (camber change) and crow-brake functions without using up mixers or restricting the choice of control layout. On the original FF-super-7 this could be done witha  "work around", but only if you used the throttle stick for flaps (ie you would have to put the throttle on a swicth or knob if you wanted it on a powered model like an electric sailplane). It also used both free mixers, so you were stuck if you wanted these for anything else. I believe the current FF7 and 6EX can't do it all all because they lack sufficient free mixers - indeed the FF9c struggles to do it (according to the Futaba website FAQ) and need some creative work-arounds.

Well, how many times is a user going to do this, this one is a really valuable option, sorry, this is a joke IMHO

It allows felxibility (). And to further expand the point - assuming it's like the Evo9/12 the mode can be different in different model memories rather than a global setting.

Yep OK, this does have 'some' uses, I suspect most users wont use it much.

Flight phases are jolly useful things for glider, aerobatic, helicopter and 3D flying - that's quite a few users rather than just "some"

I think we're scraping the bottom of the barrel a bit here, again, why would you want to adjust this? Maybe if you change battery chemistry, I wouldn't consider this when decideing which Tx to buy. I have it on my (z's and have never adjusted it.

It allows the user to compensate for battery age and usage pattern. A user who mainly flies very short flights (eg a Shockie flier) might decide to run closer to the edge than one who mainly flies (say) thermal soarers whose typical flight duration might be an hour or more.

Well I feel this has limited value but it is a feature as you rightly say.

Opinions are divided...

There are some features, I would hardly call any of them essential and I don't think it puts it head and shoulders above the rest. As I have said before, there are no bad Tx's from the mainstream manufacturers, they all have different features. If one system has the features you like then go for it. Me personally, I'm leaving the Futaba camp and going to JR when the 2.4 GHz high end sets become available in the UK.

It's a "bang for buck" thing. This set competes with most entry-level sets on price, but offers some features which even the 9c or 9x struggle to match for twice the price.

Brian also forgot to mention the 12 model memory and syth module as standard fitment - things which nothing else in this price bracket offers. Personally I feel that the Evo9 offers even better bang-for-buck, but not all users want to spend £290 on a Tx.

PDR

[BrianB]

Thanks PDR, that says it all really. I couldn't be bothered at the time, as I needed a cup of tea!

I purposely didn't mention the 12 model memory, as some of the newer sets now have storage capacity in excess of this. However, none of the opposition's sets in this price bracket offer the option to transfer memories to a pc or laptop, which is still quite an advantage I feel. I didn't mention the synth capabilty either, as my intention was to point out the Sx's advantages other than synth operation.

And you're right, it is pretty much a "bang for buck" issue. But prospective buyers of sub £150 tx's would do well to look closely at the Sx, assuming they don't get carried away on the 2.4ghz bandwagon. 

[PDR]

Brian also forgot to mention the 12 model memory and syth module as standard fitment

Obviously that should have read "synth module". The Syth module is only available on the Profi 4010 Imperial Tx, and this is of limited appeal due to its unique buddy-box protocol ("master-Apprentice" rather than the more common "master-slave"). But it does have the cute red double-ended rubber-duck antenna...

PDR

[Chris_Rayner]

Obviously that should have read "synth module". The Syth module is only available on the Profi 4010 Imperial Tx, and this is of limited appeal due to its unique buddy-box protocol ("master-Apprentice" rather than the more common "master-slave"). But it does have the cute red double-ended rubber-duck antenna...

PDR

Presumably only available in sinister shiny black.  I suspect that there is no CE clearance for the Force emissions.   

[JohnB]

If you're happy with Futaba/Jr that's fine, stick with them.    Personally I think you're splitting hairs at best. With regard to your being dismissive of Multiplex's online sofware updates, I could say the same about Futaba, couldn't I?

Sorry, I'm not meaning to offend anyone here, I was merely stating that I don't feel the points you have mentioned put Multiplex head and shoulders above the rest. What I DID say was that there are no poor systems from the mainstream manufacturers etc.

The difference being Futaba want you buy a whole new Tx, as they don't do software updates for their low/mid range sets.

Thats not quite true, the original FF7 could be upgraded from 4 model to 8 model memory for a minimal fee, not as convenient as downloading like Multiplex, of all the points this one to me carries most in the desireability scores.

And neither would I call a feature capable of saving £100's of pounds worth of model (both mine and other people's) of limited value. Remember John, Multiplex have had Channel Check available on their sets for 10 years. No other manufacturer has offered anything similar until now.

