Multiplex Royal EVO

[Carl Farrington]

well I would be sold on the thing

but it's not PCM


why???? are they stupid? Is PCM patented or too difficult for them to work
out??

[Beav]

"Carl Farrington" <carl@000compsup000.net> wrote in message
news:b4t965$njr$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> well I would be sold on the thing
>
> but it's not PCM

Multiplex have their own "type" of PCM Carl. Can't remember what they call
it, but it does one of the same things as "yer average" PCM in that it's
programmable for position at loss of signal.


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

[Peter Christy]

Besides of which, PCM isn't the "be-all" and "end-all". It has some very good
features, and some seriously crap ones!

For instance, the *seriously* reduced frame rate caused by trying to put 8
times as much information down the same sized pipe (Ever wondered why the
servos always hesitate fractionally when you move the sticks suddenly?)

Admittedly its not as bad as on early systems, but its still there.

Also the complete absence of any warning when its about to lock out!

Now, in my view these deficiencies *are* worth the added safety margin -
particularly in helis - but that's not to say its always so! Its a question of
choosing the right tool for the job.

What Multiplex have tried to do is to bring the advantages of PCM (primarily
the fail-safe) to the PPM system, with its much more rapid response time.

This is not new! I have a Bonner Digimite (circa 1966!) which is a PPM system
with a full fail-safe as found in a modern PCM system. Most early proportional
systems had a fail-safe. Manufacturers started leaving them out when they
discovered just how much cost-reduction (not to mention size and weight
reduction) could be achieved.

--
Pete
christy@NOSPAMattglobal.net
(make the obvious amendments to reply!)

[Siam Heli]

Ok. And how does PPM compares to interference? Which is the sole reason why
I fly PCM - especially in gassers.

Martin





"Peter Christy" <christy@NOSPAMattglobal.net> wrote in message
news:iKDca.12994$EA6.1879902@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> Besides of which, PCM isn't the "be-all" and "end-all". It has some very
good
> features, and some seriously crap ones!
>
> For instance, the *seriously* reduced frame rate caused by trying to put 8
> times as much information down the same sized pipe (Ever wondered why the
> servos always hesitate fractionally when you move the sticks suddenly?)
>
> Admittedly its not as bad as on early systems, but its still there.
>
> Also the complete absence of any warning when its about to lock out!
>
> Now, in my view these deficiencies *are* worth the added safety margin -
> particularly in helis - but that's not to say its always so! Its a
question of
> choosing the right tool for the job.
>
> What Multiplex have tried to do is to bring the advantages of PCM
(primarily
> the fail-safe) to the PPM system, with its much more rapid response time.
>
> This is not new! I have a Bonner Digimite (circa 1966!) which is a PPM
system
> with a full fail-safe as found in a modern PCM system. Most early
proportional
> systems had a fail-safe. Manufacturers started leaving them out when they
> discovered just how much cost-reduction (not to mention size and weight
> reduction) could be achieved.
>
> --
> Pete
> christy@NOSPAMattglobal.net
> (make the obvious amendments to reply!)


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 13/03/03

[The Vail Family]

This is about to turn into a FM/PCM thing isn't it...

Bill Vail



"Carl Farrington" <carl@000compsup000.net> wrote in message
news:b4t965$njr$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> well I would be sold on the thing
>
> but it's not PCM
>
>
> why???? are they stupid? Is PCM patented or too difficult for them to work
> out??
>
>

[Peter Christy]

Siam Heli wrote:

> Ok. And how does PPM compares to interference? Which is the sole reason why
> I fly PCM - especially in gassers.

There is absolutely no difference! This is a function of the modulation (ie FM
or AM), carrier strength and receiver sensitivity.

The difference it makes is *HOW* it responds to interference! With PCM, its
either there, or its not there. There is nothing in between!You may not get
any warning of impending doom, but at least it fails "predictably" ie it
either "holds" or "failsafes" depending on how you set it.

PPM (using FM) will usually give a few warning "twitches" before it goes
completely. This *might* give you the chance to turn the model back into range
before you lose it completely. However, when you lose it, what happens will be
unpredictable. It might simply freeze, or everything may run up to one end.

PPM (using AM) gives much more warning before total loss of control occurs, but
again, when it does go, it will be unpredictable.

In both AM and FM PPM systems, the total loss of signal will occur at roughly
the same level of interference. PCM will usually go fractionally sooner, as it
will lock-out at the first sign of interference, rather than waiting for the
signal to become completely uunuseable.

