SMALL - espritmodel.com SMALL - Telemetry SMALL - Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Jun 08, 2012, 01:03 PM
Taranis Tyro...
MattyB's Avatar
United Kingdom, England, Hitchin
Joined Jan 2004
3,984 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave1993 View Post
if you had read this thread you should recall that the major flaw i brought up is lack of settable failsafe combined with worst possible default
Try taking a look at Mike's eloquent post above - you have changed your tune as to the probelm here when your original statement on all FrSky receiver failsafes being flawed was found to be untrue...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Seale View Post
...no, we're not missing the point at all. You stated in post #1 that all FrSky receivers had the same problem and the thread title sums up your feelings perfectly. If you're now saying we're missing the point and that this product [VD5M] does not have failsafe then a more appropriate title would be Warning! VD5M does not have failsafe.
MattyB is offline Find More Posts by MattyB
RCG Plus Member
Last edited by MattyB; Jun 08, 2012 at 01:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Jun 08, 2012, 01:08 PM
RC beginner
New York
Joined Oct 2008
6,054 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Seale View Post
If you're now saying we're missing the point and that this product [VD5M] does not have failsafe then a more appropriate title would be [B][I]Warning! VD5M does not have failsafe.

And the Berg receivers that you have and have not tested yet.
again its not just that it dont have failsafe. but i was hoping that would shut up the constant criticism of me and now two others for failing to properly setup a feature that doent exist. however combined with poor choice of non-programmable default i will insist its a recipe for disaster.

i will also continue to insist that those models that do have failsafe would be better served if the default was no-pwm on all channels. you know, like their original 4ch product in case you missed that before. of course that would make no difference to you guys luckily all graced with godlike perfection. but it might benefit me and my lazy forgetful ilk.

and i did test my bergs and two models do have failsafe.

this exact same thing happened few years ago in the corona 4ch synth (plane killer) thread. for some bizzare reason virtually every post was in defense of an indefensibly defective product. vast majority, like here, did not own the product and probably never laid even laid eyes on one either. the internet is certainly entertaining if not always educational.
dave1993 is offline Find More Posts by dave1993
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2012, 01:12 PM
RC beginner
New York
Joined Oct 2008
6,054 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyB View Post
Try taking a look at Mike's eloquent post above - you have changed your tune as to the probelm here when your original statement on all FrSky receiver failsafes being flawed was foundt ob be untrue...
apparently "eloquent" is in the eye of the beholder.

and i havent changed a single tune since post #1. the problem was clearly stated there and no modifications have been made to that post except one line tacked on the end suggesting a fix. and the flaws were only found to be untrue in the minds of those lacking capacity for critical thought.

id strongly recommend you and bff go back and read this thread.
dave1993 is offline Find More Posts by dave1993
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2012, 01:14 PM
Taranis Tyro...
MattyB's Avatar
United Kingdom, England, Hitchin
Joined Jan 2004
3,984 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave1993 View Post
again, if you read my posts you might recall i made reference to the old analog 4017 type which generally behave far better than this particular unit.... i have a large box full of them, probably 20 different models, and mentioned a few previously (hitec, corona, gws, bluebird). quick testing yesterday showed the old type not always but usually drop pwm on no signal which is better than current algorithms you are so happy with.
It is not the best strategy to try and backup statements like "only one other rx in the history of rc had this characteristic" with words like "generally" and "usually". Is it a fact, or isn't it? As I showed in my post that statement is demonstrably false - there were a large number of RXs that exhibited this characteristic in the past whether you have seen them or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave1993 View Post
id strongly recommend you and bff go back and read this thread.
I doubt living in Devon that Mike is a member of the Bangladesh Footbal Federation, but thanks for asking...

I have read this thread in full, and all I see is one man railing against a system that everyone else believes works to their satisfaction and as described by the manufacturer. Minorities of one have been proved right in the past, but not often; expereince has taught me to go back and re-examine the facts whenever I find myself in that sitaution, as it's probably me that's msitaken. For this reason I see no further point in arguing this point; I am not going to change your opinion, and you are not going to change mine.

