Xtreme Power Systems

[Tom Fiddler]

"So does that mean that the customers that paid money for the product is also the Beta Testers?"

Yes David, Just like all people who get the new stuff first. There have been upgrades to the 14mz, the G3 Rx's and the Spectrum systems. The DX7 will sometimes turn on with it's screen upside down and backwards??????? But that is OK???

Futaba has had MANY lockouts with the G3 before the software upgrade..was that OK????
When Futaba finally get's there modules out, there will be changes to them also.

Please don't call the XPS kettle black and ignore the photoshopped pictures from Futaba and Specktrum.

My $200 XPS works great..that's all I really know. Lets see who else can match performance for the dollar.

[ClayK]

"So does that mean that the customers that paid money for the product is also the Beta Testers?"

Yes David, Just like all people who get the new stuff first. There have been upgrades to the 14mz, the G3 Rx's and the Spectrum systems. The DX7 will sometimes turn on with it's screen upside down and backwards??????? But that is OK???

I have no problem with the general public testing a component to some degree.

Futaba has had MANY lockouts with the G3 before the software upgrade..was that OK????
When Futaba finally get's there modules out, there will be changes to them also.

Uhm, lockouts? The lockouts are caused by RF generating parts. For example, bearings, improper placement of avionic components and improper maintenance/troubleshooting. Just as a point, I've flown G3 receivers in everything I have and I have only experienced a lockout contributed to one problem, bad bearings. I've put 12+ gallons through my Raptor 50 with no problems (until my bearings went bad). I've put 1 1/2 gallons of gas through my Spectra with no problems. I've put hundreds of flights on my TRex's with no problems. The point I'm making is the problem is not with the receiver, but with the mechanic. Improper Preventative Maintenance Checks and Services (PMCS) or electronics placement (receiver close to an ignition point or near a regulator or RF generating point) or not properly troubleshooting a lockout/failsafe issue. I know what your impression is about the G3 receiver, but I've been to a lot of fun fly's and the lockouts that I've seen can be attributed to my previously listed reasons. FYI, the "fix" that Futaba made for their G3's, lowers the sensitivity, making them a hair slower. Since I and other pilots haven't had any unexplained lockouts, I would rather keep the performance level and perform maintenance or troubleshooting to rectify any problem. I'm not lazy.

Please don't call the XPS kettle black and ignore the photoshopped pictures from Futaba and Specktrum.

What photoshopped pictures from Futaba? I was not aware that Futaba's marketing photos had any photoshopping done (I may have missed it, but not likely). I was aware of Spektrum's initial marketing photos. If you can point me to the improper Futaba photos, I'll retract my statement and apologize. From what I saw of Futaba's PR on their product, it looked exactly like it did at the Toledo show, no wires going to trainer ports, etc. However, let's keep it to apples and apples instead of bring in polar bears to the conversation (loose reference to adding unsubstantiated content to the debate with the purpose of "proving your point").

My $200 XPS works great..that's all I really know. Lets see who else can match performance for the dollar.

There is no question about the value, there is a question as to the "questionable" marketing and comparisons to the competitor systems without backing up the claims. The point is, they are a new manufacturer. There are dozens of helicopters that are inexpensive that seem great at first, not trying to defunct your statement this time, just trying to qualify it with a point of view that puts your statement on a level playing field. If you like it and you don't want to take into account any other products, you are entitled to that. I prefer to be an informed consumer.

[kgfly]

Apparently the initial promotional photos of the 12FG/2.4 had been modified to show the antenna mounted in the conventional location. This is misleading since in fact there is no dedicated 12FG/2.4, it is the stock 12FG with the 14mz 2.4 Tx-module, which of course has the antenna on the module and not the top of the Tx. I don't have a link to the photos but the discussion of this misleading marketing and it's similarity to the Spektrum snafu was widespread.

[kgfly]

OK, here you go: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_5669600/anchors_5785589/mpage_2/key_/anchor/tm.htm#5785589 (look at posts 47, 49 and 50)

Certainly if you go to the Futaba website the current photos show a module-based solution for the 12FG: http://2.4gigahertz.com/systems/futk9200.html

Disappointing that both the industry leaders deemed it necessary to use misleading marketing collateral, and incredibly stupid of them to think it wouldn't be exposed and communicated very, very quickly. It seems they don't understand the Internet age yet.

