HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Feb 03, 2013, 04:14 AM
Registered User
Romania, Dolj, Craiova
Joined Sep 2007
15,441 Posts
What conformity you expect, it is as compatible as it gets ! 100mW, frequency hopping.

The only system that is not compatible with EN 300328, which btw, is in effect right now, since 22nd June 2012, not from 2015, is the Spektrum radios not having the 10mW DSM2 option in menus, for Europe. They are already banned from competitions in several European countries, and probably finally will be forbidden in all EU competitions.
renatoa is offline Find More Posts by renatoa
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Feb 03, 2013, 10:26 AM
The truth will prevail
skyrock's Avatar
Westbury, NY
Joined Nov 2009
683 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by renatoa View Post
What conformity you expect, it is as compatible as it gets ! 100mW, frequency hopping.

The only system that is not compatible with EN 300328, which btw, is in effect right now, since 22nd June 2012, not from 2015, is the Spektrum radios not having the 10mW DSM2 option in menus, for Europe. They are already banned from competitions in several European countries, and probably finally will be forbidden in all EU competitions.
This is not correct!

The new EN300328 requires mandatory an adaptive protrocol from each TX !! This new standard will be implemented and mandatory from 2015 onward.

As far as I know , only 2 TX's on the market are operating with such an adaptive protocol. Some other vendors claim they can change their actual protocol to an adptive via a software update. So no new TX can be sold in Europe after 2015 which doesn't operate with an adaptive protocol.

Let's assume the A9x will be available end of the year. Then it is only one year before the new European standard becomes effective....

Juergen
skyrock is offline Find More Posts by skyrock
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 03, 2013, 12:10 PM
Suspended Account
M$ Security
Joined Jun 2010
728 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by renatoa View Post
> It has faster response

After a lot of arguments were thrown for original Aurora to demonstrate that 55ms latency is not relevant in real life...

> more resolution (which probably doesn't mean much if the servos don't support it)

You got it right this time the same apply for faster response too, your reflexes don't need much faster than it is.
why are they comparing the resolution with Fut and Spek while the latency is still higher ?
I agree, if you don't have high speed servos 4096 resolution is useless, just marketing!
Mikarro is offline Find More Posts by Mikarro
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Old Feb 03, 2013, 02:52 PM
most exalted one
Canada, BC, Blind Bay
Joined Aug 2002
3,604 Posts
Dual processors - I won't be admiring that. It's what changes the performance so redundant statement
New receivers (no telemetry) - What I bought it for
J plug - how many years? Could have been done to the A9 before release. Someone is dumb as a fence post as they say.
SLT built in - and Yes I have to plug in a module but I got a micro and free anylink for $39.95 a few weeks ago.
Other stuff is probably good except no module!
As far as it being marketing. IMNSHO they have joined the dark side with marketing, now. Disappointing but easily gotten over.
Depending on pricing the will go away, at least that's the way most of the world works.
4*60 is offline Find More Posts by 4*60
Last edited by 4*60; Feb 03, 2013 at 02:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 03, 2013, 08:32 PM
Registered User
cloudsplitter's Avatar
United States, GA, Roswell
Joined Apr 2006
101 Posts
I agree, it is nice that the cable is gone, I have been concerned about that and often wondered why a small trough was not embedded in the plastic to restrain it.. Perhaps the module was removed because very few people took advantage of the 72mHz option? I agree, not sure what the resolution buys you, but I thought I heard that Hitec was coming out with brushless servos, so maybe that would drive the additional resolution? Or, perhaps they are future proofing for the time when Hall-Effect tracking is used rather than potentiometers?

Question: Does anyone know if the A9X still uses about 1/3 of the available 2.4 GHz band at a time? I seem to recall Bruce on RC Model Reviews analyzing the spectrum and that was a unique characteristic of the Hitec radios. He indicated it might have advantages for video for FPV, but it was a mystery. From what I remember, if significant interference occurred in that region it would shift to use other parts of the band.

Question: Has Hitec quoted the latency? (Frankly, I never found it to be an issue, and the analyses posted on RC Groups suggested it was very small, and almost insignificant. As I remember some heli pilots complained that they noticed the effect of latency.)
cloudsplitter is offline Find More Posts by cloudsplitter
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 03, 2013, 10:00 PM
Registered User
United States, SC, Clemson
Joined Dec 2011
113 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by renatoa View Post
...
> and it removes that awkward module from the back of the radio.