Matt (checking out of this thread...)
MattyB is offline Find More Posts by MattyB
RCG Plus Member
Last edited by MattyB; Jun 08, 2012 at 01:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2012, 01:22 PM
RC beginner
New York
Joined Oct 2008
6,054 Posts
if i had meant to say "every single one" id have said that. but since i only have examples of MOST every single one it seemed wiser to use "generally". not all the ones i tested drop pwm quietly. in the course of designing one from scratch, including superhet front end, i noticed that in unusually noisy environments badly designed units did not simply drop pwm but sent out garbage pulses. this would crash the plane which i still insist is better than flying miles away.
dave1993 is offline Find More Posts by dave1993
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2012, 01:46 PM
Taranis Tyro...
MattyB's Avatar
United Kingdom, England, Hitchin
Joined Jan 2004
3,984 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave1993 View Post
if i had meant to say "every single one" id have said that. but since i only have examples of MOST every single one it seemed wiser to use "generally". not all the ones i tested drop pwm quietly.
Errr, what? In post you 93 stated this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave1993 View Post
only one other rx in the history of rc had this characteristic, the corona 4ch synth, which had very brief product life once people became aware.
...which is clearly untrue - see the link I made to the BMFA safety warning previously. You may have a bucket load of RXs in your workshop that don't exhibit this behaviour, but all the evidence shows that many early PCM RXs with failsafe held last known good.
MattyB is offline Find More Posts by MattyB
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: EFX Racer
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2012, 02:31 PM
RC beginner
New York
Joined Oct 2008
6,054 Posts
ok i admit to some hyperbole but in my defense i did state previously that pcm was before my time and id never seen one. if what you say is true i guess we know why it enjoyed such brief popularity. reeds probably had a longer product life.

i read your link before and should have pointed out how effectively it bolsters my argument. this was all discussed endlessly in many threads and while theres lots of disagreement one thing was common: hold is the WORST of the possibilities. its why i say this otherwise great product line could be made even better by avoiding that as default (on the 5ch, the ONLY) choice. again, it would cost them nothing considering at least one previous version did drop pwm and the code is just sitting there on a shelf someplace in china.

anyway i solved the problem for myself and a couple others so no need for me to keep fighting. (i do so ENJOY it though )
dave1993 is offline Find More Posts by dave1993
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2012, 05:36 PM
Registered User
Joined Jan 2012
285 Posts
Hold seems to give you the best chance to regain signal and control the plane again.
GTiDonavan is offline Find More Posts by GTiDonavan
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2012, 07:13 PM
RC beginner
New York
Joined Oct 2008
6,054 Posts
that was one argument and if there is a timeout function that kept it in that state for some finite period it might not be so bad. few failsafes are that sophisticated and the ones we discuss here certainly aint. generally if you remove all pwm pulses the plane will cut throttle and control surfaces will hold leaving the plane available for recovery for some time so seems the best of both worlds. staying in hold forever not so good. im not saying all this from experience but basing my beliefs on comments made in those other threads by others who have had a lot more problems with runaways than me (0).
dave1993 is offline Find More Posts by dave1993
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2012, 10:50 PM
Registered User
reacher10's Avatar
United States, NY, Shirley
Joined Oct 2008
1,983 Posts
"warning! fatal failsafe flaw in frsky receivers
by fatal flaw i mean it can cost you a plane. a friend of mine contacted me this morning and said his model with frsky vd5m onboard flew away at full throttle when the dht-u became disconnected from his radio. i thought this cannot possibly be true so decided to check the dozen or so flysky rx i have on hand. one thing became obvious: if you dont configure the failsafe on these units the airplane WILL continue to fly away with no tendency to spin in or crash nearby. the 5ch has no settable options so its a real problem"

See ya!

reacher10 is online now Find More Posts by reacher10
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 09, 2012, 03:25 AM
f5b-uk
Mike Seale's Avatar
United Kingdom, Dorset
Joined May 2002
3,068 Posts
Only just spotted this with reachers post

so decided to check the dozen or so flysky rx i have on hand. one thing became obvious

Dave, you need to go back and edit your original post unless you did mean to say Flysky...in which case you need to change the title of this thread.

