Spektrum DX3 or Futaba Fasst?

[gralls4771]

Whats the story? I just ordered and recieved a new Spektrum DX3 and then I read everywhere that the spektrum works terrible in boats and that I should have bought the Futaba Fasst. Just my luck, I always find out about these things too late. Should have done more homework. Anyone know if www.funrcboats.com has a good return policy? If not I guess you might see it for sale on ebay.

[patmat2350]

Spektrum works fine in my boats :) ...
where is this "everywhere" that you're reading? :confused:
The Futaba website maybe? :cool:

[Hoghappy]

Don't know about the DX3...but I have the DX6 and the AR6000 in 4 boats and have no issuses. I even have the transmitter antenna mounted inside the case....still no issues.

Capt. Crash

[offshore1987]

IM going 2.4 soon ( as soon as i can get to the model shop that sells one lol )

but i read that the fasst cant work with switchers and things like that :confused: is this true?
iv got a JR servo thingy ( y switcher digi servo thing ) and was worryed it might not work it with

from what iv seen though the £100 Spektrum set looks good, is the fasst one really worth the +£50?

im using a 6 channel futaba atm the one the same as the 2.4 but not 2.4 :p

[gralls4771]

I've read this on just about every boat forum on the net

[Shaun Hendricks]

Anyone with any experience with this system?
http://www.xtremepowersystems.net/proddetail.php?prod=XPS-CPF1-10

I was planning on going digital on my Eclipse 7 with it. One control for all my stuff. I'd love some feedback on it if anyone is aware of anything. Is FASST even out yet?

[Umi_Ryuzuki]

I think you are seeing the opinions of Fast electric and fuel boats vs Scale modeling
The fast boat guys seem to be experiencing issues. Part of the reason may be the DX3 system not being designed for the speed, range, and water mixed together.

As far as scale modeling, Warships, tugs, steamers, and the like, no one seems to
be experiencing any problems. I have run three boats on the Spektrum DX6 for the last 3 year? No problems.

[gralls4771]

Well I think I will at least try the DX3 before I send it back

[pusar]

gralls. You will hate it! Then sell it to me. I do not have either. :)

I need to upgrade

Marty

[CG Bob]

Last year (June, IIRC), Spektrum had a notice on their website about using their radios in fast electric and power boats. The notice did not recommend using any of the Spektrum systems in fast electric or power boat racing. IIRC, the issue was 2.4 GHz not penetrating water, and your go-fast boat is screened by the rooster tail of another boat, causing a loss of signal. Spektrum no longer has that notice on their website. Most of the problems with the 2.4 GHz systems seem to be with the height of the transmitter in relation to the rx. Some of the go-fast guys had no problem when standing on an elevated drivers stand; but had all sorts of glitches when standing at the waters edge. Some of the other problems are related to rx battery voltage; most people are recommending a good 6 volt rx pack and the Spektrum Voltage Protector (http://www.spektrumrc.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=SPM1600).

The other thing to remember is that Spektrum and Futaba FASST use two different technologies. Futaba FASST (http://2.4gigahertz.com/features/features.html) is a channel hopping technolgy; Spektrum uses a Spread Spectrum System (http://www.spektrumrc.com/DSM/Technology/useDSM.aspx), essentially a wide band system. I've heard a rumor that the Spektrum system was actually developed from the Bachmann DCC systems for model railroading.

The Futaba FASST system is out in the stores, we have one in the LHS where I work.

[pusar]

Bob,

With your knowledge which one do you like or reccomend?

Marty

[gralls4771]

Well I do have a really good hump battery pack, and the pond I run at has really high banks, so I would be elevated, so I'll give it a try and see what happens. If it wrecks my boat then I will sell it to you pusar. lol

[pusar]

Thanks! :D :D :D

Marty

[CG Bob]

Marty,

I personally prefer Futaba radios. But Spektrum & JR just had their great 2.4 GHz give away - if you bought a 2.4 system and an extra receiver, you send in the proof of purchase, store receipt, and a form and they send you a free rx. Back in March, I bought a DX6i system and two rx units, I received my two free rx units last week. I may be shifting my surface fleet over to 2.4; but the subs will stay on Futaba 50 MHz (Ham) radios.

