Million model radio

[SQRT(-2)]

The settings for a model can be printed out into a paragraph, so we are not talking about even a whole kb for a model. 1 Gig of ram is 1,000,000 kb, and you can get a gig flash drive (with your own logo on it) for three bucks! So I reason that a manufacturer could have a Million model radio my only adding five bucks to the cost.

"My radio has 8 models."
"My radio has 24 models!"
"My radio has a MILLION models!"

I understand we don't need that many, but it illustrates how odd it is to me that we have these arbitrary limits on the radios.

[edhall]

Yea, I just put a 32G card in my 18MZ, but EVERY radio should have at least 16G space, and some form of SD card if you ask me.

[mkovalcson]

I agree about the cost of memory being dirt cheap.

As it is both of my radios have SD cards that can hold as many radios as I could ever want. I have 30 to pick from at any time, but in a few seconds I could swap any setting off the SD card that I want from multi Gb cards.

[CrayonBox]

I would say it has a lot to do with the power of the microprocessor and the internal RAM, the radios ability to actually address so many Data records.

Upgrading internal memory, CPU and whatever else is necessary to do this obviously adds to the cost of building a TXr.
Then we are talking about increased battery usage (shorter time between recharges), or larger battery, larger regulation, weight, heat etc etc.

All engineering is a design compromise for the purpose it is intended for.

That's my thinking anyway.

[SQRT(-2)]

I would probably throw a gig into the radio and put a sd slot or the like on the side for upgrading and sharing information.

As far as processing power and such goes, I have a hundred and twenty dollar camera that can access Gigabites of pictures and video, allow me to pick from them with thumbnales, Rotate them, rename them, all that.

And as I said, I was being crazy with a million models, heck a hundred or so would be great. Just enough so if you are working on settings you can make copies of your model to change, backup models encase you mistakenly change them, that sort of thing.

[edhall]

Heck an Atmel chip could do that for $2.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[N4HHA]

Originally Posted by edhall

Heck an Atmel chip could do that for $2.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Also using a RAZR to read this. Just need an empty TX box with a RF deck to plug your smartphone into. Tweak your buddies settings via 4g half a world away.

[Andy01]

Originally Posted by SQRT(-2)

The settings for a model can be printed out into a paragraph, so we are not talking about even a whole kb for a model.

Actually the model files for my 11X are 10kB each, so only 100 000 models on a 1Gb card

It does take ages to copy between the Tx memory and the SD card though - like a few minutes, so not just a simple case of swapping to the card. Must be the slowest processor since the 1960s.

Colin

[Error401]

why not just put bluetooth in the Tx, and make "an app for that"? Share models from Tx to Tx, or back up or restore models from your iPhone or Droid.

Another thing, if you have a million models loaded in a Tx, how are you gonna locate the right one (data management)? That'll take some kind of search routine in the Tx software. Suddenly you're not flying with a transmitter, you're flying with a shiny database server.

/just sying
//while watching an SQL query run.

[skunkworx]

Originally Posted by N4HHA

Also using a RAZR to read this. Just need an empty TX box with a RF deck to plug your smartphone into. Tweak your buddies settings via 4g half a world away.

Now that's one heck of a concept! I like the idea of having an app or something that will allow you to file share one model to the next. ESPECIALLY in the case of buddy-boxing. If you've ever done it, you'll know that you have to either match up the settings 100% or you have to fly with the other guy's radio which to me is inhibitive of good learning because each person has a comfort zone and different size hands. Being able to upload the model as a spare, bind it to my radio, and fly off would be great and then the model can just stick around on my TX or get deleted when I feel the need (I have more of other people's duplicates on my TX than models I actually own myself).

Other than that, I like the idea of either doing a data backup or simply being able to help a new person out by sharing what you've got and let them tweak to their desire. If they jack it all up, **blip** resend the file and done!

I read something not long ago about the true costs of adding extra channels to a TX or RX and it's pretty miniscule (pennies on the dollar) but we get charged up the wahzoo for each added one because they know we'll pay for it (or at least some people will, I know I won't). Seems like all the stuff that could be added to future radios would both bring the total cost down and make them a whole lot better to use.

[cortesoft]

Originally Posted by CrayonBox

I would say it has a lot to do with the power of the microprocessor and the internal RAM, the radios ability to actually address so many Data records.

Upgrading internal memory, CPU and whatever else is necessary to do this obviously adds to the cost of building a TXr.
Then we are talking about increased battery usage (shorter time between recharges), or larger battery, larger regulation, weight, heat etc etc.

All engineering is a design compromise for the purpose it is intended for.

That's my thinking anyway.

I am pretty sure it has nothing to do with hardware constraints... they don't even make hardware with that small of addressing space anymore.

My guess is the reason is twofold:

1) Creating a good interface to access that many models. You would need to create a better model selection system.

2) (and probably the main reason) They want to keep it limited so they can continue to sell upgrades. Each new model can advertise having more model storage capacity while not actually having to change anything physically.

Intel has a practice like this; they will sell multi-core chips that have some of the cores deactivated. You can pay them more after you buy the chip to have them activate it. The reason is that while they want to be able to offer higher performance for more money, it is actually cheaper just to make all of their chips have all the cores and still price them differently. Lame.

[racekarl]

Intel has a practice like this; they will sell multi-core chips that have some of the cores deactivated. You can pay them more after you buy the chip to have them activate it. The reason is that while they want to be able to offer higher performance for more money, it is actually cheaper just to make all of their chips have all the cores and still price them differently. Lame.

There is a grain of truth to what you wrote, but it's mostly nonsense. I've never heard of the ability to purchase access to additional cores after purchase and I've been in that field for almost two decades.

What they DO do is something much more interesting called "binning." You're right in the sense that many (most?) CPUs come from the same die which contains all the cores in the case of a modern multi-core CPU. Then they run each batch through a huge testing apparatus that puts the CPUs under heavy load and runs a battery of tests. CPUs are then separated (placed in to logical "bins", hence the name) by how early in the test they failed and what part of the test they failed. Generally, this ends up being reflected in the rated speed (in Ghz) of the CPU - CPUs that got too hot during testing are rated for lower speeds so they stay cool. It's possible that an entire core fails, in which case a CPU with 4 cores on the die, one of which is dead, is sold as a 2 core CPU.

So yes, they all look the same under a microscope but you would not be able to reactivate the disabled parts without sacrificing reliability.

Most importantly, it's not lame at all, it's very cool and it ultimately saves you money by giving you the option of spending less for a lower-rated CPU that still serves your needs.

[cortesoft]

Originally Posted by racekarl

There is a grain of truth to what you wrote, but it's mostly nonsense. I've never heard of the ability to purchase access to additional cores after purchase and I've been in that field for almost two decades.

What they DO do is something much more interesting called "binning." You're right in the sense that many (most?) CPUs come from the same die which contains all the cores in the case of a modern multi-core CPU. Then they run each batch through a huge testing apparatus that puts the CPUs under heavy load and runs a battery of tests. CPUs are then separated (placed in to logical "bins", hence the name) by how early in the test they failed and what part of the test they failed. Generally, this ends up being reflected in the rated speed (in Ghz) of the CPU - CPUs that got too hot during testing are rated for lower speeds so they stay cool. It's possible that an entire core fails, in which case a CPU with 4 cores on the die, one of which is dead, is sold as a 2 core CPU.

So yes, they all look the same under a microscope but you would not be able to reactivate the disabled parts without sacrificing reliability.

Most importantly, it's not lame at all, it's very cool and it ultimately saves you money by giving you the option of spending less for a lower-rated CPU that still serves your needs.

Did a quick bit of research, and I might have been wrong about them unlocking extra cores... it looks like the only offer they had was to unlock some extra L3 cache: http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/18/i...can-already-d/

I also have been in the field for a couple of decades, and have seen countless tricks to get you to pay for things multiple times, but something about this rubs me the wrong way.

It clearly has nothing to do with 'binning', which is a practice I am also aware of (and don't think is wrong).

Also, I thought it was funny to get the email from Horizon today offering their new '50 model' transmitter. I have a feeling the chipset and onboard storage didn't even change much (if at all).