PCM doesn't "cure" interference problems. It simply hides them until its too
late! Nonetheless, the added safety factor of it failing "predictably" (at
least you can shut the throttle!) is probably worth it in most applications.

Remember - the purpose of a fail-safe is *not* to save the model! It's to try
and prevent an out-of-control model leaving the vicinity of the flying-site
and injuring 3rd parties!

--
Pete
christy@NOSPAMattglobal.net
(make the obvious amendments to reply!)

[Beav]

"Peter Christy" <christy@NOSPAMattglobal.net> wrote in message
news:iKDca.12994$EA6.1879902@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> Besides of which, PCM isn't the "be-all" and "end-all". It has some very
good
> features, and some seriously crap ones!
>
> For instance, the *seriously* reduced frame rate caused by trying to put 8
> times as much information down the same sized pipe (Ever wondered why the
> servos always hesitate fractionally when you move the sticks suddenly?)

I remember a thread from some time ago where I mentioned that with a couple
of prog mixes in (or using the in built CCPM mixing in the original PCM 10)
the servo's could EASILY been seen stepping from one position to the other.
One or two people thought I was taking the piss.
>
> Admittedly its not as bad as on early systems, but its still there.

Yep. The best I've seen so far is the Futaba system, but even that could be
made to step along nicely.
>
> Also the complete absence of any warning when its about to lock out!
>
> Now, in my view these deficiencies *are* worth the added safety margin -
> particularly in helis - but that's not to say its always so! Its a
question of
> choosing the right tool for the job.

I still prefer to fly PCM too.
>
> What Multiplex have tried to do is to bring the advantages of PCM
(primarily
> the fail-safe) to the PPM system, with its much more rapid response time.

And smoothisity:-)

>
> This is not new! I have a Bonner Digimite (circa 1966!) which is a PPM
system
> with a full fail-safe as found in a modern PCM system. Most early
proportional
> systems had a fail-safe. Manufacturers started leaving them out when they
> discovered just how much cost-reduction (not to mention size and weight
> reduction) could be achieved.

But given the current levels of miniaturisation and reduced cost of
electronic items, you'd think they'd have re-introduced fail safe in ALL
systems by now. Particularly when you think how crazy this "sue everyone"
world is getting.


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

[Beav]

"The Vail Family" <wjvail@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lFednW-FVbk1Ru6jXTWc3Q@comcast.com...
> This is about to turn into a FM/PCM thing isn't it..

Nah, that'll just serve to bring out Doug and Steve Simpson for their
monthly stirring session :-)


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

[mgysin]

I seem to remember that Multiplex has developed a failsafe system not
based on PCM, and this is apparently incorporated in the new EVO line as
well.
Dont have any details of function , but I'm sure
we have somebody in this group who can elaborate....

Markus



"Beav" <beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote in message
news:qa_ca.2480$Gk6.13576@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
>
> "Peter Christy" <christy@NOSPAMattglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:iKDca.12994$EA6.1879902@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> > Besides of which, PCM isn't the "be-all" and "end-all". It has some very
> good
> > features, and some seriously crap ones!
> >
> > For instance, the *seriously* reduced frame rate caused by trying to put
8
> > times as much information down the same sized pipe (Ever wondered why
the
> > servos always hesitate fractionally when you move the sticks suddenly?)
>
> I remember a thread from some time ago where I mentioned that with a
couple
> of prog mixes in (or using the in built CCPM mixing in the original PCM
10)
> the servo's could EASILY been seen stepping from one position to the
other.
> One or two people thought I was taking the piss.
> >
> > Admittedly its not as bad as on early systems, but its still there.
>
> Yep. The best I've seen so far is the Futaba system, but even that could
be
> made to step along nicely.
> >
> > Also the complete absence of any warning when its about to lock out!
> >
> > Now, in my view these deficiencies *are* worth the added safety margin -
> > particularly in helis - but that's not to say its always so! Its a
> question of
> > choosing the right tool for the job.
>
> I still prefer to fly PCM too.
> >
> > What Multiplex have tried to do is to bring the advantages of PCM
> (primarily
> > the fail-safe) to the PPM system, with its much more rapid response
time.
>
> And smoothisity:-)
>
> >
> > This is not new! I have a Bonner Digimite (circa 1966!) which is a PPM
> system
> > with a full fail-safe as found in a modern PCM system. Most early
> proportional
> > systems had a fail-safe. Manufacturers started leaving them out when
they
> > discovered just how much cost-reduction (not to mention size and weight
> > reduction) could be achieved.
>
> But given the current levels of miniaturisation and reduced cost of
> electronic items, you'd think they'd have re-introduced fail safe in ALL
> systems by now. Particularly when you think how crazy this "sue everyone"
> world is getting.
>
>
> --
> Beav
>
>
> Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
> (with the obvious changes)
>
> Beavisland now lives at
> www.beavisoriginal.co.uk
>
>