[Shaun Hendricks]

Well, 2.4 ghz is common these days and very used. I'm planning on making an external antenna off a tripod. The antenna is used for wireless networking (same frequency). I can get up to a 9db gain antenna and run it up on a short pole. This will eliminate my need to get any higher. I can steer from the comfort of a chair... :D
(yeah, lazy! I know... )

Might help the speed guys out there as well.

[AndyKunz]

I was planning on going digital on my Eclipse 7 with it. One control for all my stuff. I'd love some feedback on it if anyone is aware of anything. Is FASST even out yet?


Shaun,

You can use a FASST module in your Hitec or the Spektrum Futaba module. I have an Eclipse 7 that I bought the Spektrum Futaba for, but before I did that I was testing with the FASST module. I just couldn't afford it or that's what I would have gotten.

Andy

[W.L Upshaw]

I will be curious to see how the newer 2.4 Ghz radios due in a more urban enviroment with all the 2.4 Ghz Bluetooth units everywhere, there is only so much bandwidth there.

It has been proved that the 2.4's will not work in submarine models, the signal will not penetrate the water.
I know of one flying field in NJ that has banned the new spectrum radios, some aircraft are ending up in the Deleware River.

[Shaun Hendricks]

I'm not sure that NJ group is aware of how digital transmission works or if they are near something powerful on that frequency set (Like an illegally modified wireless network WAP). It normally has less to do with frequency and more to do with packet transmission. If they are having shoot downs, I'd guess it's probably some active jamming going on or use of older systems.

It is true that 2.4ghz is everywhere so it's actually easy to set up a jammer for it and jerks everywhere love crashing planes, or just an idiot wanting more power off his wireless network and drowning out all other sources. If I caught anyone doing it, they might find themselves in the Delaware River! They should sweep the frequencies of the field if they are having problems and find the source of the erroneous transmission.

Full digital control would mean that even if a signal comes on the exact same 'spectrum' of the 2.4ghz frequency set, the receiver is expecting a certain string of data at the front end of the packet, identifying the transmitter. If that string isn't there, it should ignore the command packet. No two transmitters should have the same identifier. The two way systems are even MORE secure as they transmit back an acknowledgement packet and receive a 'yea, I sent that' packet back. This is done at incredible speeds, which is why the newer systems are running at such a fast rate.

The old Analog 2.4ghz systems would be susceptible to the type of shoot downs from any 2.4ghz source. Turn on your laptop wireless and a plane crashes kind of thing.

The new stuff is little more than flying computers/cellphones. A lot of it appears to come from the 802.11 hardware in common use everywhere. This is kind of why I was looking at the Xtremelink stuff. Bidirectional communication is great!

If you had 50-100 of these systems in use in an area at once, you might get some slowness of response, but it shouldn't be anything significantly noticeable. I wouldn't want to 3D fly in that kind of environment but casual flying should be relatively unaffected.

I'm hoping that someone will MAKE RC control system software that interfaces with the hardware of a laptop or desktop or even PDA and makes use of the wireless stuff. I'd love to be able to make my own display and control set. Macros for certain maneuvers, etc. The technologies could easily mix. You could build a scale warship that had fully independent guns, down to AA operating. Drop anchors, run flag combinations up and down the masts. It would all be possible, but it would take a full computer controller and a slaved computer receiver to do it. The control available would make a Robbe F-14 Navy blush.

[CG Bob]

The new stuff is little more than flying computers/cellphones. A lot of it appears to come from the 802.11 hardware in common use everywhere. This is kind of why I was looking at the Xtremelink stuff. Bidirectional communication is great!

I'm hoping that someone will MAKE RC control system software that interfaces with the hardware of a laptop or desktop or even PDA and makes use of the wireless stuff. I'd love to be able to make my own display and control set. Macros for certain maneuvers, etc. The technologies could easily mix. You could build a scale warship that had fully independent guns, down to AA operating. Drop anchors, run flag combinations up and down the masts. It would all be possible, but it would take a full computer controller and a slaved computer receiver to do it. The control available would make a Robbe F-14 Navy blush.Then ALL of the US RC organizations (AMA, IMPBA, NAMBA, SSMA, SubCommittee, ROAR, HAM radio clubs, et al) need to get together and lobby with the FCC and change the regulations. (http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/cfr/1998/47cfr95.pdf) We did it in the mid 1980's to get the current 72 MHz for aircraft and 75 MHz for surface models.

