money
RSS Facebook

RCMF

*

RCMF Donations

Enjoy using RCMF? How about a wee donation to help us keep you in the style to which you've become accustomed?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 18, 2019, 13:38:50 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Articles

Author Topic: Radiology AT9 ??  (Read 1622 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline chaz2b

  • Chaz@2b
  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 75
  • -Receive: 15
  • Posts: 2,845
  • Liked: 60
  • Country: gb
Radiology AT9 ??
« on: July 11, 2017, 13:45:42 PM »
In need of a newer more upto date radio,my Futaba 2.4ghz is now ten years old,still works OK,  but I feel time might reduce it's reliability.
The Radiolink AT9 seems suitable, in not being over technical and.......cheap! Fits my wallet does that.   But not wanting to buy something that is totally naff,anyone bought/used one of these? Any good, or just the same as any other standard radio?

Chaz@2b
There are many roads to success,.....mine is currently being resurfaced!
Due to unforeseen circumstances, delays are inevitable, financial detours are now in place.


Offline Phil_G

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 173
  • -Receive: 82
  • Posts: 3,728
  • Liked: 377
  • Country: gb
  • 56 and still racing!
Re: Radiology AT9 ??
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2017, 14:42:51 PM »
The Radiolinks are ok Chaz, lower end budget stuff, personally I would stick with the Futaba.
Replacing a perfectly good Futaba with a budget set (just in case the Futaba fails) seems a backward move to me.

If you really have set your mind on a new set, I would highly recommend the Flysky range over Radiolink.
https://www.banggood.com/FlySky-FS-i6-2_4G-6CH-AFHDS-RC-Transmitter-With-FS-iA6-Receiver-p-922606.html
Flysky have a huge following and there  are open-source firmware alternatives if you want to play around with it, including 4 extra channels and Frsky protocols.   You dont need to, its a perfectly good set as supplied.
Cheers
Phil

PS Forgot to say, the Flysky works with the V949/911 etc type of 'indoor brick' a bit like an AR6400 without the price tag.
Tiny ultra-light things. Here's one -  this S/C transmitter has a Flysky RF module but of course they work with the i6 too:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id5mL9QIXZ8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id5mL9QIXZ8</a>



« Last Edit: July 11, 2017, 23:33:39 PM by Phil_G »

Offline chaz2b

  • Chaz@2b
  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 75
  • -Receive: 15
  • Posts: 2,845
  • Liked: 60
  • Country: gb
Re: Radiology AT9 ??
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2017, 20:27:23 PM »
Many thanks for your reply Phil,very encouraging, will look up more on FlySky products. :af

Chaz@2b
There are many roads to success,.....mine is currently being resurfaced!
Due to unforeseen circumstances, delays are inevitable, financial detours are now in place.


Offline leckyBB

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • RCMF Air Commodore
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 8
  • -Receive: 11
  • Posts: 512
  • Liked: 26
  • Country: fr
  • Here's one I rolled earlier
Re: Radiology AT9 ??
« Reply #3 on: July 11, 2017, 22:25:39 PM »
The Flysky recommendation is good to know...seeing as how a brand new FS i10 arrived via DHL today :)
Mine is to replace my ageing JR X378 which I modded to take the FRSky modules about 5 years ago. Felt I deserved a new TX after all these years.
Just need to learn how to programme it now.
Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.

Offline Brian Cooper

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 14
  • -Receive: 20
  • Posts: 3,411
  • Liked: 185
  • Country: gb
  • 'LOVE TO FLY
Re: Radiology AT9 ??
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2017, 08:54:22 AM »
Looking at the FlySky advertising, they claim the range is between 350 to 400 metres.  :o
Whilst this remarkably short range might be okay for small helicopters and toy drones, it certainly isn't enough for fixed wing aircraft.  Even a humble WOT-4 can easily have an operating radius of 600 yards (it is amazing how far our models go) and bigger models can be even further away at times.

Also, reading customer reviews, it seems the radios are not happy working together (at the same venue at the same time) and cause radio interference with each other.

Has anyone done a real life (full) range test on this equipment -- not just the "push the button and walk 25 paces" routine?

B.C.


Offline Phil_G

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 173
  • -Receive: 82
  • Posts: 3,728
  • Liked: 377
  • Country: gb
  • 56 and still racing!
Re: Radiology AT9 ??
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2017, 11:54:08 AM »
350-400 metres refers to the Park-Fly receivers Brian. The full range receivers are just that, full range.
I did a ground-range test by bicycle at Elvington LMA and ran out of runway at 1km, where the link was still absolutely solid and relink instantaneous on a power-cycle at that range.  Air-range will of course be greater.  We have quite a few of the i6's in our clubs and we also use the RM02 module a lot in the homebrews and refits yet we've never experienced any of the problems you mention - I'd be interested to read up on that if you have a link.   But having sown seeds of doubt in Chaz's direction I doubt Flysky is on his list now, which is a shame as we're very happy with ours.
Cheers
Phil



Offline Brian Cooper

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 14
  • -Receive: 20
  • Posts: 3,411
  • Liked: 185
  • Country: gb
  • 'LOVE TO FLY
Re: Radiology AT9 ??
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2017, 13:09:31 PM »
I am very relieved to hear that the range is good.  I have no personal experience of this radio so it is probably unfair of me to raise any concerns.  I was echoing the comments made by customers who were disappointed.

