Futaba site

[DavidH]

http://2.4gigahertz.com/

[ZX11]

Looks cool.

Not sure about that channel shifting technique. Almost sounds like Futaba thinks they are going to use all 80 available channels each time it gets turned on. It better check the channel for use before transmiting on it. Any transmitter that uses all the channels at once or in sequence is better known as a jammer. See Futaba join the 2.4 Ghz party but still have to wait for and check out the frequency pin (for 2.4Ghz)

[DavidH]

There is more than 80 frequencies available in the 2.4 ghz band.
Futaba is constantly rolling frequencies just like a lot of other devices that are radio controlled do.
The radio has been used. It was used at the E Fest last weekend with no problems.

David

[Danal Estes]

Originally Posted by ZX11

Looks cool.

Not sure about that channel shifting technique. Almost sounds like Futaba thinks they are going to use all 80 available channels each time it gets turned on. It better check the channel for use before transmiting on it. Any transmitter that uses all the channels at once or in sequence is better known as a jammer. See Futaba join the 2.4 Ghz party but still have to wait for and check out the frequency pin (for 2.4Ghz)

"Channel" is a very slippery term in Spread Spectrum parlance. SS devices see anyone not on their "chipping code" as noise, even if on the same "Channel". For example, setting up a building full of 802.11 Access Points? Their channels will overlap. No problems.

Much more compelling example: E Fest had several Fut and several Spektrum in the air at the same time. No issues.

[DarkWombat]

Well it's great to see that Futaba is coming out with 2.4 ghz products. I've heard rumors (which will be dispelled come the end of this month) that Spektrum will be making an announcement and will be releasing 2.4 ghz modules for JR and Futaba radios.

The problem with Futaba developing their own 2.4 ghz system is that this seems like a forshadowing that each radio manufacturer will have their own system and, like with PCM, each one will work differently and there will be no compatibility with each company's proprietary system. Something needs to be done SOON to make sure that this does not happen before we have ten different DSM systems that all work differently from each other.

[DebianDog]

Cooooome on 8 or 9 channel

[lennydude]

Originally Posted by DavidH

http://2.4gigahertz.com/

Wow................That looks great David And the street price for that entry level system is right on the mark..................!

We all knew it was just a matter of time B4 Futaba got into this market..............things are going to get interesting over the next year

Lenny

[BarracudaHockey]

I have a feeling its going to be exactly like PCM with each manufacturer having thier own encoding scheme.

[ClayK]

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey

I have a feeling its going to be exactly like PCM with each manufacturer having thier own encoding scheme.

Isn't that a good thing? If they all have their own encoding and they channel hop, I would think you get more out of the band than a fixed transmission with similar encoding.

[ZX11]

SS devices see anyone not on their "chipping code" as noise, even if on the same "Channel".

So I will still get my data packets while futaba noise is on the freq (channel, whatever)? I find it hard to believe that two unrelated transmitters can share the freq unless they cooperate and time share it. I have equipement that shares the freq by cooperating with each other (TDMA). However, interupting a router for a split sec and interupting my helicopter a foot off the floor for a split sec are two different things. We know futabas definition of speed is slower than Spektrums definition of speed :wink:

Much more compelling example: E Fest had several Fut and several Spektrum in the air at the same time. No issues.

Ahh, if it works it works. Just pissed that Futaba designed to hop to used channels instead of just staying on a couple of unused channels.

[MarkD]

Originally Posted by ZX11

Ahh, if it works it works. Just pissed that Futaba designed to hop to used channels instead of just staying on a couple of unused channels.

The rules etc. layed out for 2.4Ghz state that any Tx must not occupy a channel that is already in use. The Tx will see that a channel is being occupied and skip it and move onto the next one and so on. It doesn't use used channels

[Danal Estes]

Originally Posted by MarkD

The rules etc. layed out for 2.4Ghz state that any Tx must not occupy a channel that is already in use. The Tx will see that a channel is being occupied and skip it and move onto the next one and so on. It doesn't use used channels

With greatest respect to MarkD, while this statement is oft repeated (it is even on Spektrum's web site), it's not really true. One way to see that it's not even a meaningful statement: What is a "Channel" on 2.4Ghz ISM band? Spektrum thinks there are 80 of them... 802.11 networking standards define 14 of them... of which only 1-11 are usable in the USA... and THEY OVERLAP!! So, there is no true definition of "Channel" on 2.4.