If bidirectional communications is considered two-communications, it is prohibited by RC Rule 12.
(R/C Rule 12) What communications are prohibited?
You must not use an R/C station—
(a) In connection with any activity which is against federal, state or local
law;
(b) To transmit any message other than for operation of devices at remote
locations (no voice, telegraphy, etc.);
(c) To intentionally interfere with another station’s transmissions;
(d) To operate another R/C transmitter by remote control (See R/C Rule 17,
§ 95.217); or
(e) To transmit two-way communications.
(f) To transmit data. Tone or other signal encoding, however, is not considered to be data when only used either for the purpose of identifying the specific device among multiple devices that the operator intends to turn on/off, or the specific sensor among multiple sensors intended to turn on/off indicating device for the operator.

Wireless control of rc gear seems to be prohibited by RC Rule 17; the FCC probably considers wireless to be the same as radio waves.
(R/C Rule 17) May I operate my R/C station transmitter by remote control?
(a) You may not operate an R/C transmitter by radio remote control.(See R/C Rule 12, § 95.212.)
(b) You may operate an R/C transmitter by wireline remote control if you
obtain specific approval in writing from the FCC. To obtain FCC approval,
you must show why you need to operate your station by wireline remote
control. Send your request and justification to FCC, Gettysburg, Pa.
17325. If you receive FCC approval, you must keep the approval as part of your station records. (See R/C Rule 24, § 95.224.)
(c) Remote control means operation of an R/C transmitter from any place
other than the location of the R/C transmitter. Direct mechanical control
or direct electrical control by wire from some point on the same premises,
craft or vehicles as the R/C transmitter is not considered remote control.

Considering the advances in electronics, the new systems will be obsolete by the time the FCC updates the regs.

[Shaun Hendricks]

It looks like the prohibition against two way communication is to prevent obsconding with R/C frequencies to actually communicate, not control the vehicle. So, I couldn't use 72 or 75mhz to start my own telephony service. It's impossible to transmit two-way communications unless you are talking tranmission to more than one RC vehicle at a time. Ghost would be violating that concept by steering his models as he has done in the past... bad Ghost! :D LOL! You "transmit and recieve" two-way communications, so line e is poorly written to begin with.

The two way transmission in the context of digital systems like FASST or Xtremelink is only a verification process. It is not true communication. GPS or transponder systems only send information down to the receiver and aren't two-way either. I am using bi-directional in a narrow sense. The other side (reciever) only responds to input stimulus and does not do communication or initiate action on its own. Therefore, it is a 'one-way' command, the vehicle isn't telling me to do anything, and I remain in control of the vehicle. It probably would not meet the intent for line e.

Line f is more interesting, do the remote vehicle monitoring systems violate that by sending data back to a remote unit I am monitoring? That's a more gray area that doesn't affect something like a FASST control system but could impact stuff put out by Eagletree and other 'on vehicle' sensors that send actual data back to a display or recorder...

The prevention of remote control by remote clearly means they want you on-site when you are controlling something, not down the street or in another location other than visual distance from the vehicle. Strangely, there are websites where you can 'remote control' a vehicle and it would seemingly violate this rule... of course, if it was referring to RF communications. :D

I also think that 2.4ghz is a mostly unregulated "public" frequency so basically all these rules go down the drain. I believe that is why the frequency is so popular. 900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz, and the crappy AM toy frequencies are all somewhat 'open' IIRC. Perhaps even the FRS frequencies could be used but I think those are more tightly restricted to just voice radio communication. I had to get a license to use my combination FRS and GMRS radios on the GMRS frequencies... costs me $75 every few years! No fair! :p

[CG Bob]

The other option is to get an Amatuer (Ham) Radio license. You can use 50 MHz, and you can probably use your computer wireless interface to control the models.

[Shaun Hendricks]

Actually I was thinking mod a 'reciever' to be an 802.11 reciver and have an inexpensive CPU driving the servos and such. It would actually be far easier to design than a cheap PDA (palm pilot).

I've run across a few of them already but they were gawdawful expensive. Certainly not as cheap as it should be and overly complex as well. More made for remote robotics than simpler RC stuff.

Ah well, could make a fortune doing it but no start up captial... :D