Halloa people

so you probably know the FlySky brand.. Right? And you know them from affordable radio's, which do work well and are quite popular as well. What you wouldn't know FlySky for is higher end radio that come with braging rights
A couple of months ago I saw some first renderings of the new Noble transmitter and I was instantly impressed I ordered one as soon as it became available..

Link to the radio: FlySky FS-NB4 Noble surface radio

Some pictures of it then:





The Noble transmitter uses a new AFHDS3 protocol and that means the old AFHDS2 receivers don't work with this radio. Regretably you can't set the radio to use that older protocol..
That means you do allso need new receivers with this radio. Those are available by now:
Link to them: FlySky FS-GR4 4-channel receiver

And here are my findings on this transmitter

FlySky NB4 NOBLE ! A Top Quality Touch-Screen Radio From FlySky! FULL REVIEW (38 min 0 sec)

After FlySky dodged their responsibility with the A8S receiver, I barely use their products. This new transmitter seems pretty interesting, but the lack of backwards compatibility with the widespread AFHDS-2S is just inexcusable. Especially since these are much more expensive than the 3 and 6 channel receivers.

Yeah.. I've asked FlySky about that.. I can't imagine it would be technically hard to enable the transmitter to allso do AFHDS2.. I didn't get a real answer (no surprice)..

It's a great TX, but that will definately cost them sales..

Originally Posted by DutchRC

Yeah.. I've asked FlySky about that.. I can't imagine it would be technically hard to enable the transmitter to allso do AFHDS2.. I didn't get a real answer (no surprice)..

It's a great TX, but that will definately cost them sales..

They seemed to have turned their back on many customers, thinking they know better what we want, than we do. The FS-i6 got them a really good reputation for being a versatile, good range, compact for factor radio, with support for both AFHDS2A and the older AFHDS. If Jumper can make radios that support dozens of protocols, it's clear it's not likely to be a technical issue to have this new radio not support the older protocol. So it's probably just their arrogance and possibly greed that drives their decisions.

You see that in a lot of Chinese companies.. One would think they would value feedback from reviewers c.q. users, but yeah.. It's more like they feel offended by (wel ment) feedback..

I don't know what kind of RF electronics they use.. but well.. FlySky is a bigger company then most people know.. It wouldn't be hard for them to offer legacy support..
(the Futaba T14SG I previously used allso does All Futaba's previous protocols)

I used to have a FlySky iT4s, always thought it was a decent budget priced but versatile radio with some great features that some high end stuff didn't have.

At this price point it's in the direct firing line of Sanwa MT-S and Futaba 4PLS. Not a good place to be for Flysky IMO.

Good design, new protocol and probably improved latency... but it's gonna flop hard. I hope I'm wrong but it just came out so we'll see.

The ability to switch from right to left is pretty cool though. A lot lefties will be buying it, most radios that support either usually require a complex pull down.

Originally Posted by Coopz

The ability to switch from right to left is pretty cool though. A lot lefties will be buying it, most radios that support either usually require a complex pull down.

I don't think a lot of lefties will buy it. The vast majority of lefties already do just fine with a "normal" radio and aren't interested in learning how to drive with the other hands. For the most part, left handed people have the benefit of being largely ambidextrous, mainly because of necessity.

I'm much a type to let the past be the past, but the way FlySky played their customers when they ran into many issues with the A8S receiver, causing damaged quadcopters, fly aways with potentially dangerous situations, is hard to forgive and forget. The worst part was keeping up for months that people who had malfunctioning receivers, could sent their details, and get the faulty receivers replaced. They even told that the replacement receivers had arrived, and then were being distributed by an external agent, some had even been sent. But afaik not a single customer ever received these replacement receivers, and after the story could no longer be defended to be even remotely believable, there was nothing but silence.

Even though in some cases the losses are only 10 or 20 bucks, depending on how many receivers (assuming you weren't one of the unlucky people to have a quadcopter get smashed in pieces by the receiver crapping out) it's the principle of lying to customers for months, and then just move on, without an explanation, no excuses, just silence. That's hard to ignore.

The backwards incompatibility kills it for me, too.

I would not mind paying a few EUR for a decent look or feel, even if it doesn't carry a premium brand name.
But buying a new set of receivers and replacing some which are decased and direct soldered like in my Orlandoos is a no go.

What telemetry sensors can be used with this and who sells them ?

I wonder how long it will be before HK re-brands this.

Originally Posted by Don Promillo

The backwards incompatibility kills it for me, too.

I'm new to FlySky. I'd be moving from an old Futaba system. What kills me is the receiver price and size. They're huge and cost over $50 (CAD) each. I can get Knockoff FASST receivers for half that.

Shouldn't you in that case be comparing the pricing to Genuine Futaba receivers?
I'm sure there will be non FlySky FSHDS-3 receivers as well..

Originally Posted by DutchRC

Shouldn't you in that case be comparing the pricing to Genuine Futaba receivers?
I'm sure there will be non FlySky FSHDS-3 receivers as well..

That would only make sense if previous FlySky receivers wern't 1/3 the price of the new one and them not implementing backward compatibility.

I mean the whole reason I'm looking at FlySky is to save money over the new Futaba gear.