New FHSS from JR?

[RCModelReviews]

Reports have just been published which suggest that JR is about to abandon DSM2 in favor of their own *new* (ie: not DSMJ) FHSS system which includes telemetry.

Is this simply a move to mitigate the effects of proposed EU regulations or is JR just hurting too much from the increasing number of unexplained lockout and loss-of-control incidents attributed to DSM2?

Will this move be seen as a confirmation that DSM2 simply is no longer robust enough to cope with today's RC flying environment?

Will this hasten the release of DSM3 -- or whatever Spektrum chooses to call their own updated RF system?

[Captain351]

I believe that JR has come to the same conclusion I have that Spectrum's problems are too severe to overcome. Spectrum is a sinking ship and JR is looking for a lifeboat!



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

It has occurred to me that some of you may think that I have an axe to grind with Spectrum. That is not the case my issue with them is that from the moment I first heard about Spectrum Radios I have had serious misgivings about the robustness of their 2.4 Spread Spectrum System. My professional background is as a Computer Network Engineer I worked for a major Telecommunications company designing large Wireless Ethernet networks for use in Commercial manufacturing areas. These systems also use 2.4 Gig Spread Spectrum and Manufacturing areas are notoriously noisy environments. We had many interference problems before a manufacturer introduced FHSS in their newest product and made it firmware upgradeable. This was almost 10 years before the first Spectrum radio came out. The technology was there they chose to ignore it.

In my opinion Spectrum rushed their product to market knowing that it wasn't robust enough for the long hall but they were more interested in becoming the first to market and trying to secure market share as quick as possible! A business major would probably applaud this as long as they weren't also a RC Pilot. Futaba cut their teeth on spread spectrum at least a decade before Spectrum existed. They are the market leader in Wireless Controllers for Overhead Cranes like the ones used in steel mills and other notoriously noisy manufacturing facilities. They may know a thing or 2 about interference and how to overcome it. Their first offering for RC (they haven't needed a second) was FHSS and just about every manufacturer who has released product since has followed suit.

I am not negative anything I am pro the superior technology!

Captain351

[RCModelReviews]

Well when you look at the market:

Futaba: FHSS
Hitec: FHSS
Airtronics: FHSS
JR (soon): FHSS
Weatronics: FHSS
Jeti: FHSS
XPS: FHSS
FrSky: FHSS
Turnigy: FHSS

That really only leaves a handful of low-cost Chinese systems (FD, Corona, Assan, WFly) and Spektrum who are sticking with 2..4 frequency DSSS.

Surely Spektrum/Horizon must see the writing on this wall - it is in very big letters after all.

DSSS is easier to implement so why would everyone else have gone to FHSS if weren't some very real benefits to be had in today's crowded 2.4GHz band?

[GBR2]

Also, look at the DX8. From what I can understand from reading about it, the programming is Spektrums programming and not JR's as it bascially has been since the beginning. Looks to me that Spektrum used JR to have the time to develop their own programming and JR used Spektrum to get into the 2.4 market quicker than if they developed their own system. In any case, it would not suprise me if there is a parting of the ways in the not to distant future, so it would be good for JR to develop their own 2.4 scheme.

[ArjanH]

Why is it that the RC industry can not come to agree on some sort of industry standard protocol? It seems most other industries can so why not the Rc one?
If they could all agree on the one format then the only argument would be signal quality and unit build quality/usability. Their R&D costs would go down as they wouldn't need to build whole systems of their own and they could devote more time into developing better quality.
It also might mean that the cost to the end user would be less.

[RCModelReviews]

Because each manufacturer is aware of the enormous benefits of "locking in" users to their proprietary technologies.

Just look at how Futaba have managed to charge customers $150 for receivers that are the equivalent of Chinese-branded units selling for one fifth that amount. How did they do it? Simple, if you wanted a receiver to work with your Futaba FASST transmitter then the only place you could buy them was from Futaba and so you had to pay whatever price they decided to charge.

Before the Chinese got involved in RC, you'd pay US$60-$70 for a 6-8 channel FM receiver. Then Corona and others came along and suddenly you could buy an 8-channel really good FM receiver that was fully compatible with the brand-name units but was much better in performance -- for just US$20.

If the manufacturers were to agree to a compatible standard then they know that they'd lose the ability to charge brand-loyal customers whatever they wanted and once again they'd be battling the cheap Chinese products and having to slash their profit margins.

And even now, companies like Futaba are trying to move customers away from one of the few remaining industry standards in the 2.4GHz era... they're doing this by way of their S-Bus technology. S-Bus will allow Futaba to once again "lock in" customers to their proprietary technologies. Only Futaba's own S-Bus servos will work with Futaba's S-Bus receivers so suddenly, if you want to use Futaba 2.4 you'll not only have to buy Futaba receivers but also Futaba servos. $$$$ all the way to the bank.

Fortunately however, a number of Chinese manufacturers are already offering Spektrum and Futaba-compatible receivers at much lower prices so the ability that 2.4GHz has given the "name brands" to lock-in customers is being eroded somewhat.

[ArjanH]

I guess that I am not the only one that would see straight through that ploy and because of that wouldn't touch Futaba with a barge pole. That sort of strategy could very well back-fire on even very large companies like Futaba unless the advantages of their system over others were significant.

I believe that proprietary systems are soon to be a thing of the past in that customers have become a lot more savy and informed and now demand intercompatibility.
Most industries have had to make changes and gone for good quality and top of the line service to keep their customers and I believe that after some initial losses of companies that were poorly settup and inefficient the remaining companies are now known for their quality and service and command a huge following of loyal customers.

I have always been a JR user right from my very first radio when I was 12, I have never owned a Futaba, Graupner or any other brand of radio so I guess you could say I am about as loyal as any customer gets. But if JR demanded that I pay extra $$$$ for no real advantage by going to some proprietary system they could very well loose a life long customer.
That would have worked in the 80's, it might have worked in the 90's, I don't think it would have worked in the 2000's but it definately won't work for me in the future. I will be looking for quality, compatibility and service at a reasonable price. I will always shop locally first looking for quality and service but am totally aware of services and prices overseas and if the savings for a similar product overseas crosses my threshold I have no hesitation purchasing overseas. That threshold is somewhat of a wavering line and largely depends on service and quality. Local suppliers would do well in figuring out what side of the line they are on.

This is just my view but shop owners and manufactorers beware, I am probably not the only one that thinks like this.

[MacCross]

And where MULTIPLEX M-LINK fits?
DSSS or FHSS?
Can anyone confirm?

[Boolarra]

And where MULTIPLEX M-LINK fits?
DSSS or FHSS?
Can anyone confirm?

Check the "Model Engines" website , Multiplex 2.4GHz is a FHSS system.

Cheers, Boolarra.

[MacCross]

Thanks Boolarra