As I have said before in a similar discussion this would be a superb safety feature if all Tx's had it. With only Multiplex having it it does devalue it's potential, nice to have but of greater value to others rather than the Tx owner.

Still, you're entitled to your opinion John.

Thanks for the permission 

Kind Regards - J

[Steve J]

In a strictly "debating over a pint" tone

Ditto

I purposely didn't mention the 12 model memory, as some of the newer sets now have storage capacity in excess of this. However, none of the opposition's sets in this price bracket offer the option to transfer memories to a pc or laptop, which is still quite an advantage I feel. I didn't mention the synth capabilty either, as my intention was to point out the Sx's advantages other than synth operation.

But it must be said that most of the opposition's sets do offer modern communications protocols and not just PPM..... 

Steve

[SteveBB]

What hasn't been mentioned is that the SX is so simple to programme. I'd never programmed a Tx before the SX. Took me about 2-3 hours including a dry run without the rx switched on. As I've mentioned before my flying instructor tried for nearly three hours to get a loaned futaba seven channel Tx to work with my (then) flap and aileron winged glider to get crow brakes etc.. Not a chance, he showed me how he would do it on his profi, took about thirty seconds! I then did the same on the SX.. piece of Lager. 

[satinet]

yeah it is easy. a couple of times recently i have taken my sx out when flying. only to realise one of the models i had brought was programmed on my other TX.  although they were simple models, it took a matter of moments to get them going. obviously i was able to switch the proper frequency as well.

i'm really happy with my sx now.  the V-tail set up is great. I had it wrong on my glider and a club mate thought i was going to have to start digging the wires out - just a few clicks of the wheel and it was fine..... 

[BrianB]

Steve, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "modern communications protocols" or "just" PPM?

[PDR]

But it must be said that most of the opposition's sets do offer modern communications protocols and not just PPM..... 

Ooh, fighting words, Steve! Of course you overlook the detail that Multiplex were the FIRST to market a PCM set. After this they recognised its limitations and decided that the better technical approach was to revert to PPM but use advanced DSP technology in the Rx (based on the excellent Paul Berg concepts) which provide as good or better communication integrity but without the restriction of proprietary PCM protocols and formats. So Multiplex have moved well BEYOND the primitive PCM technologies still used by the less advanced manufacturers...



PDR

[BrianB]

PDR,

You took the words right out of my mouth!

And we'd better not mention the fact that Futaba are using a version of software they originally produced under licence from Multiplex back in 1984. Ooops, I just did.

And, just for the record, Multiplex were also the first to market a UHF set some time before the Reftec and Cotswold Controls sets appeared.

[PDR]

What hasn't been mentioned is that the SX is so simple to programme. I'd never programmed a Tx before the SX. Took me about 2-3 hours including a dry run without the rx switched on. As I've mentioned before my flying instructor tried for nearly three hours to get a loaned futaba seven channel Tx to work with my (then) flap and aileron winged glider to get crow brakes etc.. Not a chance, he showed me how he would do it on his profi, took about thirty seconds! I then did the same on the SX.. piece of urine. 

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). Where the Multiplex scores is the ease with which it can do more complex things. The Multiplex sets offer more *powerful* and flexible programming, but make using this extra power much easier than with the futaba sets IMHO. Examples would be the 4-servo glider wing or the use of coupled flapperons and elevons (ie twin elevator servos) on a 3d model. Programming and calibrating these on the futaba sets is far more complicated than it is using the multiplex approach, although were really talking about the comparison between FF9c and Evo9/12 here rather than the FF7/6EX vs Cockpit Sx here.

PDR

[BrianB]

Fair comment PDR.

The Evo 9 and FF9 are indeed in the same league, and aimed at similar users. But as you yourself have found, once you've used Multiplex's software in depth, it really does have an edge over the competition.

[PDR]

And we'd better not mention the fact that Futaba are using a version of software they originally produced under licence from Multiplex back in 1984. Ooops, I just did.

I want to get back to the "debating over a pint" tone, because we all know that people get evangelical over their own sets. So I would be happy to list some of the things I *don't* like about my multiplex set - I'm talking Evo rather than Cockpit here.

1. The charger socket is unreliable. I don't know how they've managed it but they've made a standard DIN socket intermittant, and then compounded the problem by provding no "charging" indicator. I'm in the process of putting a second (futaba style) charging socket on the Tx, with a "charging" LED.

