• Administrator
  •  
    Before your membership becomes valid, you will receive an email that must be answered.
    Please check your spam folder or this email.
     

FR-Sky Dual frequency setup and redundancy

Discussion about Tx, Rx, Servo's, Batteries, Chargers, and all the other things we like to talk about..
Moderator: VinceC
User avatar
Cliff Evans
Posts: 1032
Joined: 29 Dec 2019, 15:13
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: FR-Sky Dual frequency setup and redundancy

Post by Cliff Evans »

The new Frsky Access system boasts a better range than most on 2.4!
https://lasercutsailplanes.co.uk
https://patteaklegliders.co.uk
SP250

Re: FR-Sky Dual frequency setup and redundancy

Post by SP250 »

OK, seems there are systems about.
I've not heard of them because I have a good 2.4 system in the first place and don't need to fix problems.
I am still amazed by the number of posts on different forums of people having to re-bind, re-flash, lots of different software bug fixes and B****r about with the FrSky gear, that puts me off straight away. If it was right in the first place it wouldn't need upgrades.
But it does look like a solution to a problem that doesn't exsist really.
If the 2.4 system was an improvement on 35 mHz why should 868 be necessary?
Complication and expense for its own sake - just buy a good 2.4 system in the first place.
I guess I had a bad day yesterday and grump over - I'll get me coat now.

John M
User avatar
Cliff Evans
Posts: 1032
Joined: 29 Dec 2019, 15:13
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: FR-Sky Dual frequency setup and redundancy

Post by Cliff Evans »

SP250 wrote: 06 Aug 2020, 08:40 OK, seems there are systems about.
I've not heard of them because I have a good 2.4 system in the first place and don't need to fix problems.
I am still amazed by the number of posts on different forums of people having to re-bind, re-flash, lots of different software bug fixes and B****r about with the FrSky gear, that puts me off straight away. If it was right in the first place it wouldn't need upgrades.
But it does look like a solution to a problem that doesn't exsist really.
If the 2.4 system was an improvement on 35 mHz why should 868 be necessary?
Complication and expense for its own sake - just buy a good 2.4 system in the first place.
I guess I had a bad day yesterday and grump over - I'll get me coat now.

John M
The flashing of Frsky is not down to bugs it is all updates, most people using Frsky go from the native Fros to OpenTX as the OpenTX is a much better system. The OpenTX team is constantly working on the software to add to it and improve it. Frsky is not the only company to allow this with their systems. I have had Frsky for years now and have never had a problem with it and for how long it takes to update the system to the latest firmware it really is not a problem. The new access system allows you to update "over air" so now if you use the latest receivers, no matter where they are in the model you can update the firmware just by transmitting it to the receiver. It is no different really to Microsoft or Apple updating their systems all the time. It's not a question of the system being "right" in the first place, the system is constantly evolving. It is only my opinion but I believe Frsky is probably one of the best systems on the market, for the price, it outperforms even the big boys!
https://lasercutsailplanes.co.uk
https://patteaklegliders.co.uk
User avatar
paulj
Posts: 71
Joined: 23 Dec 2018, 17:51
Location: North Wales

Re: FR-Sky Dual frequency setup and redundancy

Post by paulj »

Hi John,
As originator of this thread, I think I should respond to your post, because you may have the wrong impression about FR-Sky equipment as a result of my original post.
- I have never had any issues with range on 2.4GHz with my FR-Sky equipment. I have used a number of different receiver types in a number of different types of models sometimes at great range, with no issue at all.
- I have seen the approach offered by Jeti, and just wanted to explore the opportunities presented by FR-Sky for creating some redundancy (there is a new Horus transmitter coming soon with both transmitter modules built in as well). I now understand there are systems in place which allow for battery redundancy, for receiver redundancy and also protection against servo overload.
- For my application, there is really no need to consider using any of them! Experience from other FR-Sky users confirms this. One 2.4GHz receiver set up correctly has a greater range than my eyesight, even with 1/3rd scale models. Reliability is not an issue to be worried about.
- Regarding people all over the internet struggling to bind their equipment - I have seen issues reported by many people with different systems struggling with this - it's not FR-Sky specific ;) . A couple of years back, there were differences between EU and non-EU firmware, and you had to make sure your transmitter and receivers were flashed with the same level firmware. This was not fully appreciated, and led to people failing to bind to their receivers. In fact, flashing the firmware is a trivial task when done properly, and it makes sense (IMHO) to take advantage of the work done to ensure bug free reliable firmware and to keep everything up to date.

