Does anyone know if FrSky is made by JETI ?

There are several similarities to the transmitters!

Originally Posted by Plasmajoe

Does anyone know if FrSky is made by JETI ?

There are several similarities to the transmitters!

No.

It's just that the FrSky case is a cheap and nasty plastic rip-off of the Jeti styling. It fools some people into thinking they are getting a high quality radio.

The FrSky radio is a solid quality radio which just offers more at a lower price than Jeti does.

Originally Posted by Brian435

No.

It's just that the FrSky case is a cheap and nasty plastic rip-off of the Jeti styling. It fools some people into thinking they are getting a high quality radio.

What's ironic of course is that Jeti was just ripping off Multiplex and JR (XP8103) designs anyways. And it's not like the Jeti and FrSky radios are that similar beyond the screen placement (which has long been the obvious placement for larger screens). For starters, the Jeti's are rectangular and the FrSky radios are octagonal.

And somebody clearly hasn't handled the X12S, it's no more plastic than the DC-16 is. (the X7 on the other hand is plastic, but what do you expect for $105).

Originally Posted by FJH

The FrSky radio is a solid quality radio which just offers more at a lower price than Jeti does.

Sure and my wife look like Claudia Schiffer.
FrSky is nothing just bunch of really bad copycats, look at the Central Box 200, Hall Sensor Gimbals .... all copies.

Originally Posted by FJH

The FrSky radio is a solid quality radio which just offers more at a lower price than Jeti does.

I'm in the UK and I've not used (or even seen) either, though both are marketed here..

From your comment I must assume you have used both. If not, it's just opinion, not demonstrable 'fact'. However, I am not saying you are incorrect - as I said, I have not even seen either of them

What have got here?

Jeti:

1) Made by a small company that previously made ESCs that even when used well within their specifications but in my personal experience always 'melted' sooner or later
2) Makes an apparently well made, expensive and very 'pleasant' radio, but uses processes, particularly in the casework, that are unnecessary and add only expense, not function. Note - I am referring only to the casework, not the internal 'electronic' function when I make this criticism.
3) Only exists at all because of an EU 'Small Countries Development Grant', which means you and I, as EU taxpayers, subsidised the development of this radio whether we intended to buy one or not.

FrSky:
1) Uses 'OpenTx'. This means they have to spend precisely zero on software development, which goes a long way towards explaining the low price.
2) Have, in this instance, lowered the costs even more by producing a close (but made in plastic rather than metal) copy of the Jeti so avoid all the quite high cost ergonomics testing and the cost of making the 'styling' sellable.
3) Quite frankly, point 2 disgusts me. They are riding on somebody else's design in the hope that they will get a good sales fallout from the (deserved or not) high reputation of the Jeti.

Would I buy either?
No. I have doubts about the future survival of the Jeti company. Compared to even the small 'Multiplex' operation, let alone the 'big boys', its worldwide sales are vanishingly small. Thus I have no faith in it still being here when I need it fixed.
FrSky? The hardware is 'cheap' - for example, from many reports, here and elsewhere, the switches are poor quality. The OpenTx software is far too 'geeky' for my taste, even though I have spent 30 plus years in professional software development. I am not inclined to extend that 'geekiness' into my private life.

FrSky:
1) Uses 'OpenTx'. This means they have to spend precisely zero on software development, which goes a long way towards explaining the low price.

This is not accurate. While it is compatible with OpenTx, these radios ship with FrOS, which gives full features, without the "geekiness" of OpenTx.

As soon as Brain/MSH releases compatibility with the FrSky telemetry, I will be selling my Jeti and buying the FrSky X10.

FrSky offers *far* more value, flexibility, features, and options than Jeti does.

Jeti does offer plenty of "bling" though. If you're the type that prefers to throw money at pretty nail polish on your radio and $100+ receivers, then Jeti is the radio for you.

Originally Posted by Brian435

I'm in the UK and I've not used (or even seen) either, though both are marketed here..

From your comment I must assume you have used both. If not, it's just opinion, not demonstrable 'fact'. However, I am not saying you are incorrect - as I said, I have not even seen either of them

What have got here?

Jeti:

1) Made by a small company that previously made ESCs that even when used well within their specifications but in my personal experience always 'melted' sooner or later
2) Makes an apparently well made, expensive and very 'pleasant' radio, but uses processes, particularly in the casework, that are unnecessary and add only expense, not function. Note - I am referring only to the casework, not the internal 'electronic' function when I make this criticism.
3) Only exists at all because of an EU 'Small Countries Development Grant', which means you and I, as EU taxpayers, subsidised the development of this radio whether we intended to buy one or not.