Mike
Mike Seale is online now Find More Posts by Mike Seale
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 09, 2012, 09:27 AM
RC beginner
New York
Joined Oct 2008
6,054 Posts
thanks guys. it aint the first time i confused the two companies and probably wont be the last. id like to keep that 1st post as accurate as possible which is why i updated yesterday. and specially thanks to reacher who kindly reposted it here for everybodys enjoyment.

anyway the wd5m just arrived from the guy i offered to do the fix for. this is the fourth now and only took 2-3min unlike the first which took over half hour. practice makes perfect. as predicted it now behaves much better considering its still a non-configurable failsafe. in fact i might say little room for improvement since the throttle cuts now and control surfaces hold which is how the flysky works. im happy with it.

ive decided to give it a field test so mounted it on one of my small foamies and took some photos so you can see what kind of setup i have. maybe you can make out a little bit of the hardware mod peeking out from underneath. in a strange turn of events an adapter is now needed for the esc but the hk5320 servos plug directly in. also noticed the adapters and cables weigh 2x more than the radio gear itself so gonna have to do something about that. im headed out now and will report results of some real world trials.
dave1993 is offline Find More Posts by dave1993
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 09, 2012, 10:15 AM
Balsa addiction since age 3
ScottSails's Avatar
Upstate NY
Joined May 2005
1,259 Posts
Dave,

You crack me up.... You are clearly a very technical person whom has no fear of delving in to hardware (I assume an electrical or computer engineering degree is what you are going to school for?) and I have looked with fondness at your other changes on this forum....

You have time to make a hardware mod but not to set the failsafe?... (Yes, I know, it eliminates the worry about a fly away but I had to say it)


PS - I do like the thought of removing receiver output when RF signal is lost and NO failsafe has been set as a default (after a time delay of say 1 second during which hold should be used) but I do wish you would change the title of this thread as all evidence points to the FrSky system working exactly as designed and sold.
ScottSails is online now Find More Posts by ScottSails
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 09, 2012, 12:48 PM
Registered User
reacher10's Avatar
United States, NY, Shirley
Joined Oct 2008
1,983 Posts
Scott...it turns out the Rx he's talking about doesn't have fail safe. This while thing a joke really.
reacher10 is online now Find More Posts by reacher10
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 09, 2012, 04:37 PM
f5b-uk
Mike Seale's Avatar
United Kingdom, Dorset
Joined May 2002
3,068 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by reacher10 View Post
Scott...it turns out the Rx he's talking about doesn't have fail safe. This while thing a joke really.
Unfortunately, Dave has created his own definition of failsafe and won't change his position. Those of us who have either been in the hobby for more than the couple of years that Dave has or who have read the instructions that come with our radios know different.

Mike
Mike Seale is online now Find More Posts by Mike Seale
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2012, 05:59 AM
RC beginner
New York
Joined Oct 2008
6,054 Posts
well, last week i took out the 5ch rx with repaired failsafe and things actually went better than expected. the mini-vtail was launched straight away and when a good distance away the tx was switched off. w/motor torque roll gone and possibly slight imbalance in control surfaces the model tended to not only start gliding down but did so with a small bank. amazingly it managed a 180 before gliding in about 30' away. all w/o any control input at all! MUCH better than heading off in a straight line never to be seen again. a few more trials showed similar behaviour although i do admit to manual recovery before heading out again so i didnt have to actually keep walking over and pick it up.