One of the biggest selling points of FR-Sky equipment in my view is OpenTX. I have been a firm advocate of open source for many years - for example my home computer systems have run linux since 1996. OpenTX is an excellent piece of software, and ensures that there are no limits from the transmitter software preventing me from creating any program I like. As a previous Multiplex user, this is great, but I do understand that for many it is too much faff and they aren't interested.

One final comment - I understand that the advantage of 2.4GHz over 35MHz is related to frequency hopping and bandwidth. No longer a need for a pegboard, no practical limit to the number of models in the air at once, and enough space in the signal for downstream telemetry and (I guess) lower latency. Downside of 2.4GHz over 35MHz - the range of the latter is greater. 868MHz is finding fans in the worldwide FPV community due to the very long range possible (up to 10km). Of course flying out of sight is not legal in the UK, and shouldn't be practised, so this is kind of unnecessary.
Anyway - no need to get your coat! I hope you have a better day today!
SP250

Re: FR-Sky Dual frequency setup and redundancy

Post by SP250 »

Thanks for the reply Paul - interesting to get your reasons for looking at the multi frequency issue.

Being a Multiplex user for 25 years now, I am happy that people are enjoying the freedom of the Open TX software, as it started out as the MPX 4000 which many said was unfathomable when it first appeared.
Yet here we are a couple of decades on and whilst the OTX system is changed out of all recognition from the 4000, I agree that it is the most capable system I have used or looked at (can't speak for Jeti as I have not used it).
Many more people can now get their head around it thanks to the rise of forums, FaceBook and Mike Shellim etc..
Each to their own eh.

Yes a much better day today - confirmation from the speciallist that I am not losing the sight in my right eye.
John M
Barry_Cole

Re: FR-Sky Dual frequency setup and redundancy

Post by Barry_Cole »

I had a 4000 for years. When I got it, it took me 3 days to make a servo move, after that it gradually got easier. Back in those days Mpx were friendly and you could talk to them, if you needed help. When I saw FrSky and Open TX, I swapped over immediately. Programming was much the same, and there was and still is an army of people out there to help, and advise. Added bonus was and still is, that the gear is a fraction of the price of Mpx.

When things need updating it is usually straight forward, and in many cases if you do not want to, you do not have to.

Yes I am a convert.

8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

BC
User avatar
paulj
Posts: 71
Joined: 23 Dec 2018, 17:51
Location: North Wales

Re: FR-Sky Dual frequency setup and redundancy

Post by paulj »

SP250 wrote:
> Yes a much better day today - confirmation from the speciallist that I am
> not losing the sight in my right eye.
> John M

That’s a relief John - I hope the issues you have with your eye are sorted out quickly.

Best regards,
Paul
FrankS
Posts: 275
Joined: 18 Mar 2015, 14:29
Location: Gloucestershire

Re: FR-Sky Dual frequency setup and redundancy

Post by FrankS »

Cliff Evans wrote:
> The new Frsky Access system boasts a better
> range than most on 2.4!

How when everybody is working to the same standard, do the ACCESS receivers have some form of improved signal filtration and amplification? Or is it down to better software reducing the data rate?
User avatar
Cliff Evans
Posts: 1032
Joined: 29 Dec 2019, 15:13
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: FR-Sky Dual frequency setup and redundancy

Post by Cliff Evans »

Both telemetry and control range increased by 40% according to Frsky. If you want details contact them directly as I am not a techy!!
Frsky ACCST compared to ACCESS
Frsky ACCST compared to ACCESS
https://lasercutsailplanes.co.uk
https://patteaklegliders.co.uk
User avatar
jimbo
Posts: 293
Joined: 18 Mar 2015, 21:32
Location: Cornwall

Re: FR-Sky Dual frequency setup and redundancy

Post by jimbo »

Since this is about redundancy, which system would you guys think provides the best reduncancy features, on a large model with split elevators/ailerons etc.

1. Two receivers- one side of the plane on each receiver, each fed from a Lipo or suitable battery.
2. A single receiver but twice the number of channels, provided with a dual lipo feed through a battery backer or similar diode reduncdant set up.

Obviously in case 1, there is double the chance you will lose one side of the plane as its two systems. But in case 2, the single point of failure is the receiver as theres only one.

Swings and roundabouts? Im thinking myself that case 2 is probably the best system? Discuss. Cheers,!

Sorry, if its off topic, mods feel free to move it to a new topic if you think it needs it.
Post Reply