Futaba 2.4 GHZ(12 FGH) V. Spektrum 7 DX

[DebianDog]

smile....yes..hopefully i'll be happy with it... once i receive it ;-)

can you get rx's for the 9303 with less (cheaper) than 9 Channels?

Greets Marcel

You can use any of the Spektrum Rx. I put a $49 6100 in my Foamy.

[derelict]

@ClayK:

How about the R617FS Rx from Futaba (i've bought these for the 12fg for my other helis)... will they do the 2048 Resolution as well? i'm a bit confused as they seem to be more expensive than the 608's ??!?

http://2.4gigahertz.com/modules/modules-receivers.html doesn't state anything about the resolution "compatibility" !!

Greets

Marcel

[DavidH]

Marcel,
When the tranmitter is set in multi channel mode ( G3). It is using 2048 resolution. The 6014 FS and 608 FS use Multi channel mode

For the other receivers you set the tranmitter in 7 ch mode . The you can use 606 FS , 607FS and 617FS receivers.
The quote below is from Krysta at Hobbico/Futaba here in the USA
Please see my edited answer to your original question. We just received word from Futaba Japan over the weekend that the R608FS does in fact do 2048 resolution when used with the TM-14 module.

As for the TM-8 module's failsafe, I will try to get a prototype to my desk to find out the information for you.


Sincerely,
Krysta
Product Development & Support Specialist
Futaba Service Center USA


David

[derelict]

so i will have no 2048 resolution on the other two 617 rx's i've bought? why is that nowhere stated ? :-(

Greets Marcel

[DavidH]

so i will have no 2048 resolution on the other two 617 rx's i've bought? why is that nowhere stated ? :-(

Greets Marcel


Have you seen it stated that there is 2048 resolution with the 617's? Since that receiver comes with the 7C. The 7C does not have a processor that will produce 2048 resolution. Only the 12's and 14 has that capability and they can only do it in G3 mode. Which until the 2.4 ghz recently came out, the 14 channel receiver was the only one that could utilize 2048. Now the 608FS in the 2.4 ghz will be able to utilize it.

David

[derelict]

no it was not stated... i just took a look at the futaba compatibilty page to see if they work... but i never saw something about the supported resolution neither for the 617 nor the 608 and even the 6014 !

so i just bought "weak" rx's for the 12fg.. nice :-( ..smile

marcel

[DavidH]

no it was not stated... i just took a look at the futaba compatibilty page to see if they work... but i never saw something about the supported resolution neither for the 617 nor the 608 and even the 6014 !

so i just bought "weak" rx's for the 12fg.. nice :-( ..smile

marcel


http://2.4gigahertz.com/systems/futk9200.html


Futaba advanced technology allows the R6014FS to be the first 2.4GHz receiver able to utilize all 14 channels. It retains G3 2048 resolution and Futaba Real Time ResponseTM from the 72 MHz version.

http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXRTS7&P=0

David

[derelict]

hopefully i can cancel my current order in time ;-)

Thanks for the information david!

[ClayK]

On 72mhz, only the 14 channel receivers get 2048 resolution. It was actually a nice surprise to hear that something besides the 14 channel would get 2048. On 72mhz, every other receiver is 1024 resolution. I expected the same on 2.4, but was glad to find out that wasn't the case.

[derelict]

lol.... interested in buying two 617 rx's ? ;-) :arggg:

[Trooper Sam]

On 72mhz, only the 14 channel receivers get 2048 resolution. It was actually a nice surprise to hear that something besides the 14 channel would get 2048. On 72mhz, every other receiver is 1024 resolution. I expected the same on 2.4, but was glad to find out that wasn't the case.

Exactly, a pleasant surprise, and an unexpected bonus. I now can save $60 per receiver for the next two I need to buy for my fleet, and still get the same resolution that I had previously believed I'd need to buy a 6014 for.

I can't understand why anybody would be upset about this. Nobody had even begun to hint before this that you'd get 2048 with anything but the 6014, so why get upset when you're told a 617FS won't?

[Pinecone]

You can use any of the Spektrum Rx. I put a $49 6100 in my Foamy.

Shop around, I get them for $41.


Light Flight RC.

[derelict]

smile... because i've just purchased two additional rx's which are not as good as they could be if i bought 608 rx's instead :-)...... so for me it all ends with buying to rx's again... while having the "weak" ones laying arround :-)

Greets Marcel

[Pinecone]

smile....yes..hopefully i'll be happy with it... once i receive it ;-)

can you get rx's for the 9303 with less (cheaper) than 9 Channels?

Greets Marcel

Right now, Horizon only packages it that way. Some retailers may be willing to take the Rx out and substitute it.

Or put it up for sale. I see them advertised at about $140, so that will buy you 3 AR6100s or two AR6200s.