2. Multiplex's view that you only need one EXPO rate [per control] is frankly barking - I like to have different expo settings with different rate settings. There is a work-around in which you create a mixer with different 5-point curves for each flight phase (or on a switch, or whatever) but it shouldn't be necessary.

3. I'd like to be able to rename the flight phases rather than selecting from a a pre-defined list.

4. Fitting the long sticks (with the stick-mounted buttons) is something that keyhole surgeons would approach with a degree of trepidation! Feeding the wires down through the sticks is very fiddley.

5. I'd like to be able to have the antenna at a true 90 degree position rather than the "normal" and "nearly 90 degrees but canted a bit to the left" settings.

6. I'd like to be able to define the output of one mixer as the input to another, but this is an obscure requirement which only the real anoracks of flight control system designers would find a use for so I accept it's not really a market requirement (but I believe you can do it on their Profi 4000).

So it's not perfect, but on balance I still find it very, very good - and you only really get into just HOW good it is when you come to use it. We've covered a lot of the obvious things, but the less obvious ones are stunningly useful. For example the "digi adjustors" ("DAs" in multiplex-speak); the two rotary knobs at the top of the Tx that are essentially used to navigate programming menus, are also assignable "widgets" for certain things. So what? Well if I have (say) coupled elevator with flaps to correct the trim change, or coupled aileron & rudder, or tail rotor mixing on a helicopter I can assign the mix-ratio to one of these DAs. I then go for a test flight and I can tune this mixing to the required value in ONE FLIGHT rather than having to fly, land adjust, repeat until right. I don't believe this is possible on any other make of Tx and it's an absolute corker of a feature. And it's not just mix ratios; it can be done with rate settings, expo settings, travel limits - indeed anything that's a numerical value in the software. And once you have your desired value you simply de-assign the DA and the value remains static. I suspect this would make setting up a complex helicopter or an F3A model much quicker.

But now I'm getting evangellical - sorry!

PDR

[JohnB]

Nice one PDR, the last bit about using the controls for fine tuning in flight is exactly what I do on my 9z, usually aileron differential amount, I can adjust in flight until I get the flight characteristic that I want (not easy for me  ) and then lock the setting when it's back on the deck.

Thanks for the Multiplex insight, still going JR. 

Regards - J

[PDR]

Nice one PDR, the last bit about using the controls for fine tuning in flight is exactly what I do on my 9z, usually aileron differential amount, I can adjust in flight until I get the flight characteristic that I want (not easy for me  ) and then lock the setting when it's back on the deck.

Thanks for the Multiplex insight, still going JR. 

Regards - J

Of course the 9z is the one that uses the licensed Multiplex software design...oops, I'm doing it again - sorry!

PDR

[satinet]

2. Multiplex's view that you only need one EXPO rate [per control] is frankly barking - I like to have different expo settings with different rate settings.

yeah that is silly.  my eclipse 7 (hitec) lets you have different expo (and you can have either negative or positive) for each flight phase.

then go for a test flight and I can tune this mixing to the required value in ONE FLIGHT rather than having to fly, land adjust, repeat until right.

Sweet. that would help a lot when setting up things like crow breaks and spoilerons.

[JohnB]

Of course the 9z is the one that uses the licensed Multiplex software design...oops, I'm doing it again - sorry!

PDR

Well if thats an example of Multiplex software it's crap! The 9z is very flexible, great when you get to know it but an absolute pig when you first start. 

Regards - J

[Spider Pig]

Well if thats an example of Multiplex software it's crap! The 9z is very flexible, great when you get to know it but an absolute pig when you first start. 

Regards - J

  you're hilarious, now go and buy your JR set and stop bothering us as you're clearly not interested in MPX for anything other than picking a fight.   

SP (who still hasn't read the manual for his evo coz it's that easy to use    )

[Steve J]

Ooh, fighting words, Steve! Of course you overlook the detail that Multiplex were the FIRST to market a PCM set. After this they recognised its limitations and decided that the better technical approach was to revert to PPM but use advanced DSP technology in the Rx (based on the excellent Paul Berg concepts) which provide as good or better communication integrity but without the restriction of proprietary PCM protocols and formats. So Multiplex have moved well BEYOND the primitive PCM technologies still used by the less advanced manufacturers...

One of these days I must try a PPM/IPD receiver and see how it compares to the JR RS77S's and Schulze Alpha's that I use at the moment. Where I suspect that Multiplex did benefit when they dumped PCM is in being able to use the resources that other manufacturers spend on supporting multiple protocols on other features in their transmitters.