after a while i switched over to a 32" delta with one of the other rx. it had settable failsafe so didnt really need the mod but would be a good test anyway. again, even though the plane was out quite a ways off it drifted back and spun in just a few feet away. deltas are not inherently stable so it does not glide like the high wing vtail. the rest of the test flights werent quite so impressive but, aside from a small episode involving a tree, there were no surprises and not a single "out of park" experience
dave1993 is offline Find More Posts by dave1993
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2012, 11:46 AM
RC beginner
New York
Joined Oct 2008
6,054 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottSails View Post
Dave,You crack me up.... You are clearly a very technical person whom has no fear of delving in to hardware (I assume an electrical or computer engineering degree is what you are going to school for?) and I have looked with fondness at your other changes on this forum....
im glad you find the class clown act amusing and the diy threads interesting. i get a huge kick out of both myself.

i have an ee degree and plan postgraduate in the fall. probably not doctoral though because ive been running an electronics company for last couple years with two emplyees now and it keeps me busy and i enjoy it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottSails View Post
You have time to make a hardware mod but not to set the failsafe?...
setting failsafe might be a good idea if it were possible. unfortunately this product has non-configurable failsafe so thats not an option. what i mean by this is its designed to remember pwm values from last good signal and maintain them indefinitely but the user cant change them. in other words the failsafe option on this rx is non-settable by the user, its only capable of hold type failsafe and this cant be changed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottSails View Post
I do like the thought of removing receiver output when RF signal is lost and NO failsafe has been set as a default (after a time delay of say 1 second during which hold should be used)
i agree. that is close to my idea of the perfect failsafe. great minds think alike. others not so much. they tend to develop there own idea of what a failsafe is and how it should behave. im a great fan of imagination and individuallity however....

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottSails View Post
I do wish you would change the title of this thread as all evidence points to the FrSky system working exactly as designed and sold.
we disagree on this point. imo the popular "because thats the way it is" attitude is reprehensible. specially considering it costs literally nothing to change and human lives are at stake.
dave1993 is offline Find More Posts by dave1993
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 09, 2012, 02:05 PM
FLY IY, BREAK IT, FIX IT,
Hampshire, United Kingdom
Joined Jun 2005
839 Posts
A couple of observations:

1). Credit to Dave for standing by his convictions. It would have been all too easy to give up in the face of all the criticisms;

2). I am required by my club to set fail safes if the equipment supports them. As Frsky supports it, fail safe is set on every RX installation and re-bind. It is also tested before most flights. The consequence of an avoidable incident involving people at our club would likely cost our permission to fly. I would not be surprised if it was a bmfa requirement to set fail safes where available.

3). Under the air navigation order, it is the responsibility of the pilot to ensure no danger to planes or people, both relevant articles apply to uk modellers flying under bmfa rules (i accept you are USA) I therefore need to be satisfied my complete model is safe. Motor, esc, lipo, cg - absolutely everything within reasonable bounds (i.e. i would not electrically test the individual fets on the esc!) Reading and understanding the Frsky manual and my obligations under the Bmfa insurance is firmly within all reasonableness. Don't set the fail safe, risk (and deserve) prosecution in the uk if you cause injury. Extreme event, yes, but a very real possibility. I do all I can to avoid voiding my insurance! If some idiot hit my kid with an inappropriately set up plane, I would rip their guts out

Edit: it seems this thread died sometime ago, so apologies for being so late to the party.
Impailer is offline Find More Posts by Impailer
Last edited by Impailer; Jul 09, 2012 at 02:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 09, 2012, 03:46 PM
Registered User
Joined Dec 2009
70 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impailer View Post
A couple of observations:

1). Credit to Dave for standing by his convictions. It would have been all too easy to give up in the face of all the criticisms;

2). I am required by my club to set fail safes if the equipment supports them. As Frsky supports it, fail safe is set on every RX installation and re-bind. It is also tested before most flights. The consequence of an avoidable incident involving people at our club would likely cost our permission to fly. I would not be surprised if it was a bmfa requirement to set fail safes where available.

