raptor22 wrote:How big a problem is this really? Does it warrant 9 pages of revolving discussion?
so the chance of a clash is 1 in 65500 and since thats already happened the chance of a recurrence is greater than that.
Just get out and fly and when the fix is available, its a available. The two affected parties have new radio's.
In the mean time, RC airfields have Frequency boards, simply place your tag on the frequency with a FrSKY flag on it and post a note next to board stating ha Frsky users to check for signal clash. If there's none then get on with flying. Nine pages on here isn't going to change the world.
Please don't take any of this personally(not my intent), but that is exactly why all the discussion. The SIZE of the problem has not really been Identified!
And based on what I received back from FrSky they would like us all to bury our heads in the sand and pretend it never happened. They have confirmed the GUID's are randomly generated and get this.... The next version will allow the user to generate their own random GUID. If Ethernet had been designed with that big of a hole the INTERNET would have crumbled long ago (Network Design and Engineering is my profession).
I'm sorry but to me this sounds like the old "Dial-A-Crash" receivers of the past on 72Mhz. It sure sounds like Frsky's GUID(Globally Unique Identifier) is not really a GUID at all it's just a Sudo-Random number in a smaller then safe address space.
I stand by the statement... As long as more then one FrSky TX modual exists in the world with the same GUID then we are risking our planes every time we fly(Size of that risk is still speculation). This also makes the following statement by Frsky false "The ACCST 2.4GHz system shifts the frequency hundreds of times per second. It means there are no signal conflicts and interruptions". Clearly if even one Frsky TX with the same GUID exist (Or can exist) then they can not claim "No conflicts or interruptions". We purchased the product under assumption that the statement was true. Well at lease I did and I'm not willing to stick my head in the sand and pretend that it can, did and will never happen. My personal opinion is Frsky knows more then enough detail of the issue/problems and does not really even need to see the two suspect devices. Once they began talking of changes and new versions of product without even seeing the suspect devices it seems pretty obvious they had already identified potential problems.
BTW: We would stick to 72MhZ if wanted to deal with being hit randomly and the hassles of frequency boards. Not to mention 3IM and the pain of creating flight groups with no adjacent 3IM frequencies and not enough channels for larger events. Why do we need 2.4Ghz?. We need it because of all the things mentioned and more. But it's not too much to ask that if we are re-inventing the wheel at least it should be a better wheel then the one it replaced. Much of the problems with 72Mhz was caused by the lack of the GUID concept and human error. From what I have seen the majority of 2.4Ghz problems rest in the design and implementation of that one concept that has the potential to solve that most basic and common problem once and for all. As far as the human error on 2.4Ghz, I don't think we will ever eliminate that.
Kicking away the soap box, 7SP