It will be interesting to see what Multiplex do if they do being out a 2.4 GHz set. Will it be a Spread Spectrum PPM or a Spread Spectrum PCM ? If it's the latter, it will be interesting to see how they spin it.

Thanks for the Multiplex insight, still going JR. 

I have a JR PCM9XII and I am very happy with it.

Steve

[PDR]

One of these days I must try a PPM/IPD receiver and see how it compares to the JR RS77S's and Schulze Alpha's that I use at the moment.

Muliplex IPD, Shulze Alpha, Hyperion DSP and Berg DSP all use the same DSP techniques and algoirthms, originally developed by Paul Berg and licensed to the others. I believe the Multioplex IPD implementation has a slightly more sophisticated fail-safe interface, but this may be a false impression because I've never studied them in any great detail. I don't actually have any Multiplex IPD receivers - I use mostly Schulze but with a smattering of my older Futaba PPM ones.

It will be interesting to see what Multiplex do if they do being out a 2.4 GHz set. Will it be a Spread Spectrum PPM or a Spread Spectrum PCM ? If it's the latter, it will be interesting to see how they spin it.

Why should they need to "spin" it? The principle advatnage of the PPM/DSP approach is that it's not a proprietary standard, so there is compatibility between different manufacturers' equipments. All 2.4GHz systems use proprietary standards, so there is no pre-existing standard to maintain backwards compatibility with, so the advantage is reduced. Thi issues around types and sources of interference, and susceptabilities to them, are very different at the microwave end of the spectrum so the technical merits of the different data systems won't necessaily be the same.

PDR

[JohnB]

you're hilarious, now go and buy your JR set and stop bothering us as you're clearly not interested in MPX for anything other than picking a fight.   

SP (who still hasn't read the manual for his evo coz it's that easy to use    )

I have asked questions regarding what makes Multiplex 'head and shoulders' above the rest as has been said. Lots of information has been forthcoming, lots of info I didn't know such as Multiplex involvement in Tx software for other manufacturers.

I am not picking a fight anywhere, merely discussing merits or otherwise of this equipment.

Sorry it seems to rattle your cage but.... tough

Regards - J

[markg]

Well you still keep comparing the Cockpit SX to the FF7.  Compare it to the 6EX then tell us how it isn't "head and shoulders" better.

[David Turner]

I can't sensibly discuss the technical aspects of the Multiplex gear. However, I have owned the Pico and the SX and have to say that the clean design and ease of programming are very attractive to me.

That said, I have had the odd "issue" with the programming, but these have resulted from an inadequate user manual, rather than the transparency of the system.

I'm very keen for Multiplex to launch 2.4 GHz stuff. I will be buying it in preference to JR, Futaba et al.........provided that they don't take forever to get the stuff onto the market. I should probably be happy to hang fire for a year or so, before committing to 2.4 GHz. Is there any prospect of Multiplex producing a system within this time frame?

[satinet]

seems a bit unlikely at the lower end of the market, seeing as they've just brought out the SX on 35mhz. bizarrely,they don't sell this set at all in the USA. for once we are better off. They have to make do with the optic 6 and eclipse 7 from hitec/mpx.  Apparently the synth modules have had loads of problems.  hitec's solution was to slap some electrical tape on it 

I can't see it happening for a while.  It's not just the electronics, it's the cases (for the stubby aerial), that would need to change.

[Steve J]

I can't see it happening for a while.

I can. I strongly suspect that Multiplex management are putting a lot of effort into getting a 2.4 GHz version of whatever their best selling model designed and tested. The only new transmitters that I have seen this year (at a fixed wing only club with 80 ish members) are 2.4 GHz. All but one of these transmitters are DX7's and a lot of people have seen them performing flawlessly and are considering 'going 2.4'. I would love to see the figures for transmitter sales by model for this year.

Steve

[satinet]

yeah, when the mainstream JR and Futaba sets hit the shops, you'll more. I've only seen one (i think) DX7 at my club, but then it's gliders only and the DX7 isn't much cop for all our gliding mixing needs (especially 4 servo wings) - it can do it, but you need to fiddle a lot........

[JohnB]

Well you still keep comparing the Cockpit SX to the FF7.  Compare it to the 6EX then tell us how it isn't "head and shoulders" better.

Mark, I haven't done any comparisons at all, merely asked what makes Multiplex head and shoulders above the rest and if it's so good why isn't it 'the' mainstream transmitter.

Regards - J