3). Under the air navigation order, it is the responsibility of the pilot to ensure no danger to planes or people, both relevant articles apply to uk modellers flying under bmfa rules (i accept you are USA) I therefore need to be satisfied my complete model is safe. Motor, esc, lipo, cg - absolutely everything within reasonable bounds (i.e. i would not electrically test the individual fets on the esc!) Reading and understanding the Frsky manual and my obligations under the Bmfa insurance is firmly within all reasonableness. Don't set the fail safe, risk (and deserve) prosecution in the uk if you cause injury. Extreme event, yes, but a very real possibility. I do all I can to avoid voiding my insurance! If some idiot hit my kid with an inappropriately set up plane, I would rip their guts out

Edit: it seems this thread died sometime ago, so apologies for being so late to the party.
Its a CAA requirement that failsafes should be set when available, you find an article on failsafes in the upcoming BMFA news.
Big AndyS is online now Find More Posts by Big AndyS
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2012, 05:46 PM
aerial photographer
Lorphos's Avatar
Germany, NRW, Dortmund
Joined Dec 2004
114 Posts
I asked FrSky to supply an alternative firmware version that allows me to completely disable the failsafe (for my quadrocopter, so the GPS failsafe of the flight control can kick in). Allen replied that he would forward the request to product engineering for consideration.
There is a form to post questions at http://www.frsky-rc.com/add_book.asp

If you want this feature also, you should do the same!
Lorphos is offline Find More Posts by Lorphos
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 17, 2012, 12:43 AM
Registered User
Joined Mar 2009
297 Posts
To completely disable the receiver failsafe

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorphos View Post
I asked FrSky to supply an alternative firmware version that allows me to completely disable the failsafe (for my quadrocopter, so the GPS failsafe of the flight control can kick in). Allen replied that he would forward the request to product engineering for consideration.
There is a form to post questions at http://www.frsky-rc.com/add_book.asp

If you want this feature also, you should do the same!
Hi Lorphos and everyone here,

The failsafe can be completely disabled (no PPM signal output), if the failsafe is set while transmitter is power off.
Chase Wu is offline Find More Posts by Chase Wu
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 17, 2012, 04:44 AM
aerial photographer
Lorphos's Avatar
Germany, NRW, Dortmund
Joined Dec 2004
114 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chase Wu View Post
Hi Lorphos and everyone here,

The failsafe can be completely disabled (no PPM signal output), if the failsafe is set while transmitter is power off.
Wow, sounds great! Thanks, I will try that with my D8R-II Plus.
Lorphos is offline Find More Posts by Lorphos
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 17, 2012, 02:15 PM
RC beginner
New York
Joined Oct 2008
6,054 Posts
best kept secret

following chase wu suggestion i just checked 8ch, 6ch, and 4ch 2-way and was able to disable failsafe on all. post #1 has been updated. i guess the only request for frsky would be update the pdf for all their rx and alter the default on vdm5. i dont personally have one because ive been using frsky only for telemetry and the loaner was returned to my bud. anyway im happy as a clam. i was favoring flysky thinking their failsafe was better behaved but will now say frsky is not only "best deal" for rc radio but simply "best". at any price. thanks chase.

moral of the story: frsky should keep a handle on the doc situation.

also please note that the pwm pulses are removed in addition to the ppm chase mentions.
dave1993 is offline Find More Posts by dave1993
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2012, 05:31 AM
aerial photographer
Lorphos's Avatar
Germany, NRW, Dortmund
Joined Dec 2004
114 Posts
I have also verified this behavior. Nice!

One thing that you have to look out for is that the receiver must not have had any contact with a transmitter after powering it up before you touch the button to set the failsafe.
I.e. it won't work if you do a normal failsafe setup (with active transmitter), then another one with the transmitter turned off. You have to cut the power to the receiver first.
Lorphos is offline Find More Posts by Lorphos
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2012, 07:13 AM
RC beginner
New York
Joined Oct 2008
6,054 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorphos View Post
I have also verified this behavior. Nice!

One thing that you have to look out for is that the receiver must not have had any contact with a transmitter after powering it up before you touch the button to set the failsafe.
I.e. it won't work if you do a normal failsafe setup (with active transmitter), then another one with the transmitter turned off. You have to cut the power to the receiver first.
i thought the process failed a couple times for me but didnt know why. maybe that was the reason. or it might have been this other warning from smeagle in the failsafe thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeagle View Post
Only one thing to add:

If you already set FailSafe, you need to rebing the RX to "clear" it. Failsafe can only be set once after binding.

So:

to disable fs (no pulses on lost signal so plane will land nearby):

1. (re)bind rx (to clear failsafe if already set)
2. hit button w/tx off

- Oliver
ill need to check both these issues myself. in any case frsky really needs to work on some documentation.
dave1993 is offline Find More Posts by dave1993
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2012, 01:45 PM
Balsa addiction since age 3
ScottSails's Avatar
Upstate NY
Joined May 2005
1,259 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave1993 View Post
following chase wu suggestion i just checked 8ch, 6ch, and 4ch 2-way and was able to disable failsafe on all. post #1 has been updated. i guess the only request for frsky would be update the pdf for all their rx and alter the default on vdm5. i dont personally have one because ive been using frsky only for telemetry and the loaner was returned to my bud. anyway im happy as a clam. i was favoring flysky thinking their failsafe was better behaved but will now say frsky is not only "best deal" for rc radio but simply "best". at any price. thanks chase.

moral of the story: frsky should keep a handle on the doc situation.

also please note that the pwm pulses are removed in addition to the ppm chase mentions.
I agree with you (again) on the documentation and I thank you that you changed the title of the post...

Scott
ScottSails is online now Find More Posts by ScottSails
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 01, 2012, 03:36 AM
Registered User
Kalmar, Sweden
Joined Apr 2009
63 Posts
I can not get this feature to work with my D8RSP and MultiWii2.1.
Telemetry module in my 9x radio.
MWii2.1 on my quad with failsafe activated in sketch (motor idle +200 and motor kill after 20sec).

I turn everything of, hit bind on Tx and power it up. It beebs constantly. I push bind on Rx and power up. LED flash and bind is good. I kill Tx and hit Rx bind. Problem: Outputs last good PWM.
Tried something else, I rebind and turn everything off. Power up copter (Tx still of), push bind on Rx and still same problem. Last good PWM out.

Right now I have set a manual "fail halfsafe" giving about 30% throttle and activated level switch and hit bind on Rx. Better than having last good PWM.
If it for some reason manages to land itself during a failsafe the MWii will still think there is good link and motors will run at 30% untill I find the copter and kill it....

Any ideas to what I should do to try to fix this issue? I want MWii failsafe to kick in and land the copter and after 20sec the motors are killed.
markusb2 is offline Find More Posts by markusb2
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 03, 2012, 05:54 PM
RC beginner
New York
Joined Oct 2008
6,054 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by markusb2 View Post
I rebind and turn everything off. Power up copter (Tx still of), push bind on Rx.
that sounds correct to me. i use d8r-II which is similar hardware but different firmware. i recall having to try a few times but that may be due to failing to have tx off when powering up. or maybe it dont always work however it has worked for me every time since. idk.

or possibly sp failsafe code is different and cant disable (i hope not). it would help if somebody with a d8r-sp tried it and reported. else try updating with d8r-II firmware file as a diagnostic.
dave1993 is offline Find More Posts by dave1993
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 04, 2012, 12:40 AM
Registered User
Joined May 2012
57 Posts
I just tested the D8RSP.

Bind and set CH1 F/S -100%, kill Tx, F/S OK.

Turn on Tx, turn off Tx & Rx, turn on Rx, push bind button.

there is nothing output on CH1 on oscilloscope.
Zeeland is offline Find More Posts by Zeeland
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 04, 2012, 12:48 AM
Registered User
Romania, Dolj, Craiova
Joined Sep 2007
15,185 Posts
D8R-SP outputs CPPM on ch8, not ch1.
renatoa is online now Find More Posts by renatoa
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 04, 2012, 11:47 AM
RC beginner
New York
Joined Oct 2008
6,054 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeeland View Post
turn off Tx & Rx, turn on Rx, push bind button. there is nothing output on CH1 on oscilloscope.
so its working on your sp. looks like markus might have some other problem. next step might be to pick up another rx and try that. they are pretty cheap from hk.

btw renato i think it dont matter what channel as all channels (pwm and ppm) disappear. right?
dave1993 is offline Find More Posts by dave1993
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 04, 2013, 01:50 PM
Registered User
Joined Nov 2012
24 Posts
Sorry for the bump BUT, I'm having the exact same problem with my frsky d4r-ii using cppm and multiwii. I cannot get the failsafe to work ie it keeps outputting last pwn signal. I have tried rebind to remove failsafe etc but no luck. Does anyone have any ideas?

Thanks in advance.
fpv_downunder is offline Find More Posts by fpv_downunder
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 04, 2014, 06:21 PM
Expat
Japan
Joined Apr 2010
3,075 Posts
I'm getting the same problem with my d8r-xp hooked up to naza lite. Last one had no trouble. Just changed to a new rx (rest of system same), and it won't allow naza to go into failsafe when I turn off tx. Any ideas?
TheNiceGuy is offline Find More Posts by TheNiceGuy
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 07, 2014, 08:10 PM
RC beginner
New York
Joined Oct 2008
6,054 Posts
imo the "no pulse" failsafe is superior to "user preset" type for most applications and has been shown to work for all frsky products except the cheapo 4 channel rx. if im not mistaken i was responsible for the red letter warnings and and instructions in all current docs. it works for all 6 and 8 channel, just takes some care and maybe a few tries.

there is a fix for the 4ch involving easy and cheap hardware mod discussed earlier in this thread. iirc it used the built-in led and a transistor. no more runaways. frsky dont seem too interested in fixing what i consider to be a fatal flaw in this one product. probably due to low likelihood of using this in $5000 model hence less chance of big lawsuit.
dave1993 is offline Find More Posts by dave1993
Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2014, 02:57 AM
Expat
Japan
Joined Apr 2010
3,075 Posts
Naza frsky trouble (0 min 44 sec)

My previously well working frsky futaba combo failsafes at under 2meters suddenly.
Could the new replacement d8r-xp be defective and cause this behavior? Or would it not act like this? I've replaced the entire radio system with duplicates, the dft, the antennaes, even the futaba 8u for a 9c. I've tested all components isolated and in stages. Only the new rx I have not bought again in double to test.
I'm tired if blind buying duplicates in hopes of problem solving.
TheNiceGuy is offline Find More Posts by TheNiceGuy
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 07, 2014, 03:38 AM
Registered User
iacopo's Avatar
Joined Jun 2005
81 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave1993 View Post
imo the "no pulse" failsafe is superior to "user preset" type for most applications and has been shown to work for all frsky products except the cheapo 4 channel rx. if im not mistaken i was responsible for the red letter warnings and and instructions in all current docs. it works for all 6 and 8 channel, just takes some care and maybe a few tries.

there is a fix for the 4ch involving easy and cheap hardware mod discussed earlier in this thread. iirc it used the built-in led and a transistor. no more runaways. frsky dont seem too interested in fixing what i consider to be a fatal flaw in this one product. probably due to low likelihood of using this in $5000 model hence less chance of big lawsuit.
I'm trying to set the no pulse failsafe on a D4R-II and on a D8R-II plus, but I get the same behavior from both... I can set a regular failsafe without any problem, if I re-bind the rx, turn tx and rx off, then only rx on and press failsafe button nothing happens! Once I do this, the failsafe simply keeps the last known sticks position... Any suggestion?
iacopo is offline Find More Posts by iacopo
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2014, 01:47 AM
Registered User
Romania, Dolj, Craiova
Joined Sep 2007
15,185 Posts
Again, do you really have a problem using user preset failsafe, or just mind screw because dave consider the lack of this "fatal flaw" ?
I have more posts than him and I don't use no pulse, make this more happy ?
renatoa is online now Find More Posts by renatoa
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2014, 06:31 PM
Registered User
Greece, Attica, Athens
Joined May 2014
135 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacopo View Post
I'm trying to set the no pulse failsafe on a D4R-II and on a D8R-II plus, but I get the same behavior from both... I can set a regular failsafe without any problem, if I re-bind the rx, turn tx and rx off, then only rx on and press failsafe button nothing happens! Once I do this, the failsafe simply keeps the last known sticks position... Any suggestion?


