Posts: 4 Threads: 0 Likes Received: 2 in 2 posts Likes Given: 0 Joined: Nov 2019 Reputation: 0 22-Nov-2019, 12:29 AM (This post was last modified: 26-Nov-2019, 03:12 PM by dmyers7.) (22-Nov-2019, 12:22 AM)voodoo614 Wrote: It has been a sh#tshow with people upgrading their Horus 10x with the ISRM module. I thought I posted this information but I guess I didn't. More reasons to move to Jumper.
I have this dilemma now, stick with Frsky (so much money already invested) or jump ship. I've jumped and am happy. They best part is you loose no investment because the Jumper T16 Pro is compatible with your current ACCST FrSky receivers. I did it also to have CrossFire in the external bay. So now I have FrSky, CrossFire, and Spektrum all in one radio. And it has an awesome color screen like the X10 and X12. ![[-]](https://intofpv.com/images/collapse.png) • Posts: 21,245 Threads: 586 Likes Received: 8,962 in 6,632 posts Likes Given: 1,425 Joined: Jun 2018 Reputation: 787 Now Bruce jumps on the FrSky bashing bandwagon  Posts: 4,731 Threads: 392 Likes Received: 3,231 in 1,827 posts Likes Given: 3,214 Joined: Apr 2019 Reputation: 101 I actually have no beef with Frsky but if Jumper ever made a small form factor like the Xlite or Tango (but much smaller), I'd be all in. • Posts: 21,245 Threads: 586 Likes Received: 8,962 in 6,632 posts Likes Given: 1,425 Joined: Jun 2018 Reputation: 787 Not a rant this time, but some good advice from PS regarding the R9 system and how to ensure you never run into any headaches. The bottom line is, avoid using any of the ACCESS firmwares on the R9 system and just stick with using the non-ACCESS Flex version of the firmware on everything - the R9M module and any receivers. Also not forgetting to have flashed OpenTX to your transmitter with the "flexr9m" option selected of course.
Posts: 5,869 Threads: 47 Likes Received: 2,779 in 2,241 posts Likes Given: 7,635 Joined: Jul 2019 Reputation: 97 (26-Nov-2019, 07:04 PM)the.ronin Wrote: I actually have no beef with Frsky but if Jumper ever made a small form factor like the Xlite or Tango (but much smaller), I'd be all in. Have you looked at the Jumper models such as the Jumper T8, T8SG, T12... these are all smaller radio transmitters. • Posts: 54 Threads: 11 Likes Received: 16 in 13 posts Likes Given: 53 Joined: Sep 2019 Reputation: 2 I have a "non ACCESS" radio (X9E) and it appears one way to future proof it would be to just install a R9 module and swap the RX's on my models. It's not really the cost issue for me.... it's really more about how much I like my X9E. Also I'm planning on some mid range flying in the future so I really need to move away from the 2.4 systems anyway. I'll be ordering a R9 module/RX after the holidays and hopefully I'll have no issues flashing the Flex FW....
JW • Posts: 21,245 Threads: 586 Likes Received: 8,962 in 6,632 posts Likes Given: 1,425 Joined: Jun 2018 Reputation: 787 (13-Dec-2019, 04:13 PM)lownslow Wrote: I have a "non ACCESS" radio (X9E) and it appears one way to future proof it would be to just install a R9 module and swap the RX's on my models. It's not really the cost issue for me.... it's really more about how much I like my X9E. Also I'm planning on some mid range flying in the future so I really need to move away from the 2.4 systems anyway. I'll be ordering a R9 module/RX after the holidays and hopefully I'll have no issues flashing the Flex FW.... Just keep in mind that because FrSky are trying to kill off ACCST, they have therefore ceased any further development on any ACCST firmware so you also won't be getting any future enhancements. They will probably still fix any bugs in the ACCST firmware (as was proven with a recent R-XSR ACCST firmware release), but any enhancements will only be applied to the ACCESS versions of any firmware. If you have no problems with that then you can just continue to use a R9M 2019 module on the last release they made of the ACCST firmware for the R9M which was back in March this year. I guess it it's not broken then don't fix it. The last version of ACCST firmware for the XM+ was released back in March 2017 and that receiver is still going strong on that 2.5 year old version of the firmware which has proven to be stable / reliable. • Posts: 54 Threads: 11 Likes Received: 16 in 13 posts Likes Given: 53 Joined: Sep 2019 Reputation: 2 (13-Dec-2019, 05:17 PM)SnowLeopardFPV Wrote: Just keep in mind that because FrSky are trying to kill off ACCST, they have therefore ceased any further development on any ACCST firmware so you also won't be getting any future enhancements. They will probably still fix any bugs in the ACCST firmware (as was proven with a recent R-XSR ACCST firmware release), but any enhancements will only be applied to the ACCESS versions of any firmware. If you have no problems with that then you can just continue to use a R9M 2019 module on the last release they made of the ACCST firmware for the R9M which was back in March this year.