[MarkD]

OK so the wording "Channel" is still used due to the FM system. The 2.4GHz is still fixed to a certain freq bandwidth so why not channels? - be it your microwave, cellphone, RC heli - all operate on set(be it changing) freq's

What I am trying to say here is that the Futaba, XPS, Spektrum systems cannot/should not lock onto a freq already used by another transmiter
In reply to ZX11 - Futaba won't use an already used freq(Channel) it will see that it's unavailable an move on

[ClayK]

Originally Posted by ZX11

So I will still get my data packets while futaba noise is on the freq (channel, whatever)? I find it hard to believe that two unrelated transmitters can share the freq unless they cooperate and time share it. I have equipement that shares the freq by cooperating with each other (TDMA). However, interupting a router for a split sec and interupting my helicopter a foot off the floor for a split sec are two different things. We know futabas definition of speed is slower than Spektrums definition of speed :wink:

Ahh, if it works it works. Just pissed that Futaba designed to hop to used channels instead of just staying on a couple of unused channels.

First, if the "noise" doesn't affect other transmitters because of the coding, what does it matter? How can you find it hard to believe that two transmitters occupying the same band won't crosstalk? I would think that this has been proven with cell phones and the newer home wireless phones. Both share the same bands (not with each other, but within their respective class) and they have no crossover. I don't pick up other peoples cell phone conversations with my cellphone and I don't pick up houses using wireless phones anymore. Wonder why that is...?
Second, how is Futaba's definition of speed slower than Spektrums definition, example please. The 12z and 14mz are two of the fastest radios out there.
Third, there is a code transmitted with the packet of data. If the code is not the same code expected by the RX, it's ignores the rest as "noise". This would also be applicable to your second statement. It doesn't matter what traffic is on the channel, if it doesn't have the auth code for the TX/RX it ignores it. Why would you be "pissed that Futaba designed to hop"? Obviously the RF engineers that designed it seem to think that's it's applicability is more successful than a direct, constant link. If it works and you don't know the difference, what's to complain about?

[ZX11]

What I am trying to say here is that the Futaba, XPS, Spektrum systems cannot/should not lock onto a freq already used by another transmiter
In reply to ZX11 - Futaba won't use an already used freq(Channel) it will see that it's unavailable an move on

That is cool then. Makes sense that FCC hasn't changed so much that they allow interference.

ClayK said,

How can you find it hard to believe that two transmitters occupying the same band won't crosstalk?

First, Band and Freq are two seperate things. I was talking about frequencies. UHF aircraft band has room for plenty of transmitters at the same time. But you won't see two transmitters on 225.000Mhz at the same time. You don't pick up other's phone conversations because you are either on a different frequency in the band or you have a different slice of time on that frequency.
Second, the 9C radio is Futaba's speed king in the sub $million dollar radio class :wink: But I am glad the 14mz can almost keep up with the spektrums. I kid...I kid. I guess a 14mz is great, if a little glitchy.
Third, if the futaba jumped on my channel and my receiver ignored it then while the futaba is on the freq my transmissions won't be heard. I know that looks like noise to the receiver, but it had better stop long enough to get a good data packet thru from my transmitter. Not an issue really since like Mark said, the FCC won't let you jump on a frequency in use.

As younguns, my friends and I used a signal generator with 10watts on 94 mhz to jam out a country radio station. It only affected our building. Sorta anyway. The listeners in the building could tell (without packet ID) that we weren't the country station, but they still couldn't hear the country music they wanted. We just gave them noise (1000hz tone). A goverment office tracked our antenna and told us what the penalties could be for hopping on that freq. They weren't even the FCC.