[ClayK]

Agreed to some degree, I was talking about the modules themselves, not necessarily the radio. Everyone (sic) was been concerned with using a 2.4 module with their existing system. I could have cared less about buying another radio, my focus was on the modules themselves. My particular point was on comparing the Spektrum modules, the Futaba modules and the XPS modules. Antenna placement on new radios wasn't part of my equation. I was trying to focus solely on the modules.

Thanks for the pictures. I do agree that misleading marketing is inexcusable, you have a point concerning the new radio from Futaba.

[Danal Estes]

You know, I've always had a question about the spektrum photos. I saw all this in real time as it happened... and what I saw was a person who was an authorized Spektrum 'alpha' tester, but was NOT a employee, that obtained permission from Spektrum to talk about their alpha test experiences and as part of their post, that person posted 'chopped' photos. Spektrum (the company) then immediately reqested those photos be withdrawn. (For which they caught even more grief).

So, from what I saw, Spektrum never posted modified photos, and got them off the web as soon as they discovered they were out there.

Did I miss something?

[kgfly]

Danal I think what you missed was that he indicated (by my reading of his posts) that he was told by Spektrum not to reveal the connection via the trainer port. It was never clear (too me) where the faked photos came from but my impression was they were from Spektrum (since some of them were also on the Spektrum website) and they were only removed when the deception was exposed.

[Danal Estes]

Danal I think what you missed was that he indicated (by my reading of his posts) that he was told by Spektrum not to reveal the connection via the trainer port. It was never clear (too me) where the faked photos came from but my impression was they were from Spektrum (since some of them were also on the Spektrum website) and they were only removed when the deception was exposed.

I was live that night as events unfolded and never saw the pics on any Spektrum site. I could be wrong...

I was under the impression that 14MZ trainer port was prototype only and they intend to ship without it; that is, the module would get signal from a bay pin. So, he was told not to talk about the prototype setup...

So all misstatements I ever saw were by a non-Spektrum and when the official Spektrum people corrected those statements, they caught grief for it. The various "Spektrum was bad" posts all make it seem as though Spektrum themselves tried something, got caught, and withdrew. That's not what I saw.

But, given the passion in the various 2.4G threads, I expect to see all kinds of distortions and spin. Lots of things have been said about XPS, Spektrum and even Futaba that are verifiably untrue. It's often best just to let it slide.

I was just curious what was other people's (read: the more balanced folks here on the hf, vs. some of the truely biased nutziods on RCG) perception of that series of events. :)


As for physical reality, I've had a prototype Spektrum module in my hand and flown it in a 9303. No trainer port. Can't comment on the 14MZ, haven't seen one yet.

We'll really find out if/when they ship...

[Pinecone]

Jim has stated several times that they are NOT using an off the shelf Xbee module. And that they were using a propriary antenna.

WRT the 6 ch park RX, it uses a ptach antenna rather than a spike antenna, and the limit quoted is for full two way communications. The park Rx will operate out further than that, but will not be able to communicate with the Tx for telemetry or to coordinate a freq hop if required.

[Tom Fiddler]

Danal, the spektrum web site had a 14 mz module pictured without the trainer connection until I spoke up on RR about it. after a few PM's and Paul Beard calling me early one morning, that picture now has the trainer cord back on. We also talked about the other pictures . Yes he knew about it (requested it), got caught and pulled the pictures that night.
I like my XPS system and it works fine. I would just like to see people look at all the manufacturers with the same critical eye they use for XPS.
I also was sent a Spektrum module for my 9C but could not try it in my heli as I need channel 8 (4th channel on my CCPM) and was sent a 7 ch rx.
I'm sure it will work OK also.

[Danal Estes]

Danal, the spektrum web site had a 14 mz module pictured without the trainer connection until I spoke up on RR about it. after a few PM's and Paul Beard calling me early one morning, that picture now has the trainer cord back on. We also talked about the other pictures . Yes he knew about it (requested it), got caught and pulled the pictures that night.
I like my XPS system and it works fine. I would just like to see people look at all the manufacturers with the same critical eye they use for XPS.
I also was sent a Spektrum module for my 9C but could not try it in my heli as I need channel 8 (4th channel on my CCPM) and was sent a 7 ch rx.
I'm sure it will work OK also.

Ah, thank you Tom, facts!! Now I know that they did post the photos.

Thanks again.

[tinnit0!]

Has anyone tried the XPS in a Trex 450? I have a 450SE with CF and wonder how the Rx will work in that enviroment.

Can you place the RX so that the antenna fits?

Will the CF disturb the signal ang give glitches?

[kgfly]

Yes there are report on the "XPS Actual Flight Results" threads on RCG of using the 8ch Rx in a T450. Not sure how it was mounted. The 6ch Rx will be a much easier fit (smaller, lighter, end plugs and no external antenna) and is due out in a few weeks (but you never quite know with XPS until it actually is released).

[human21354]

Hi k


Do you know if or when xps or futaba will have 2.4 modules and receivers for the fx-40 radio?


thanks,

m

[kgfly]

XPS are saying the universal module will be out in a couple of weeks but they have always missed their targets in the past so I wouldn't count on it, but maybe Jun/Jul. It will connect via the trainer port.

I imagine that the FX-40 uses the same Tx-modules as the 14mz so Futaba's native 2.4 module is meant to come out "this summer", as is Spektrum's (which also connects via the trainer port).

[human21354]

XPS are saying the universal module will be out in a couple of weeks but they have always missed their targets in the past so I wouldn't count on it, but maybe Jun/Jul. It will connect via the trainer port.

I imagine that the FX-40 uses the same Tx-modules as the 14mz so Futaba's native 2.4 module is meant to come out "this summer", as is Spektrum's (which also connects via the trainer port).


Kenneth...Futaba says the 14 mz will not work in the fx-40, and xps says their the same of their fx-40 module...

thus, hoping I am not an orphan...


michael

[kgfly]

Michael,

That's very odd. Does the FX-40 have a trainer port that output PPM ? Is the plug the same as any other Futaba Tx ? If so I cannot imagine why the XPS universal module would not work. If the FX-40 tx-module is a different shape then maybe it is just mechanical fit that is the problem ?

[aramsdell]

I fly some Aerial Photg. I got this very promising reply to a question regarding the 2.4 freq. and conflicts with video downlinks on same band.

Alan Ramsdell wrote:

> When will you support video downlink from the air?

Never.


> If not soon, how
> does the XPwr Receiver handle a 200 mw 2.4 ghz video downlinkwith say a
> 12 inch separation of the two devices. I want to use a downlink. 2.4
> Ghz is the easiest. Your competitors in the Spread Spectrum arena have
> bad problems with a transmitter swamping their receivers. What kind of
> range could I get with that 200 mw Tx on a heli. I would like to get 7
> to 8 hundred feet with no glitches.

We have no idea what the limitation is for 2.4Ghz video with our
product. We have done limited tests with it, and it works with a 1 watt
transmitter, if it is separated by at least 8 inches of space from the
receiver.

[kgfly]

Odds are it won't work too well, the video transmitters are wideband and likely to swamp the Rx. However at only 200mW you might get away with it given the non-linear nature of the problem. I think you will find this detailed test of a 500mW video Tx interesting:

Discussion - Ground Test: ExtremeLink & 2.4GHz video downlink

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background:
With the recent release of ExtremeLink RC systems, a big question for me has been whether or not they co-exist with 2.4GHz video downlinks. I have a plane that I fly via FPV (First Person View) using a live onboard video downlink and a ground station receiver with virtual reality goggles. It’s basically like flying from inside the cockpit. I have been eagerly awaiting the release of ExtremeLink RC modules. The specs are VERY impressive… 5 mile range, bi-directional communication, error correction, etc. The big question though is… Does it work with other 2.4GHz equipment located on the same plane?

The Test:
I finally found an opportunity to do a hands-on test last weekend. I met a guy named Mike (aka RCMustang) at a local flying club last weekend, and he has just recently purchased the ExtremeLink gear for several of his planes. I explained what I’m doing with video, and he was almost as eager to do some testing with the two systems as I was. So we found an opportunity when nobody was on the field and set up to test it out.

The Setup:
Mike had his ExtremeLink system installed on a 3D flyer. He was using a JR radio (9303 I think?) with the appropriate XPS module. I temporarily attached my video camera and 2.4GHz video transmitter to his plane. The transmitter I am using is made by Lawmate and has an advertised RF output of 500mW. It was located approximately 8-10” away from the ExtremeLink receiver (the two antennas were orthogonal to each other). This would be a typical installation in a small to medium sized model. The video transmitter was set to transmit on 2.410GHz. It was powered up and then the ExtremeLink was turned on.

