HoTT module for MX24s has appeared on graupner.de. As owner of MX24s 35MHz, I'd like to know:

1.) can I upgrade 35MHz version to HoTT 2,4G just "clink-n-fly" way (home-upgradeable)?

2.) what data provided by HoTT module I am (will be) able to see then on Tx display? (not on any additional external display box)

3.) is it (will it be) possible to use Tx controls to perform setup to Tx/Rx HoTT devices or is this exclusie to external display box?

4.) if answer 2.) or 3.) is different to "no/none", will it require to send Tx to service center or will it work automatically after inserting HoTT sender module to the Tx slot?

Originally Posted by Julez

Hitec conveniently avoids this problem, as their modules and recievers are not programmable at all.

Julez, do you actually read specifications given by manufacturers? You can upgrade receivers, modules, and the Aurora 9 itself.

Sure, was only a joke, but the Hitec fans surely remembers the THREE MONTHS of wait when Hitec site was down, virused, and they can't do any update.
This is not a thing to praise for such company... to have a virus in the home page and do nothing for weeks, and shut the site as a cure...

Originally Posted by JimDrew

Julez, do you actually read specifications given by manufacturers? You can upgrade receivers, modules, and the Aurora 9 itself.

Jim, do you actually read what I write?
Do you know the difference between "upgrading" and "programming"?
In how far can the Hitec module be "programmed"? What settings can be programmed into the module? How are these settings programmed into the module?

A HOTT reciever can be programmed with the following settings:
- RX voltage alarm
- RX signal alarm
- RX temperature alarm
- servo reverse
- trimming
- servo travel adjustment
- fail safe position
- channel assignment
- free mixers
- model mixers
- servo test

What programmable features does a Hitec RX have?

Originally Posted by Julez

...A HOTT reciever can be programmed with the following settings:
...

Call it Jeti in disguise

Originally Posted by RENATOA

Call it Jeti in disguise

IF it will get FCC, US customers would be glad for korean copy (is it really possible that manufacture will not be in china??)

Originally Posted by RENATOA

Call it Jeti in disguise

Yes, they definitely had Jeti as an inspiring example. But technology moves on, so it is even better in some parts. I especially like the logging feature. No other system that I know of has this functionality.

Originally Posted by Julez

Yes, they definitely had Jeti as an inspiring example. But technology moves on, so it is even better in some parts. I especially like the logging feature. No other system that I know of has this functionality.

Best wishes. However, I see economy pushing companies down and it result in quality falling very deep nowadays - so, I has a strange feeling that as older device You get, as better design and build quality it is.

I am sorry but I do not see much reason for logging in TX, after radio transfer that may fail. For example, in case of lost control, You will not see even the very basic fact whether Rx lost power or it did just fail internaly - recording ends at the moment of failure..
.
Jeti had logging feature thru 3rd party sensors of SM-Modelbau.de - it is available for a long time, recently it get compatible with both Jeti and Multiplex at once..
http://www.sm-modellbau.de/shop/prod...d=100&cPath=13
http://www.sm-modellbau.de/shop/prod...d=114&cPath=13

Originally Posted by Julez

Yes, they definitely had Jeti as an inspiring example. But technology moves on, so it is even better in some parts. I especially like the logging feature. No other system that I know of has this functionality.

Weatronic has this functionality, launched on the market more than one year ago ...

Really? What sensors were available for Weatronic more than year ago? Which ones are available now? Can one use them without having to spend €250 for the RX<->Sensor adapter alone?

Originally Posted by JimDrew

That would be correct IF the Meshnetics module was an FCC certified device, which as of this afternoon, is not the case. Furthermore, the JETI receivers use discrete circuitry (not modules), none of which will pass either the restricted lower or upper band edge testing.

We just finished our own 2.4GHz and 900MHz modules, so I am quite familiar with everything you must do in order to comply wth the current Part 15 rules. "Modular" testing requires much more strict rules for compliancy because they can be placed into other products.

Two Meshenetic modules have FCC ID 'U6TZIGBIT-A2' and 'U6TZIGBITB0'
Atmel had Signed Agreement with MeshNetics to Deliver Free ZigBee Stack the same one that you make Modification to be able to work with you new nano RX using Atmel AT86RF230. Also Atmel have them listed in their web-site under Atmel Zigbit Modules same as Meshenetics web-site, but the Atmel modules do not show the Meshenetic name on them.
Well Jim hope these are not you new modules you have talked so much about because I will have a Field day with you in the Jeti telemetry thread.

Best Regards Tito

Also: Atmel Acquires MeshNetics ZigBee Intellectual Properties

So may be Jim Jeti will be nocking on you doors soon with a new System

Originally Posted by tune by tito

Also: Atmel Acquires MeshNetics ZigBee Intellectual Properties

So may be Jim Jeti will be nocking on you doors soon with a new System

San Jose, CA, February 3, 2009 - Atmel® Corporation (Nasdaq: ATML), - announced today that Atmel has acquired all MeshNetics® ZigBee® Intellectual Property Rights ....

Did You notice the date?
It is almost two years old.
And that is the reason why I laugh loud that Jeti has no FCC.
(Well, and I have never seen XPS FCC ID from Jim - the only provided belons to ZigBee MODULE used, not XPS product.)

Originally Posted by coro

(Well, and I have never seen XPS FCC ID from Jim - the only provided belons to ZigBee MODULE used, not XPS product.)

You haven't looked very hard, their code is X5L
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/

Originally Posted by village_idiot

You haven't looked very hard, their code is X5L
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/

Well, ok.
But that is dated at february 2010. Jim was takling about FCC much sooner..