[Carl Farrington]

"Carl Farrington" <carl@000compsup000.net> wrote in message
news:b4t965$njr$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> well I would be sold on the thing
>
> but it's not PCM
>
>
> why???? are they stupid? Is PCM patented or too difficult for them to work
> out??
>
>

fuck it. I'll make it my next purchase. I like the look of it, menus, build
& all. Revo models have a really basic multiplex in, and it's so nice to
hold. Smooth sticks too.

I kind of like the lack of pretend-metal too..

[Beav]

"Carl Farrington" <carl@000compsup000.net> wrote in message
news:b531ol$954$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Carl Farrington" <carl@000compsup000.net> wrote in message
> news:b4t965$njr$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> > well I would be sold on the thing
> >
> > but it's not PCM
> >
> >
> > why???? are they stupid? Is PCM patented or too difficult for them to
work
> > out??
> >
> >
>
> fuck it. I'll make it my next purchase. I like the look of it, menus,
build
> & all. Revo models have a really basic multiplex in, and it's so nice to
> hold. Smooth sticks too.
>
> I kind of like the lack of pretend-metal too..

I hate Multiplex and heli's in the same square foot.


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

[Carl Farrington]

"Beav" <beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote in message
news:GPkda.3117$Gk6.18046@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
>
> "Carl Farrington" <carl@000compsup000.net> wrote in message
> > fuck it. I'll make it my next purchase. I like the look of it, menus,
>> build & all. Revo models have a really basic multiplex in, and it's so
nice to
> > hold. Smooth sticks too.
> >
> > I kind of like the lack of pretend-metal too..
>
> I hate Multiplex and heli's in the same square foot.
>

why?

>
> --
> Beav
>
>
> Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
> (with the obvious changes)
>
> Beavisland now lives at
> www.beavisoriginal.co.uk
>
>

[Beav]

"Carl Farrington" <carl@000compsup000.net> wrote in message
news:b58lns$cmf$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> "Beav" <beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote in message
> news:GPkda.3117$Gk6.18046@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Carl Farrington" <carl@000compsup000.net> wrote in message
> > > fuck it. I'll make it my next purchase. I like the look of it, menus,
> >> build & all. Revo models have a really basic multiplex in, and it's so
> nice to
> > > hold. Smooth sticks too.
> > >
> > > I kind of like the lack of pretend-metal too..
> >
> > I hate Multiplex and heli's in the same square foot.
> >
>
> why?

I've seen two too many of them decide for themselves when they're going to
switch off.

One was bad enough, but the 2nd one was MORE than enough.


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

[Jean-Paul Bergmans]

The IPD function, Mutltiplex's PPM fail-safe, is a receiver function.

It is not dependent from the transmitter.

I was a Multiplex user (and still use a 4000) for planes, but switched
to Futaba for heli's.

I have an IPD receiver and I can use it as well with my Multiplex 4000
and with my 9ZWC2. (in PPM)

This being said, the IPD function is VERY sensitive. Actually I could
not use that receiver on a gasser. The ignition noise was locking it up.

A regular Multiplex PPM and/or a Futaba PCM were working perfectly.

I now buy Futaba receivers......

Jean-Paul

[Beav]

"Jean-Paul Bergmans" <jean-paul.bergmans@sun.com> wrote in message
news:3E81F115.7000703@sun.com...
> The IPD function, Mutltiplex's PPM fail-safe, is a receiver function.
>
> It is not dependent from the transmitter.
>
> I was a Multiplex user (and still use a 4000) for planes, but switched
> to Futaba for heli's.
>
> I have an IPD receiver and I can use it as well with my Multiplex 4000
> and with my 9ZWC2. (in PPM)
>
> This being said, the IPD function is VERY sensitive. Actually I could
> not use that receiver on a gasser. The ignition noise was locking it up.
>
> A regular Multiplex PPM and/or a Futaba PCM were working perfectly.
>
> I now buy Futaba receivers......
>
> Jean-Paul

The reasons are all double Dutch to me Jean-Paul, but whatever they are,
they're enough for me to stay away from Multiplex.


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk
>