Originally Posted by Kilrah

You should read up a bit about embedded software development.
Your PC has an operating system, and one of its job is to implement a hardware abstraction layer. Together with device drivers, it makes sure that whatever hardware you have, the program will still "see" the same and will be able to run.

There's no such thing on most embedded devices, including the 9x. The 9x firmwares (open9x, er9x) are distributed as a binary file that is compiled to run on an atmel atmega64 processor, and nothing else. It expects the up elevator trim key to be connected to pin 27 of that processor, the P3 pot to be connected to pin 53, the TRN switch to pin 7 etc.
If you want to be able to take that file, flash it to a 9XR and expect it to run correctly, all these things must be identical.

Or there is an abstraction layer coded by a developer telling the software where the new location is allowing the use of multiple chip revisions/types.

This is very abstract stuff.

I originally wanted a DX6i until I saw the price, much more than the vehicle I wanted it to control. Even second hand DX6is are holding their price pretty well.

Then I thought about the situation where I want to buy another cheap little plane or heli that doesn't use DSMX/2. Modularity looks good to me. Who needs four different toy-grade proprietary controllers when one might do the job with a couple of spare modules? Open software means bugs get fixed and the hardware gets used optimally for the things users want from it.

I don't even care what it looks like, and it's cheap enough that I won't mind if it gets retired purely for simulator use at some point.

One tightfist, one cheap hobby-grade controller, many cheap little flying gadgets. Brilliant idea. I want one, and would already have the Flysky version if the 9XR wasn't so close.

Originally Posted by Thwock

This is very abstract stuff.

I originally wanted a DX6i until I saw the price, much more than the vehicle I wanted it to control. Even second hand DX6is are holding their price pretty well.

Then I thought about the situation where I want to buy another cheap little plane or heli that doesn't use DSMX/2. Modularity looks good to me. Who needs four different toy-grade proprietary controllers when one might do the job with a couple of spare modules? Open software means bugs get fixed and the hardware gets used optimally for the things users want from it.

I don't even care what it looks like, and it's cheap enough that I won't mind if it gets retired purely for simulator use at some point.

One tightfist, one cheap hobby-grade controller, many cheap little flying gadgets. Brilliant idea. I want one, and would already have the Flysky version if the 9XR wasn't so close.

Sounds exactly like my story...
Was going to buy a 9x, then i saw the 9xr was coming. Now im not sure of what i want. Maybe the 9xr turns out being worthless compared to the 9x? :O

No way to tell, but it should be similar to the 9X in general functions. The point I was really trying to make is that it won't just appeal to people who tinker with transmitters and firmware. If the price is low, it will take market share from arguably overpriced proprietary Txs like the DX6i.
DX7 and above not so much perhaps.

I also got in the 9x stuff because of the DSM BNFs... Really wanted the the UMX Sbach I have as an avatar, but as I wanted to equip it for FPV with camera pan control I needed at least a pot on the radio. At that time the "cheapest" Spektrum radio with a pot was the DX8... no way. Bought a 9x and a cheap 2nd hand DX4e, installed open9x, did the DSM mod, and there I went. I ended up selling my "good old" Futaba T14MZ, I simply wasn't using it anymore...

Originally Posted by Kilrah

You should read up a bit about embedded software development.
Your PC has an operating system, and one of its job is to implement a hardware abstraction layer. Together with device drivers, it makes sure that whatever hardware you have, the program will still "see" the same and will be able to run.

There's no such thing on most embedded devices, including the 9x. The 9x firmwares (open9x, er9x) are distributed as a binary file that is compiled to run on an atmel atmega64 processor, and nothing else. It expects the up elevator trim key to be connected to pin 27 of that processor, the P3 pot to be connected to pin 53, the TRN switch to pin 7 etc.
If you want to be able to take that file, flash it to a 9XR and expect it to run correctly, all these things must be identical.

Been in the technology business for 30 years selling technology to Corp. IT. Your statements are all true and totally irrelevent to the typical user.

Just as every windows PC is the same and every Android phone is the same ... but they aren't.

The 9XR will be a different radio than the 9X, manufactured by a different company with many different components, different standard RF system and different options.

But yes, other than that, it is the same.

Originally Posted by aeajr

The 9XR will be a different radio than the 9X, manufactured by a different company with many different components, different standard RF system and different options.