[Pinecone]

You can put in smaller rx's in your model and use them with the x9303, but you won't get 2048 resolution. Only the R921 and the AR9000 get you 2048 resolution with the x9303.

At least for now. :)

Since Spektrum has a print ad that states the Flight Log will work with AR7000s, maybe they will move the 2048 resolution down also.

There was no reason before, since the DX7 isn't capable of 2048 resolution.

[DebianDog]

Shop around, I get them for $41.


Light Flight RC.

Oh I can get them cheaper but I wanted it TODAY. You know how that goes. :wink: It was in my hand and $49.

[ClayK]

At least for now. :)

Since Spektrum has a print ad that states the Flight Log will work with AR7000s, maybe they will move the 2048 resolution down also.

There was no reason before, since the DX7 isn't capable of 2048 resolution.

I underlined/bolded/italicized the operative part of your statement.

Shop around, I get them for $41.


Light Flight RC.

Of course, it's just "crappy" 1024 :) Then again, it is a foamy.....

Oh I can get them cheaper but I wanted it TODAY. You know how that goes. :wink: It was in my hand and $49.

It was after all a hobby shop price and it was instantaneous.

[Trooper Sam]

smile... because i've just purchased two additional rx's which are not as good as they could be if i bought 608 rx's instead :-)...... so for me it all ends with buying to rx's again... while having the "weak" ones laying arround :-)

I'm sorry, I didn't get it the first time. You didn't buy the receivers with the intention of getting 2048, but if you'd somehow known that 2048 would be available on the 608FS, you'd have happily ordered them instead.

Just one of those "I could have had it" moments. :)

[DebianDog]

Just FYI my "crappy" 1024 resolution is like lightning compared to my old 9C on FM.

Also "resolution" is not "speed".

[derelict]

@troopersam:

you hit the nail on its head ;-).... that was what i wanted to say ;-).... i just wrote the guys from espritmodel a mail.... they might be able to catch the package at the postoffice and send me 608 instead :-)

if not... i live with the 1024 resolution (at least for now ;-) as debiandog stated it wouldn't be that "bad" :-)

greets

marcel

[ClayK]

Just FYI my "crappy" 1024 resolution is like lightning compared to my old 9C on FM.

Also "resolution" is not "speed".
Who said anything about resolution being equal to speed? Did I miss a post in the thread?

Any other radio than your 9C would have been better. Fact is, it's the processing and latency that is the 9C's drawback.

However, if you want a "connected" feeling it's part latency and part resolution. If your 9C transmits slow, even at 2048 resolution any other radio that's quicker will be better than it. Point was, 1024 resolution isn't that important in a small foamy. 1024 resolution isn't worth a damn in a 450 size helicopter either. Unless you are flying a 50/600 size or larger, you aren't going to notice the resolution (at least that has been my experience).

[Pinecone]

1) Since I don't work for Horizon, I can only surmise.

2) I fly a 6100 in my Trex 450, but even the 6200 and 7000 in my EP8 and Hurricane 550 are still only 1024.

3) He didn't say that the first time. I get them in two days (order today, on my doorstep the day after tomorrow) no shipping and no tax. But if you need it now, you pay the price.

4) Right, resolution has nothing to do with speed/latency. But can you really move the stick 1/2048th of the motion range? Or even 1/1024th?

[ClayK]

2) I fly a 6100 in my Trex 450, but even the 6200 and 7000 in my EP8 and Hurricane 550 are still only 1024.

3) He didn't say that the first time. I get them in two days (order today, on my doorstep the day after tomorrow) no shipping and no tax. But if you need it now, you pay the price.

4) Right, resolution has nothing to do with speed/latency. But can you really move the stick 1/2048th of the motion range? Or even 1/1024th?

No one said that 1024 isn't adequate.

Yeah, I noticed that as well, that's why I corrected it for him :) :happyd

I can "feel" a difference between a 1024 9Z and a 2048 12/14. I can also feel a slight difference on 1024 8 channel rx and a 2048 14 channel using the 14. Minor corrections are just that, minor corrections. The flip side is expo. My 14 channel model has more expo in it than the 8 channel model. Both are TRex 600's. :dontknow

[DavidH]

I can "feel" a difference between a 1024 9Z and a 2048 12/14. I can also feel a slight difference on 1024 8 channel rx and a 2048 14 channel using the 14.

When PCM first came out. The resolution was 512. LOL I know one well known pilot, he used the 512 for a while and then went back to PPM. He said he could see the model indexing when moving with the 512. LOL He didn't fly PCM till the 1028 was introduced.

David

[Pinecone]

Is that resolution or latency you are feeling?

Let's see, I just checked a Tx and the stick travel at the tip is 1 5/8". So 512 resolution is 0.0032 inches of stick movement per step. 1024 is 0.0016 inches, and 2048 is 0.0008 inches.