This is the biggest mistake in your judgment !
A lot of people don't buy a radio today if they can't change RF system !
I dare to evaluate that more people will skip the new Aurora due to lack of module, then those who didn't bought the original model due to the back wire.
Well...presumably the only reason people change their module is because

1. They want to fly with frsky. That problem goes away once the x9d radio is released.
2. The want to fly UHF. Which I admit has value. 2.4 is awfully crowded. But it only seems to benefit the fpv guys.
redradar is offline Find More Posts by redradar
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 04, 2013, 02:08 AM
Team Twisted!
hone1er's Avatar
United States, CA, Hercules
Joined Dec 2011
4,318 Posts
First of all i doubt the only people Hitec cares about selling radios to is current A9 owners. While it may not be a great upgrade from the A9 it is still going to be an AWESOME radio to upgrade to from your DX6i or similar.

Mike M. has stated that they are working on expanding the channels on the 9x in the future so it may not stay a 9 channel radio for long.

SLT opens up a whole new BNF market for Hitec, a lot of people looking for a new radio chose Spektrum specifically for BNF so now Hitec can have something similar to compete.

Here is an article on latency http://www.3drcforums.com/showwiki.p...hlight=latency

Even if you don't read the whole thing you might find this interesting, "30mph is 44ft per second (5280/60^2)

How far the plane travels before the servo receives a signal to move of some typical systems (latency data from previous table):
• Airtronics SD-10G (10.3ms average latency) - plane travels 0.44ft (5.3")
• Futaba 8FG (14.1ms average latency) - plane travels 0.62ft (7.4")
• Spektrum DX8 (19.2ms average latency) - plane travels 0.84ft (10.1")
• Futaba 14MZ (47ms average latency) - plane travels 2.1ft (25.2")
• Hitec Aurora 9 (53.5ms average latency) - plane travels 2.35ft (28.2”)

So the difference between the fastest and the slowest radios at 30mph flying speed, everything else being exactly equal, to be near enough 2ft (24"). "

This new radio will be the FASTEST on the market with the highest resolution. And FYI, Savox has servos with 4096 resolution.

Someone cruising around in the sky isn't going to notice or care about latency. If you are flying highly aggressive aerobatic routines or 3D helis you'll notice a faster radio.
hone1er is online now Find More Posts by hone1er
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 04, 2013, 02:10 AM
most exalted one
Canada, BC, Blind Bay
Joined Aug 2002
3,604 Posts
Fastest if no telemetry. I guess
4*60 is offline Find More Posts by 4*60
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 04, 2013, 02:22 AM
Team Twisted!
hone1er's Avatar
United States, CA, Hercules
Joined Dec 2011
4,318 Posts
Yes fastest without telemetry. It's still faster than the original A9 when using telemetry but won't be the fastest. But how many people that are just looking for speed also want telemetry. I know people who switched to a Futaba 8FG specifically for lower latency, they didn't care they lost built in telemetry. You can't have it all.

No one has anything good to say about the radio because the only people commenting are current A9 owners and they're upset it's not enough to make them buy a new radio

I also own a A9 but i'm very happy to see what they've done. If i want telemetry i can use a Optima(still twice as fast as with original A9), if i want speed i can use a Maxima, or i can switch to SLT and fly any TX-R plane or heli.

If the price is up there with the 14SG then i can see how there might be an issue with this release. But if they keep the price reasonable they will have a winner.

They also have said there aren't any plans to cancel the current A9 so the module folks can still go that route. I'm going to put a DSMX module in my A9 when the 9x comes out and pick one up.
hone1er is online now Find More Posts by hone1er
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 04, 2013, 06:49 AM
Registered User
schumixmd's Avatar
Moldova
Joined Jun 2010
1,302 Posts
Ha ha..
hitec is already releasing another Tx.. while I just bought HPP-22 to update my A9 to last firmware from (1.6) and I'm very happy with that...
schumixmd is offline Find More Posts by schumixmd
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: Setting up session
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 04, 2013, 07:45 AM
Radio? Screwdriver!
United Kingdom, England, Bristol
Joined Aug 2011
991 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by renatoa View Post
What conformity you expect, it is as compatible as it gets ! 100mW, frequency hopping.
<snip>
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyrock View Post
This is not correct!
<snip>
You're both right in some aspects and your wrong in others! I'm assuming we're referring to v1.8.1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by renatoa View Post
which btw, is in effect right now, since 22nd June 2012, not from 2015,
From the foreword on the spec:
Quote:
Date of withdrawal of any conflicting National Standard (dow): 32 months after doa
doa = April 2012. So [April 2012] + [32 months] = Jan 2015.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyrock View Post
The new EN300328 requires mandatory an adaptive protrocol from each TX !! This new standard will be implemented and mandatory from 2015 onward.