But yes, other than that, it is the same.

i KNEW this guy would eventually figure it out. (what they say about him couldnt possibly be true. )

It's using the same processor family, and apparently the same firmware. I'm tempted to call it similar...?
Not that it matters as long as it does expo, throttle and pitch curves reasonably well.

Do we know what firmware it is using? The 9X firmware is owned by FlySky. Unless FlySky is making the radio I doublt it is using their SW.

Rumoured to be er9x, but there are various mature open source examples for the 9x that could be used.
See here for the major examples
http://9xforums.com/forum/index.php

I can see I have to be precise. Boss man hinted it would be firmware compatible. There's a quote upthread somewhere. At worst that means a minor porting job from 9x compatible f/w to 9xr.

Originally Posted by aeajr

Do we know what firmware it is using? The 9X firmware is owned by FlySky. Unless FlySky is making the radio I doublt it is using their SW.

really aeajr, you need to read these threads before posting in them. it has been stated several times by hk that it will use something SIMILAR to er9x (search is your friend). i hope they will tame it down somewhat because as-is it dont work out of the box. developers philosophy was "its hard to write this software, so should be hard to use too". this is really not far from the truth.

The FlySky does not come with er9x so the 9XR has different firmware.

I think the 9XR with the open source firmware will be better than the DX7. And that's before cost is taken into account. I'd prefer my current 9x (with er9x) than my friends DX8.

Personally I find er9x very easy to use, unlike the 9x stock firmware. Very logical and easy to figure and there are set templates to start you off. Not complex at all, though you can set up complex mixes easily.

With the custom firmware on a 9x you can do stuff you couldn't even imagine with an expensive radio..

I find a bit hard to believe that the 9XR would come with one of the known custom firmwares because it doesn't even have the same number of switches..
Unless the firmware was modified..

Originally Posted by aeajr

Ya know, my Windows 7 PC has a keyboard that has the same plug as the one I had on my Windws Milenum PC. The monitor is actually the same one from the Milenum too. Both run the same version of Printmaster and the interface is similar enough that I moved from one to the other with noproblems.

Even my printer stayed the same.

And my friend has a Dell and it runs Windows 7 too. And his has a keyboard and screen that use the same connector as mine.

Must be the same computer with a different case.

Do you realise what you have said? Let me paraphrase:
A operating sysytem of a couple billion lines of code with over 500 additional drivers made for it works on different hardware therefore a SPECIALISED TX operating system of a few thousand line max with NO additional drivers must run on multiple hardware.

The reason Windows can run on different hardware is because the hardware is hidden behind another program, called a BIOS.

The OS on the 9X, 9XR and any other radio communicates directly to the hardware, no middle man. This means it can only work on one type of chip or it will have serious bloat.

Think before you post!

Originally Posted by dave1993

really aeajr, you need to read these threads before posting in them. it has been stated several times by hk that it will use something SIMILAR to er9x (search is your friend). i hope they will tame it down somewhat because as-is it dont work out of the box. developers philosophy was "its hard to write this software, so should be hard to use too". this is really not far from the truth.

Someone up top said it was going to have the same SW as the 9X which would be the FlySky SW. If it is not the FlySky SW then it is not the same SW as the 9X. And since we don't believe it is being made by FlySky that makes sense.

The purpose of my question was to overcome the loose use of terms and the ease of confusion that some people cause with their unclear statements. The 9X comes with FlySky SW. So this radio will have different SW than the 9X FlySky software.

Now you tell me it will be er9X, or something similar to er9X. So, by your own statement, you don't know what the SW will look like or what functions it will have. But you believe it will be something similar to er9X or something like that or some derivitive ... probably. OK but a far cry from KNOWING.

And we believe it will be able to be flashed with Open source software which may or may not need to be ported, if the open source community chooses to port to the 9XR. So there is no gurantee that there will be SW options, but it seems likely, probably, I guess. OK but a far cry from KNOWING.

I am on board. We don't know what SW it will have. And we don't know what optional SW there will be ... but we suspect.

Search is everyone's friend, but not always necessary. Sometimes we just have to distinguish between facts and opinions.

Until it is released, this is all opinion. Heck, the release dates have been opinions but people keep treating them like facts. When it hits the street, we will have the facts.