The Results:
To start off, Mike did a range check with the ExtremeLink system. I am not too familiar with the process on this system, so hopefully he will chime in here with any additional information I forgot. From what I remember him saying, you remove the antenna and press a button on the module which drops it to minimum power output. Then do a range check as you would with a 72MHz system. We had a third person pick up the plane and walk it away from us. At about 25 feet, Mike started getting glitching and/or intermittent contact with the plane. I saw the motor bump over a couple times which did not correspond to movement of the throttle stick. At this point I was looking into the video goggles, and was getting crystal clear video. After a couple of minutes of testing at this range, Mike increased it to full power and re-installed the antenna. Everything seemed fine at that point. So the guy walked the plane away from us till he got about 150 feet away. I had perfect video, and never during the testing did I experience any break-up, snow, fading, etc. It appeared however, that the ExtremeLink was “lagging” a little. Mike mentioned the control surfaces seemed a little sluggish. I’ve never experienced such behavior with 72MHz gear. Either it works or it doesn’t (glitching, etc.). However, since the ExtremeLink is doing error correction, etc., it seems plausible that if it was in the presence of serious RF interference (2.4GHz video gear), this could possibly delay the packets of data being sent back and forth. BTW, I should also mention that Mike flew a lot of planes over the weekend and NEVER experienced any range or glitching issues with his ExtremeLink systems.

Conclusions:
Well, unfortunately, it looks like high powered 2.4GHz equipment operating in very close proximity interferes to some extent with the ExtremeLink RC system. I’m not able to say exactly how much it is affecting it. But Mike and I are pretty confident that range is reduced by a significant amount. He even said he would not feel comfortable flying the model further than 1000 feet with the video gear onboard, as tested. I have heard people mention that video transmitters will shoot down Spektrum users. And I have also heard cases where there were no problems, as long as the two were separated (ie: not on the same plane). My hopes were that the ExtremeLink would coexist with a video transmitter. Since it is using much more sophisticated technology than the Spektrum, it seemed possible. My guess is even though the video transmitter might be operating on a different frequency from the ExtremeLink, it’s still in the same band. And the 500mW power and close proximity just overwhelms the ExtremeLink receiver. Perhaps at larger ranges everything would be better. And so an additional test to perform would be to remove the video gear from the plane and position it perhaps 20-30’ away and retry. This would give a good indication if the ExtremeLink can live with a video transmitter in the vicinity. This would be good to know, because I’d hate to shoot someone else down just because I’m running video on my plane.

Anyway, I thought this would be good info to post. If Mike is willing (and I think he would be), I’d like to continue our testing. If anyone has suggestions on things that should be looked at, please let me (or Mike) know.

Brian

BTW, I’ve heard of a 900MHz version in the works. That may just be the ticket for those of us that are running 2.4GHz video gear. Anxiously awaiting… There is some discussion in the rest of the thread but the quote above has the key points.

[aramsdell]

Thanks Kenneth, I'm probably going to get the 2.4 setup anyway. I love the Evo 9 on 72 mhz too. I have the frequ. scanner as well as the synth module. Either way my new camera ship will have the downlink and the Evo 9 in one form or the other. Have you seen it? See Swift 16 driven tail post in Century section. My own hack. Radio going in now.

[Pinecone]

That is why XPS has siad they are working on a 900MHz version. :)

[eheliflyer]

I just got the XPS and I am more that satisfied with it. I have it on my JR 9303 and it has that "connected" feel very close to the feel of the DX-7. I love it because I get to keep my 9303 which I love and I don't have to worry about being shot down by some idiot turning on their Tx with the same channel that I am on. I am still trying to get used to the feel of being that "connected". For the Price you just can't go wrong. :smokin:

[aramsdell]

I'll still be trying the two together, XPS and 2.4 downlink. Im going to set up the downlink with a switch that one of the servos(tilt) will push off in a failsafe situation.

[eheliflyer]

Had 3 more flights on my Razor and Lepton with the XPS System and I am Loving it. It was the best investment I have done in a while! Absolutely no problems what so ever. I fly in a soccer field close to my house and less than a mile away is a RC Plane club with all grumpy old fogies cruising their planes around and now I don't have to worry about shooting one of them down or vice versa.