As far as I know , only 2 TX's on the market are operating with such an adaptive protocol. Some other vendors claim they can change their actual protocol to an adptive via a software update. So no new TX can be sold in Europe after 2015 which doesn't operate with an adaptive protocol.
Firstly, I do not see a requirement for the system to being only adaptive - just that a non-adaptive system needs that the transmission duty cycle is kept under 10% (clause 4.3.1.5).

To get on to the Hitec system, I believe its an adaptive system as defined in EN 300 328 v1.8.1.
Firstly the Hitec system DOES do a LBT check before transmitting. Here is a logic capture of a Spectra Module (SPI between the uC and RF chipset) reading the RSSI before it transmits:

Register Command 0xF4 is to read register 0x34 - which is RSSI. The previous command (which is not shown on the screenshot) was to put the RF chip in receive mode - ready to listen for RSSI measurements.

As far as I can tell, the ETSI spec doesn't require the hop pattern to change in adaptive mode (which, say, Bluetooth would be doing). In clause 4.3.1.6.1:
Quote:
4.3.1.6.1 Adaptive Frequency Hopping using LBT based DAA
4.3.1.6.1.1 Definition
Adaptive Frequency Hopping using LBT based DAA is a mechanism by which a given hopping frequency is made
'unavailable' because signal was detected before any transmission on that frequency.
4.3.1.6.1.2 Requirements & Limits
Adaptive Frequency Hopping equipment using LBT based DAA shall comply with the following minimum set of
requirements:
1) At the start of every dwell time, before transmission on a hopping frequency, the equipment shall perform a Clear
Channel Assessment (CCA) check using energy detect. The CCA observation time shall be not less than 0,2 % of
the Channel Occupancy Time (see step 3) with a minimum of 20 μs. If the equipment finds the hopping frequency
to be clear, it may transmit immediately (see step 3).
2) If it is determined that a signal is present with a level above the detection threshold defined in step 5. the hopping
frequency shall be marked as 'unavailable'. Then the equipment may jump to the next frequency in the hopping
scheme even before the end of the dwell time, but in that case the 'unavailable' channel can not be considered as
being 'occupied' and shall be disregarded with respect to the requirement to maintain a minimum of 15 hopping
frequencies. Alternatively, the equipment can remain on the frequency during the remainder of the dwell time.
However, if the equipment remains on the frequency with the intention to transmit, it shall perform an extended
CCA check in which the (unavailable) channel is observed for a random duration between the value defined for
the CCA observation time in step 1 and 5 % of the Channel Occupancy Time defined in step 3. If the extended
CCA check has determined the frequency to be no longer occupied, the hopping frequency becomes available
again.

The CCA observation time used by the equipment shall be declared by the supplier.
3) The total time during which an equipment has transmissions on a given hopping frequency without re-evaluating
the availability of that frequency is defined as the Channel Occupancy Time.
The Channel Occupancy Time for a given hopping frequency, which starts immediately after a successful CCA,
shall be less than 60 ms followed by an Idle Period of minimum 5 % of the Channel Occupancy Time with a
minimum of 100 μs. After this, the procedure as in step 1 shall be repeated before having new transmissions on
this hopping frequency during the same dwell time.
EXAMPLE: A system with a dwell time of 400 ms can have 6 transmission sequences of 60 ms each, separated
with an Idle Period of 3 ms. Each transmission sequence was preceded with a successful CCA
check of 120 μs.
ETSI
19 Final draft ETSI EN 300 328 V1.8.1 (2012-04)
NOTE: For LBT based frequency hopping systems with a dwell time < 60 ms, the maximum Channel Occupancy
Time is limited by the dwell time.
4) 'Unavailable' channels may be removed from or may remain in the hopping sequence, but in any case:
• there shall be no transmissions on 'unavailable' channels;
• a minimum of 15 hopping frequencies shall always be maintained.

