Originally Posted by cleansurf2

This thread is parallel with second hand info.

Moving to the main HK FORUM thread for this topic.
http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/f...TID=28792&PN=1

thanks for the link "DeathWarmedUp"

truncated link, below is the right one:
http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/f....asp?TID=28792

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/f....asp?TID=28792

Come on. "Only members with sufficient permission can access this page"

Originally Posted by dave1993

this is not even remotely possible. there is a standard interface that is the same for main boards. its called ppm. there is no "data encoding". its the rf module which determines compatibilty today. specifically the transceiver chip. a7105 for flysky, cc2500 for frsky, rfm22b for olrs, etc.. but they all take ppm in.

The standard interface signal "Pulse Position Modulation" (PPM) is the common "serial control data" I was referring to (the serial data stream format shown in pic-1). The fact that PPM is common is what I believe makes it possible to design a Tx'r capable of being compatable with a large range of Rx'r makes/models. Patents are another issue all together of course.

I kept the post reasonably non technical for general users. And I have taken assumptions at how the systems work without getting into schematics. Hopefully this will explain the technical detail better.

Yes the data encoding is NORMALLY done in the RF module, within a specialised transceiver chip (hardware, a7105, rfm22b, etc..). So the RF module takes the COMMON PPM serial signal, encodes it within a chip (e.g. a7105), that signal then goes to the RF amp, then antenna. The reverse happens at the Rx end resulting in comms between Tx and Rx.
This is how everyone does it.

My idea is a slight paradigm shift from standard, which would take some engineering to achieve.

What I am saying is:
a) that encoding chip (e.g. a7105) does not have to be in the RF unit, so long as the encoded output is feed to the RF unit, it will work.
b) the encoding could LIKELY be done with a single more complex chip than those currently used, that enables programming of all the variables required to match any format, this functionality would be best done on the main board, with easier access to programming inputs than the separate RF unit. input=PPM, output=Wanted Tx format, feed that output to RF amp then antenna.
Note: Programmable Frequency hopping would need to be included in the encoding and sent to the specialised Tx RF unit as part of the compatibility encoding.
Programmable chips with this type of functionality already exist, something would likely need to be developed for RC use.

Good explanation of RC Tx stages (pre 2.4G, but the principles are fine)
PPM link
PPM link 2

.

Originally Posted by scname

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/f....asp?TID=28792

Come on. "Only members with sufficient permission can access this page"

Good point, fair call

Originally Posted by cleansurf2

that encoding chip (e.g. a7105) does not have to be in the RF unit, so long as the encoded output is feed to the RF unit, it will work.

aha.. i see you have a good understanding of how these things work. but i suspect a main board using every transceiver chip on the market with the supporting firmware development effort would cost thousands and end up being as big as a car. i cant imagine anything better than current module based systems and flysky prices are hard (read impossible) to beat. ppm rulz.

Originally Posted by scname

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/f....asp?TID=28792

Come on. "Only members with sufficient permission can access this page"

just sign into Hobby King and then click the link, if you are Gold or Platinum membership, you can then see the forum.

Originally Posted by dave1993

aha.. i see you have a good understanding of how these things work. but i suspect a main board using every transceiver chip on the market with the supporting firmware development effort would cost thousands and end up being as big as a car. i cant imagine anything better than current module based systems and flysky prices are hard (read impossible) to beat. ppm rulz.

Yes if it was done that way it would be cost prohibitive. But instead of having every PPM encoder chip on the board (which would then not be further upgradeable), I'm proposing a single (more complex) chip, that can be programmed to do each code.

As for programming cost, the smart move would be for HK to program their firmware with just their codes. Users would modify the firmware as they choose (e.g. ER9X firmware), this way HK saves software development $ and avoids patent issues. I would not be surprised if there is already a programmable chip on the market that could be used to do the job.

Still a pipe dream I know, but I think totally doable and perhaps without to much cost (plenty of users out there that could probably assist with the engineering, look at the ER9X team for example). Be great to have just one Tx'r I could use with everything. Maybe a HK consideration for 9XR-V2 ?
Note: the developer has stated that some of the suggestions on the HK thread may have him considering a V2 later on.
.

Originally Posted by cleansurf2

Note: the developer has stated that some of the suggestions on the HK thread may have him considering a V2 later on.
.

Great ideas - and I agree, I think it would be Technically feasible but there would be lots of issues to work out (and copyright/patent would still be the biggest).

btw The Developer you mention is Anthony Hand the owner of HobbyKing.

unfortunately developing new integrated circuits is far more expensive than new circuit boards and is technically and financially beyond the capability of even tony hand.

PICTURE! It's kind of odd looking.
pic.twitter.com/gksP5rj0

Ok, does not look too bad. Hard to judge by that photo.

First impression: UGLY!
And what is that? Plastic handlebar?

WT@#! with that handle...

Why not make it traditional at back, but a little larger so various type of module antenna could pass between the handle and the case.

Lets design something to take even more space than it should...sometimes I wonder about designers and engineers

However, I like the overall look, not transformer like look, we have seen in other brands.

On a second glance, the handlebar looks like an internal antenna.

FrSky ???

Originally Posted by blackmoon

WT@#! with that handle...

anything has to be an improvement over that metal handle on the original which caused significant loss of range on some plug-in modules.

personally i like the current version better but that might just be due to resisting change.