I guess it it's not broken then don't fix it. The last version of ACCST firmware for the XM+ was released back in March 2017 and that receiver is still going strong on that 2.5 year old version of the firmware which has proven to be stable / reliable. Sadly like all radios my X9E will eventually become an extinct dinosaur but I'm going to try and get as many miles out of it until then. Either way I should be able to get at least a couple of years more out of her so I'm good with that. Me being a "tray guy" I haven't found anything that comes close to it for the price so I guess for now I'll hope for the best and expect the worst.....  JW • Posts: 5,869 Threads: 47 Likes Received: 2,779 in 2,241 posts Likes Given: 7,635 Joined: Jul 2019 Reputation: 97 (13-Dec-2019, 05:17 PM)SnowLeopardFPV Wrote: Just keep in mind that because FrSky are trying to kill off ACCST, they have therefore ceased any further development on any ACCST firmware so you also won't be getting any future enhancements. They will probably still fix any bugs in the ACCST firmware (as was proven with a recent R-XSR ACCST firmware release), but any enhancements will only be applied to the ACCESS versions of any firmware. If you have no problems with that then you can just continue to use a R9M 2019 module on the last release they made of the ACCST firmware for the R9M which was back in March this year.
I guess it it's not broken then don't fix it. The last version of ACCST firmware for the XM+ was released back in March 2017 and that receiver is still going strong on that 2.5 year old version of the firmware which has proven to be stable / reliable. Hi Snow, I have the XM+ and really like it. So...I have purchased 5 more for future builds...and...keep my eye open for discounts or compatible receivers. I believe other companies (Jumper ?) may start making XM+ clones. My needs are pretty simple and the XM+ works fine for me. If I ever get into long range, it will be TBS crossfire for me. Well...assuming the FAA doesn't "kill" long range with this remote ID thing...not sure how that is all going to work. • Posts: 21,245 Threads: 586 Likes Received: 8,962 in 6,632 posts Likes Given: 1,425 Joined: Jun 2018 Reputation: 787 (08-Mar-2020, 12:16 AM)iFly4rotors Wrote: I have the XM+ and really like it. So...I have purchased 5 more for future builds...and...keep my eye open for discounts or compatible receivers. I believe other companies (Jumper ?) may start making XM+ clones. My needs are pretty simple and the XM+ works fine for me. If I ever get into long range, it will be TBS crossfire for me. Well...assuming the FAA doesn't "kill" long range with this remote ID thing...not sure how that is all going to work. I think the XM+ is a great receiver although I only have one of them, on my GEPRC Phantom. It's a shame it doesn't have telemetry though which is why I prefer the R-XSR, although jumper have the R1, R1+, and R1-F equivalents now, but they're not quite as small as the XM+ and R-XSR. That statement I made about FrSky continuing to fix bugs for the existing ACCST firmware seems to have been a curse since they released the 2.x.x firmware revisions which lock FrSky receivers to FrSky transmitters and which prevent 3rd party receivers from working with FrSku transmitters ( HERE). As for long range, well it is already illegal and has been for years because it's BVLOS, even with a spotter. So if Remote ID comes in, that isn't going to stop people doing LR. They will just continue flying illegally...without Remote ID A bit like people who continue to fly without themselves or their multirotors being registered with the FAA (or equivalent authority in other countries where registration is required). • Posts: 225 Threads: 33 Likes Received: 37 in 29 posts Likes Given: 40 Joined: Aug 2019 Reputation: 0 FYI,
Futaba did the exact same thing going from the FASST protocol to the FHSS protocol. The only thing about that was, if i wanted to use the $89.00 RX's in my 7 helicopters and 2 planes with the new radios, i would have had to buy their $700.00-$800.00 radio. Or retrofit all of my craft with new RX's. The FASST protocol is also superior to the new protocol that they are using now.