FrSky:
1) Uses 'OpenTx'. This means they have to spend precisely zero on software development, which goes a long way towards explaining the low price.
2) Have, in this instance, lowered the costs even more by producing a close (but made in plastic rather than metal) copy of the Jeti so avoid all the quite high cost ergonomics testing and the cost of making the 'styling' sellable.
3) Quite frankly, point 2 disgusts me. They are riding on somebody else's design in the hope that they will get a good sales fallout from the (deserved or not) high reputation of the Jeti.

Point 2 is also completely incorrect. The Horus radios have metal & rubber cases, just like the Jeti, they are also original designs, even if the layout is similar (and is also similar to certain Multiplex and JR designs). The $105 Taranis X7 is plastic, but is only vaguely similar to Jeti. The only clone case FrSky uses is the one for the Taranis X9D, as they bought the molds of a clone of the JR 9X(9303) case for their first radio product.

Would I buy either?
No. I have doubts about the future survival of the Jeti company. Compared to even the small 'Multiplex' operation, let alone the 'big boys', its worldwide sales are vanishingly small. Thus I have no faith in it still being here when I need it fixed.
FrSky? The hardware is 'cheap' - for example, from many reports, here and elsewhere, the switches are poor quality. The OpenTx software is far too 'geeky' for my taste, even though I have spent 30 plus years in professional software development. I am not inclined to extend that 'geekiness' into my private life.

FrSky's Taranis hardware is cheap. The Horus hardware is notably better, which is largely why they cost more. There's also the Taranis S/SE units which have better quality hardware on the Taranis platform and cost in between the regular taranis units and the Horus units. The Horus units also come stock with FrOS rather than the more capable, but less user friendly OpenTX software (which can be loaded if desired)

Multiplex is NOT small. They are the European operation of Hitec/Multiplex RCD, a major global operation based in Korea (and also related to Graupner/SJ at an ownership level, although not at a corporate level)

Whatever.

The fact remains that it is a close enough copy for Plasmajoe, the OP, to ask if it was made by Jeti.

And that's the whole reason why the thread exists at all.

And the very first moment I saw its picture I thought 'Jeti copy', and I can't be the only one

Yet look at the best known FrSky transmitter:



Hardly looks like anything by Jeti.

The fact that one FrSky TX has a passing resemblance to a Jeti unit (and it's exactly that, a passing resemblance) is hardly indicating it's a copy.

Looks way too much like JR, though.

Andy

Originally Posted by AndyKunz

Looks way too much like JR, though.

Andy

indeed, as everyone knows that case is a JR 9X/9303 clone from China that FrSky acquired the molds for.

I have flown FrSky since they released their first module and receivers with telemetry using a JR PCN10X and a JR9303. No failures what so ever. Aurora 9 same thing Not the best TX firmware but it worked and never a problem with many a flight. First version of the Taranis TX and now a plus when they were first shipped never a problem except when I accidentally dropped it, broken switch replaced within an hour by me. FrSky TX firmware is derived from the OpenTX project.

Never a brown out with anything except spectrum. Almost all of the Parkzone etc birds that had spectrum receivers in this area are long ago consigned to the trash barrel at the field after the usual spectrum's cry of lament "I ain't got it"

I am glad that there is high priced for high priced people to buy, but the average Joe RC flyer that goes to the field to fly 1 or 2 times a week will want the stock no frills 4 or 6 channel that costs less than $200 and a $100 to $200 plane. He will go to the field knowing his equipment will work and he will have fun and good companionship while there and will go home with an intact plane and will look forward to the next trip there. He will teach his children to fly and no one who ever soloed will ever forget that.

May all your landings result in a reusable airplane.

I heard they're both owned by Kraft. I mean really - look at the similarities. All three have TWO sticks, some switches, slider things, and a status indicator device. They probably ALL have a circuitboard with solid-state devices inside too... Sheeesh.

Originally Posted by Brian435

Whatever.

The fact remains that it is a close enough copy for Plasmajoe, the OP, to ask if it was made by Jeti.

And that's the whole reason why the thread exists at all.

And the very first moment I saw its picture I thought 'Jeti copy', and I can't be the only one

The thread exists because someone says he noticed something that has already been discussed ad nauseum in this forum for at least two years. It's hardly an original observation.

Most things we buy and use on a daily basis are made in China and are either copies of something made elsewhere or once made elsewhere. Complaining because Chinese manufacturers take the best of what they see, wherever it originates, as inspiration for their own work, is pointless.