5) The detection threshold shall be proportional to the transmit power of the transmitter: for a 20 dBm e.i.r.p.
transmitter the detection threshold level (TL) shall be equal or lower than -70 dBm/MHz at the input to the
receiver (assuming a 0 dBi receive antenna). For power levels below 20 dBm e.i.r.p., the detection threshold level
may be relaxed to TL = -70 dBm/MHz + 20 - Pout e.i.r.p. (Pout in dBm).
Bold and underlining is the text of interest. In clause 4.3.1.6.1.2, point 2, it offers two options. The first is what most would think of as adaptive. If a channel is not available, the RF system chooses another channel and marks the channel in use as occupied, not uses it and adds another channel into the hopping sequence.

Alternatively the second option (which is what Hitec do) is to sit on that channel and keep listening (using a random interval) until its available. The 15 minimum hopping channels is never violated as it will sit on the channels that are unavailable and wait till they are. If they're still not available after the dwell time, it hops to the next channel and repeats. It doesn't have to transmit on a channel to be defined as part of the minimum 15 channel hops.
Clause 4.3.1.3.1:
Quote:
The Dwell Time is the time that a particular hopping frequency would be occupied by the transmitter during a single
hop. The equipment itself is not required to transmit on this hopping frequency during the Dwell Time.
So don't worry yourself about these things, manufacturers have them covered!

Si.
SimonChambers is offline Find More Posts by SimonChambers
RCG Plus Member
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 04, 2013, 08:13 AM
Registered User
Romania, Dolj, Craiova
Joined Sep 2007
15,441 Posts
Did I worried about something ?

How are you sure all manufacturers have them covered ?
renatoa is offline Find More Posts by renatoa
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 04, 2013, 08:39 AM
Crash Test Pilot
Levictus's Avatar
United States, NC, Raleigh
Joined Jul 2012
380 Posts
Why in gods name would they call it the 9x when clearly there are whole lines of radios ascribed to that name already (Turnigy, FlySky, etc.). Lets make it more confusing for the masses...
Levictus is offline Find More Posts by Levictus
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 04, 2013, 11:26 AM
ltc
AMA 97737
ltc's Avatar
United States, MA, Mendon
Joined Mar 2010
2,753 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aremgi View Post
Given this is a mild update to address some of the perceived A9 shortcomings, could the new Hitec flagship Tx still be on the near horizon?
Hitec/Multiplex seems to have a flagship, the Multiplex Profi TX, but no plans to bring it to the US market.

http://www.multiplex-rc.de/en/produc...wshopitems_pi1
ltc is online now Find More Posts by ltc
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 04, 2013, 11:34 AM
Feeling FrSky
surfimp's Avatar
United States, CA, Santa Barbara
Joined Feb 2003
20,091 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levictus View Post
Why in gods name would they call it the 9x when clearly there are whole lines of radios ascribed to that name already (Turnigy, FlySky, etc.). Lets make it more confusing for the masses...
A cynical person might argue it's for SEO purposes. Search for Turnigy 9X, ohhh lookey here what's this Hitec 9X?

I'm sure it's not true, but, interpreted that way, it smacks of desperation... which probably has more than a ring of truth to it, considering the rapid pace of change in this marketplace with the rise of module-based radios running OS software at significant discounts vs the name brands.

(Obvious statement is obvious LOL)

Steve
surfimp is offline Find More Posts by surfimp
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sold Hitec Radio Aurora 9, RXs, HPP-22 jeepx Aircraft - General - Radio Equipment (FS/W) 2 Apr 06, 2013 04:03 PM
Discussion New aurora 9x silva916 Radios 9 Feb 02, 2013 11:29 PM
Discussion Hitec Aurora 9X 3Daddict Radios 5 Feb 02, 2013 03:44 AM
Discussion New Aurora 9X aleXtino Hitec/Multiplex USA 3 Feb 01, 2013 09:13 AM
For Sale DSM2-DSMX transmitter modules for Hitec Aurora 9/Optic 6/ Eclipse 7/Futaba radios hammer22 Aircraft - General - Radio Equipment (FS/W) 0 Jan 08, 2013 10:35 AM