Click on "Reviews" and then click on "bad"
However, it has to be said that there are far more "good" reviews than bad.

https://www.banggood.com/Wholesale-FlySky-Upgrade-FS-TH9X-FS-TH9XB-2_4G-9CH-RC-Remote-Control-Transmitter-Mode-2-p-47904.html?rmmds=detail-bottom-viewalsoview

B.C.

Offline Phil_G

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 173
  • -Receive: 82
  • Posts: 3,728
  • Liked: 377
  • Country: gb
  • 56 and still racing!
Re: Radiology AT9 ??
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2017, 17:37:56 PM »
The particular set you linked to is the Turnigy 9X Brian, its the one the opentx lads use. That has to be the best selling tx ever so maybe 10 negs isnt so bad, some of which were 'supplied in wrong mode' complaints  $%&
Its supplied with the older Flysky RM002 module which is fine for the AFHDS receivers like the FS-R6B but doesnt work with the latest telemetry receivers (FS-iA6B etc).  It does work with the indoor bricks as in the video.

The one I mentioned is the Flysky i6, it does the new protocol (with telemetry built in) as well as the old one.
The FS-i6 has zero bad reviews and 1300 good. Its an unusually slim transmitter so feels comfy & light.  It has an enthusiastic 'hacker' following too with alternative open-source firmware (though the oem firmware is perfectly capable) and homebrew RF modules and receivers. 

I couldnt find any mention of interaction in the reviews? The A7105 is a frequency hopper like the CC2500 so shouldnt suffer the old 'DSM2 problem' in a busy environment...

Cheers
Phil

PS heres my RM002 range-test at Elvington (this wasnt its limit, I ran out of space)







« Last Edit: July 12, 2017, 17:47:00 PM by Phil_G »

Offline Brian Cooper

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 14
  • -Receive: 20
  • Posts: 3,411
  • Liked: 185
  • Country: gb
  • 'LOVE TO FLY
Re: Radiology AT9 ??
« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2017, 08:52:01 AM »
The (bad) comment about them not working well together is on the second page of the comments.
It reads:
Everything works , but 1 ) my friend and I bought two pieces for fly together with 250 quad, but they do not work together and interfere with each other 2 ) consistent reception distance is very short - about 50 meters , when quad slopes or banks it can dramatically lose signal very upset
Whilst this is clearly not good, it may of course be down to their radio installations, etc..

However, I am encouraged by the "real life" range checks.  :)
I have done similar checks and have a facility which is 1600 yards (almost 1 mile) before running out of room.  With a model sitting on a stand about 3ft above the grass, my Spektrum radios easily makes the distance.  :af

B.C.



Offline Phil_G

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 173
  • -Receive: 82
  • Posts: 3,728
  • Liked: 377
  • Country: gb
  • 56 and still racing!
Re: Radiology AT9 ??
« Reply #9 on: July 13, 2017, 09:47:46 AM »
Sorry Chaz & Brian, I was only recommending it over the Radiolink based on of my own & several pals experience, and because its a popular module combination for the 'retro refit' enthusiasts on the S/C forum, and with many slope-soaring pals - all I can say is that we have had no problems whatsoever with Flysky, solitary or in a busy 'meeting' environment  :af
They're very popular over on RC Groups too, where they have a huge following.
If we based our radio choice on a few negative reviews, no-one would ever buy Spektrum!
Cheers
Phil
« Last Edit: July 14, 2017, 14:20:42 PM by Phil_G »

Offline Phil_G

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • RCMF Ace
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 173
  • -Receive: 82
  • Posts: 3,728
  • Liked: 377
  • Country: gb
  • 56 and still racing!
Re: Radiology AT9 ??
« Reply #10 on: July 23, 2017, 15:59:39 PM »
I'm intrigued by this and feeling a little defensive since from our point of view, Flysky has been perfectly reliable over a long period where we've seen several unexplained Spekky crashes . So I've done a little digging and the only problem reports I've found are from people who are using other than a Flysky combination - usually its a 3rd party, mass-produced 'toy' receiver.  Since the earliest, now obsolete, Flysky implementation was used in toys and since Flysky have no control over 3rd party manufacturers, this is understandable - rather like the very early OrangeRx problems before the DSM2 and DSMX protocols were fully reverse engineered.  There is always the possibility of duplicated guids, and the A7105 guid is set by software rather than hard coded within the chip. As a reputable manufacturer I would expect Flysky to keep tight control over their own guids - however, toy manufacturers using the Flysky protocol are probably less likely to have the same commitment. If you remember,  Frsky originally (many years ago) started out using 'random' guids, thinking this would be ok and the likelyhood of two 16-bit random numbers coinciding would be almost zero. They soon had to ditch that idea and went sequential (and, incidentally, soon ran out, hence the 32 bit guid on the D8s). Many thousands of Flysky combos have been sold (Flysky is huge in the USA with an enthusiastic presence on RCG) and I cant find a single occurrence of the problem described where a genuine Flysky tx & rx combination was used.  I tend to look at radios from a deeply technical perspective and I'm happy to use it  :af
Hope this adds some perspective, dont want to fuel an argument, I have no brand loyalty as I use most of them!

Cheers
Phil

« Last Edit: July 23, 2017, 16:01:33 PM by Phil_G »


 

BloQcs design by Bloc
SMF 2.0.2 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
TinyPortal © 2005-2012
Page created in 0.383 seconds with 55 queries.