That's how i wound up getting into frsky in the first place. The Futaba rx's were large compared to the frsky's, and hard to fit in my first quad build. Also telemetry is nice . I like it when flying with quads. I never had telemetry with my old Futaba T7C FASST radio, but I also learned to fly without it. The frsky is also more customizable when it comes to the setup on quads also.
I still use the Futaba with my heli's and planes because I trust the link more than the frsky and feel that heli's would be more dangerous if the link were to fail. A quad would be dangerous also, but it does not have a 2 to 5 foot rotor turning on it.
That being said, I will just continue to use the current Frsky/r9m setup I have, unless it craps out on me. It works fine, and i don't need the latest just because they got a hair up their butt and changed the protocol. • Posts: 5,869 Threads: 47 Likes Received: 2,779 in 2,241 posts Likes Given: 7,635 Joined: Jul 2019 Reputation: 97 (08-Mar-2020, 12:42 AM)SnowLeopardFPV Wrote: I think the XM+ is a great receiver although I only have one of them, on my GEPRC Phantom. It's a shame it doesn't have telemetry though which is why I prefer the R-XSR, although jumper have the R1, R1+, and R1-F equivalents now, but they're not quite as small as the XM+ and R-XSR.
That statement I made about FrSky continuing to fix bugs for the existing ACCST firmware seems to have been a curse since they released the 2.x.x firmware revisions which lock FrSky receivers to FrSky transmitters and which prevent 3rd party receivers from working with FrSku transmitters (HERE).
As for long range, well it is already illegal and has been for years because it's BVLOS, even with a spotter. So if Remote ID comes in, that isn't going to stop people doing LR. They will just continue flying illegally...without Remote ID A bit like people who continue to fly without themselves or their multirotors being registered with the FAA (or equivalent authority in other countries where registration is required). I am curious about the telemetry? The only thing that I use is the RSSI value which the XM+ has (it is on channel 16, set the RSSI to AUX 12 in Betaflight). What other telemetry do you use that the R-XSR provides? Thanks. • Posts: 21,245 Threads: 586 Likes Received: 8,962 in 6,632 posts Likes Given: 1,425 Joined: Jun 2018 Reputation: 787 (08-Mar-2020, 02:11 PM)iFly4rotors Wrote: I am curious about the telemetry? The only thing that I use is the RSSI value which the XM+ has (it is on channel 16, set the RSSI to AUX 12 in Betaflight). What other telemetry do you use that the R-XSR provides? As well as values in my OSD, I also like to have telemetry back to my transmitter which the XM+ doesn't do. I mainly use the RSSI and VFAS (LiPo voltage on the quad) telemetry data so I can my transmitter to read out audible values and warnings of my signal strength and battery voltage. With the XM+ you don't get any telemetry data at all back to the transmitter, not even RSSI. RSSI on channel 16 goes direct to the FC from the receiver. It never gets sent to the transmitter. • Posts: 5,869 Threads: 47 Likes Received: 2,779 in 2,241 posts Likes Given: 7,635 Joined: Jul 2019 Reputation: 97 (08-Mar-2020, 06:02 PM)SnowLeopardFPV Wrote: As well as values in my OSD, I also like to have telemetry back to my transmitter which the XM+ doesn't do. I mainly use the RSSI and VFAS (LiPo voltage on the quad) telemetry data so I can my transmitter to read out audible values and warnings of my signal strength and battery voltage. With the XM+ you don't get any telemetry data at all back to the transmitter, not even RSSI. RSSI on channel 16 goes direct to the FC from the receiver. It never gets sent to the transmitter. Hi Snow, The information helps as I move forward in this hobby. I may now pick up an R-XSR to experiment with. Thanks. • Posts: 3,288 Threads: 129 Likes Received: 2,740 in 1,644 posts Likes Given: 2,969 Joined: Apr 2017 Reputation: 65 I have quads with XM, XM+ and R-XSR receivers and all of them work well. The edge for range goes to the XM+, but the telemetry from the R-XSR is a big deal. If you are comfortable with relying on the OSD information, then the XM+'s that you have will serve your needs. SoCal Kaity :D
OMG, no one told me it would be this much fun! Addicted :) |