[ClayK]

It's no secret that the 9c is slow, it's the processing inside.

Cellphones use the same band and the same frequency. You don't pick up other conversations. Analog phones had issue with noise, digital do not. One of the reasons why we have dropped calls today on a digital network is because there is too much co-channel and adjacent channel traffic. When I say "too much", I mean a lot of traffic (hundreds). The point I'm trying to make is, co-channel habitation by the signal would require hundreds of independent signals to cause damage to any one of the single signals in that channel.

How is the 14mz glitchy? I've had it for almost a year and haven't had one problem with the radio. In fact, just about everyone I know either has a 12z or a 14mz and only one person had a problem. The one person with a problem, was a stick pot. In fact when I fly anyone elses radio, regardless of the manufacturer, their radio feels slow and I don't feel connected to the model.

Third, your transmissions would be heard. In order for your RX to ignore the transmissions, the channel would have to be saturated with noise. Saturated, not the occasional channel hop transmission that has it's on id tag sent in the packet. The whole purpose of Spread Spectrum technology is to ignore packets that don't have the appropriate id.
First, they occupy more than one channel at a time. Second, they use an encoding so only the RX and TX know where they are and where they will be along with encapsulating the traffic for only one recipient.

Your example simple displays a noise generator. You saturated the RF environment, albeit only for a short range, on a single channel, single transmission platform. Radio does not use spread spectrum technology, so comparing each is like comparing polar bears and bunnies. They might both be animals but they are different in every other way.

[Danal Estes]

Originally Posted by MarkD

OK so the wording "Channel" is still used due to the FM system. The 2.4GHz is still fixed to a certain freq bandwidth so why not channels? - be it your microwave, cellphone, RC heli - all operate on set(be it changing) freq's

What I am trying to say here is that the Futaba, XPS, Spektrum systems cannot/should not lock onto a freq already used by another transmiter
In reply to ZX11 - Futaba won't use an already used freq(Channel) it will see that it's unavailable an move on

Completely agree that they listen before they transmit and pick the cleanest spot. This is a great feature/implementation.

But...

The original statement was "The rules etc. layed out for 2.4Ghz state that any Tx must not occupy a channel that is already in use." The "rules" do not state this. They can't as there is no "rule" definition of "channel". Further, while Spectrum and Futaba do 'listen before transmit' (XPS - We'll see if they ever ship), 802.11 APs do not. 802.11 APs are fully rule compliant, they are pre-configed for "channel", and each of their "channels" occupies the same bandwidth as several of, say, Spektrum's "channels".

Again respectfully, if you believe the rules state this, can you provide a link to the FCC site where this appears?



Summary: Agree that Spectrum/Futaba listen before transmit and attempt to pick the clearest spot (channel). Disagree that there is any FCC rule that mandates this.

[ZX11]

Cellphones use the same band and the same frequency. You don't pick up other conversations.

Cell phones are a network. They share the frequency by taking turns on it. No big thing, we know it works.

How is the 14mz glitchy? I've had it for almost a year and haven't had one problem with the radio.

I kid. Easy to poke fun at the Rolls Royce <sp> of radios. Originaly I was just talking about Futaba being known by their 9C.

The whole purpose of Spread Spectrum technology is to ignore packets that don't have the appropriate id.

Here is where we disagree. I was pissed at the notion that Futaba would purposely put any noise at all on the signal between me and my model. They really just want to hop around it and that is fine.

Radio does not use spread spectrum technology, so comparing each is like comparing polar bears and bunnies. They might both be animals but they are different in every other way.

Spektrum's spread spectrum technology uses only two channels. You purposely put noise on one of those channels with a signal generator or a radio when there are 78 other channels you can use, I will be pissed. Thats just the way I am

[DavidH]

You know the key thing to all these radios is that they work. It really makes no difference how they get them to work. Just long as they control the model safely is all that matters.
I have been doing this hobby for nearly 20 years now. As long as the radio controls the model as I expect it to. That is all that matters to most people.


David

[ClayK]

Thanks David, that was more or less of my point. :glasses2: