I keep getting tempted to get a second hand tx instead of waiting for this, an aurora 9 just came up for £160 with a 9ch rx and lipo for tx, 1 year old in perfect condition!
Hurry up frsky!

Renatoa or Chas

Will the new Tx change the FrSky transmission protocol at all?

What I am interested in (and I guess most people will be) is that our existing Rx and other stuff will work with the new TX and that any new Rx (such as a 12 Ch one) would be backwards compatible with our existing Rx modules.

Thanks

John

The new radio will use PXX as main protocol, and also PPM on trainer of course, and for the optional external modules of other make than Frsky.

Actual receivers will be PXX upgradable by firmware change, not sure yet if a PXX upgraded receiver will still be able to bind to a PPM Frsky radio. Once PXX upgraded I don't see any reason to go back PPM, to many advantages, bidirectional serial and model match to name only two.

There will be a choice to have more than 8 channels using two PXXed D8Rs, as are now paired the Futaba compatible receivers, so buying a 12ch receiver is not mandatory to access the new protocol.

Thanks, Renatoa. That's good news.

So another question is. What is the likelihood of FrSky bring out a PXX version of the DHT/DHT-U?

It would be a very attractive upgrade for people with older higher end 12 Ch transmitters. Going Tx PPM -> Module PXX may not seem logical technically but it would be just fine for many people I suspect.

John

Originally Posted by RENATOA

The new radio will use PXX as main protocol, and also PPM on trainer of course, and for the optional external modules of other make than Frsky.

Actual receivers will be PXX upgradable by firmware change, not sure yet if a PXX upgraded receiver will still be able to bind to a PPM Frsky radio. Once PXX upgraded I don't see any reason to go back PPM, to many advantages, bidirectional serial and model match to name only two.

There will be a choice to have more than 8 channels using two PXXed D8Rs, as are now paired the Futaba compatible receivers, so buying a 12ch receiver is not mandatory to access the new protocol.

I think this is the plan, 9X is already PXXed on the radio side, and waiting the Frsky PXX firmware for actual TX modules.
If current Tx modules can be PXXed, DHT-U is also obvious eligible, is same hardware in other case.
But the upgrade will be a bit more than protocol, I am afraid... imagine the implications to have model match... different alarms for any model, lot of screens changes.

Well I hope you encourage them to do it. The present screens are hardly brilliant.

It would be a good opportunity to generally improve the user interface.

Thanks for the info. It is good news.

John

Originally Posted by RENATOA

I think this is the plan, 9X is already PXXed on the radio side, and waiting the Frsky PXX firmware for actual TX modules.
If current Tx modules can be PXXed, DHT-U is also obvious eligible, is same hardware in other case.
But the upgrade will be a bit more than protocol, I am afraid... imagine the implications to have model match... different alarms for any model, lot of screens changes.

Originally Posted by RENATOA

Actual receivers will be PXX upgradable by firmware change,

.

So then, our present RXs will be upgradable for the 12 TX?

If you like to add a second full 8ch receiver for 1-2 channels, yes.
But probably the 12ch receiver will cost less than two D8R, I hope, else I don't see the logic.

I don't think the radios will be channel limited by software, is a nonsense in digital, where channels are numbers, not electronic circuits as in FM radios.
My take for a RC system will be to design it with virtually unlimited channels, because the users will pay channels count on receiver side anyway, not on radio side.
The problem with many channels radios isn't the channels count, but how to control them... you can't control 16 channels from 2 sticks 3 pots and 8 switches only... even you mix them as a web.
Based on the old designs of extensible radios, I would provide an additional pad with another two sticks, more pots, more switches, even USB joysticks coupled to central unit by a communication line. Who really needs all these widgets, will pay for additional unit, the others will try to live with gazillion channels the main unit is capable and few controls.
Imagine such architecture on a aerial video multicopter: the pilot focus on pilot, while the video operator controls the rig using the secondary pad... or a 4 motors WWII scale bomber, flown FPV, fitted with three cameras, front back and top, rotating 360 degrees ! Who is able to fly alone such thing even with 24 channels ?! with a copilot able to switch the cameras and operate all the stuff on such platform from the secondary pad the things becomes more attractive

Originally Posted by RENATOA

If you like to add a second full 8ch receiver for 1-2 channels, yes.
But probably the 12ch receiver will cost less than two D8R, I hope, else I don't see the logic.

Oh hell, I only need 8 ch! Looks like I'm gonna have a BUNCH of 6 and 8 ch RXs for sale! And some modules as well.

when is this Transmitter coming out? Very sorry if someone asked this question Already.

fred
I hope faster than XPS systems.

XPS is waiting for this system issue, to decide which feature to pick for their system, and leave some for the next model

How will the current TX modules behave with PXX?

My main interest is the model match, I have it on my Spektrum radios and I really like that feature.
I believe there was some work done with the open source 9x firmware on that way right?

I hope they give us good hardware.. As far as firmware is concerned there are already a couple excellent open source ones..

Originally Posted by RENATOA

..
I don't think the radios will be channel limited by software, is a nonsense in digital, where channels are numbers, not electronic circuits as in FM radios.
My take for a RC system will be to design it with virtually unlimited channels, because the users will pay channels count on receiver side anyway, not on radio side.

The problem with many channels radios isn't the channels count, but how to control them... you can't control 16 channels from 2 sticks 3 pots and 8 switches only... even you mix them as a web.
Based on the old designs of extensible radios, I would provide an additional pad with another two sticks, more pots, more switches, even USB joysticks coupled to central unit by a communication line....

Well, I completely agree with first part - but _some_ business managers may pull the rest of thir hair...
Anyway, I disagree with second part - a man has only two hands, by default :-) , so, two sticks are all that he may control. Perhaps 3rd axis (turning the stick in place) may get usable - just a crazy attempt to add more controls..
Anyway, servos are cheap and planes get more complex and grew in size - a lot of servos may work upon single yaw or roll or elevator input.. but 16 servos should suffice for most users and for couple of yearss - just guessing.

Just a crystal ball OT opinion - there are gyros and various sensors, and many new sensors (e.g. pressure at the wing) may appear soon, so the control unit to incorporate sensor input into servo movement, will be just the necessary step in _near_ future (in heli or copter, it is already common - but those units are still not setup from transmitters..). It will be nice to have all the setup handy, in tx. But it will be next generation, not this thread topic.

I disagree about the "two sticks argument", lets take a joystick with a viewing hat for example..one can operate both, one with the whole hand and the other with a finger.