It works ok for me, got the D4R-II with 27ms f/w and the APM 2.6
Initially I also had issues, but this thread and smeagle's post helped me
the trick is to have the Trx and Rx re-bind so the receiver to have an internal reset
The receiver seems that it can have failsafe set only once after bind, if you want to have another failsafe setting, you have to do a new re-bind and then a new failsafe set.

Follow these to the letter and it will be ok for no-pulse failsafe in D4R-II

1. Remove all receiver jumpers, eg CH3/4 if you have CPPM
2. Re-bind the Trx and Receiver (so receiver will internally do a reset)
3. close Trx and Rx
4. open ONLY Rx
5. press momentarily F/S
6. close Rx

then use the Trx and Rx the normal/usual way


Christos
sv1eia is online now Find More Posts by sv1eia
Last edited by sv1eia; Jul 13, 2014 at 02:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 15, 2014, 05:11 PM
RC beginner
New York
Joined Oct 2008
6,054 Posts
iacopo, sorry i missed your post and didnt respond sooner but sv1eia seems to have wrapped it up better than i could have done. thanks. its been a long time since mine were fixed but that is how i remember it. just bind with tx off and the units will work properly from that point on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by renatoa View Post
Again, do you really have a problem using user preset failsafe, or just mind screw because dave consider the lack of this "fatal flaw" ?
I have more posts than him and I don't use no pulse, make this more happy ?
its not clear whether you are happy with the hold "feature" or prefer to have pulses go away. in any case near perfect beings with godlike qualities will never fail to go through the extra steps of setting channel presets. the rest of us who might be a bit lazy or forgetful will eventually lose a plane w/o eliminating the need to do that every time.

theres also the point that most flight controllers need to have pulses stop to detect lost signal. and lost model alarms too as i just discussed in the other thread.
dave1993 is offline Find More Posts by dave1993
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 04:06 PM
Registered User
Romania, Dolj, Craiova
Joined Sep 2007
15,185 Posts
Nope. not most. The most relevant, APM, don't know how to handle no pulses at all.
renatoa is online now Find More Posts by renatoa
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2014, 04:46 PM
RC beginner
New York
Joined Oct 2008
6,054 Posts
judging by listings on sites like ebay and ali mw outnumber ardu by about 4 to 1 so thats what i meant by "most". anyway since they are open sores im sure there are builds if not whole branches around that do support no pulse on lost signal. it is obviously the primary method for failsafe rth etc. enabling failsafe via aux channels is pointless.

and "most" rx these days are spektrum or clones and incapable of supressing pulses. ergo-engineering at its best, lol.
dave1993 is offline Find More Posts by dave1993
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24, 2014, 04:54 AM
Fatboy
Joined Jul 2011
1 Posts
D8R IIplus receiver fs

If you haven't found the answer to this problem, it wasn't in the manual. To set the fail safe to no-pulse on the D8R IPlus receiver, turn off the Tx and Rx then power up only the Rx and immediately press the FS button. You have very little time before it locks in the old settings, so need to be quick.

Cheers.
fatboyrc is offline Find More Posts by fatboyrc
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help! Low Voltage warning in iCharger 306B when plugging in balance port, please help jasper7821 Batteries and Chargers 15 May 04, 2012 12:57 PM
Discussion Orange Rx's HUGE Flaw Discovered. Update: no flaw. Just brain fart. kml.krk Radios 17 Apr 08, 2012 08:34 PM
Discussion An Obvious Flaw in Phoenix Flight Modeling Madratter Simulators 16 Dec 20, 2011 01:24 AM
Discussion Need suggestions to hide flaw in mahogany deck RichMPL Scale Boats 8 Sep 16, 2011 03:07 AM