Thread Tools
Feb 26, 2020, 02:39 PM
Registered User
landru's Avatar
Thread OP
Yes, please. And thank you.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Feb 26, 2020, 09:10 PM
Melbourne Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet_Flyer
That is what I originally asked for. I'll ask again.

Mike
I have performed some test range checks this morning using the ACCESS Protocols. My Radio is the X10S Express and Opentx 2.3.5. the receiver is the RX6R. All have the latest firmware. Receiver antenna in open space.

The test area is open field away from interference with the receiver 1.2 above ground. With RSSI warning ignored, At RSSI of 35 db I started to have Telemetry lost warnings. At RSSI 34db I still had some intermittent control and at 30 I lost all control and the RSSI suddenly went to zero.

My X9D+ does way better than the new X10S Express in all aspects. I think FRsky still have a lot of work to do before I fully trust my X10S Express.
Feb 26, 2020, 09:28 PM
Registered User
mpjf01's Avatar
I'm not sure what you are telling us, the results you posted are what you would expect from any FRSKY system give or take a few RSSI db at the lower end.

What is relevant is the range at which control was lost (in full range mode, not range test mode) with the ACCESS system compared with the same test done with an equivalent ACCST system.
Feb 26, 2020, 10:42 PM
Registered User
landru's Avatar
Thread OP
The lost frame sensor is inexpensive and pretty easy to build for anyone with even a passing knowledge of electronics and Arduino. I hadn't touched Arduino in donkey's years and still made out just fine. It could be a very useful tool for anyone interested in quantifying their range tests.

I believe the latest version is LQBB4.zip, which can be found here:
https://fpv-community.de/threads/lin...o.84487/page-7

There are plenty of smart folks in this thread (including developers of the sensor code) who might be prevailed upon for help if need be.
Feb 26, 2020, 11:09 PM
Melbourne Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpjf01
I'm not sure what you are telling us, the results you posted are what you would expect from any FRSKY system give or take a few RSSI db at the lower end.

What is relevant is the range at which control was lost (in full range mode, not range test mode) with the ACCESS system compared with the same test done with an equivalent ACCST system.
I have seen numerous posts which indicate you are able to operate in ACCESS mode with reduced RSSI warnings instead of the 45 or 42db we are used too. I find this would be risky. Also my X10S Express has approx half the range in full range mode compared to my X9D+ I believe either I have a fault in my brand new radio or for what ever reason it still requires further firmware upgrade yet to be released. I have recently sold my X10S (Old version) and that equalled the range of my X9D+. So am not sure what to do now.
Feb 26, 2020, 11:24 PM
Registered User
landru's Avatar
Thread OP
Quote:
Originally Posted by hennyvt
<snip>Also my X10S Express has approx half the range in full range mode compared to my X9D+</snip>
Interesting. Tested under similar or identical conditions with same receiver and FW while observing servo(s), not RSSI?

Not challenging you, just very curious.

Andrew
Feb 26, 2020, 11:26 PM
Melbourne Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by landru
Interesting. Tested under similar or identical conditions with same receiver and FW while observing servo(s), not RSSI?

Not challenging you, just very curious.

Andrew
That's exactly what I did during the tests.
Feb 26, 2020, 11:28 PM
Registered User
landru's Avatar
Thread OP
And receiver was RX6R again? Running ACCESS not ACCST?
Feb 27, 2020, 12:01 AM
Registered User
mpjf01's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by hennyvt
I have seen numerous posts which indicate you are able to operate in ACCESS mode with reduced RSSI warnings instead of the 45 or 42db we are used too. I find this would be risky. Also my X10S Express has approx half the range in full range mode compared to my X9D+ I believe either I have a fault in my brand new radio or for what ever reason it still requires further firmware upgrade yet to be released. I have recently sold my X10S (Old version) and that equalled the range of my X9D+. So am not sure what to do now.
The default ACCST RSSI warning levels were always deliberately conservative, there have been plenty of full range ACCST tests indicating that control is still possible until RSSI levels are in the mid 30s or even lower. This doesn't seem materially different to your results with ACCESS. I don't see anything negative about what you learned from that particular test.

In respect to the full range tests that you did that resulted in your conclusion that your X10S Express (ACCESS) has around half the effective range of your X9D+ (ACCST), I would be interested to know also whether the same receiver (with different firmware obviously) was used in both tests and what the actual range was (distance) when control was lost in each case.
Feb 27, 2020, 02:00 AM
Melbourne Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by landru
And receiver was RX6R again? Running ACCESS not ACCST?
Yes RX6R and ACCESS. When I test ACCST and RX6R on the new X10S I get slightly better results compared to ACCESS but not as good as the X9D+ the X9D+ results are 3db to 6db better again. Its strange because running the X10S Express in ACCST I sometimes get a Antenna defective warning. Have changed antenna etc but no difference. In ACCESS mode all appears fine. I,m hopping the next firmware upgrade will fix some these issues or maybe I have a defective radio RF section.
Feb 27, 2020, 02:18 AM
Registered User
Thoemse's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by hennyvt
Yes RX6R and ACCESS. When I test ACCST and RX6R on the new X10S I get slightly better results compared to ACCESS but not as good as the X9D+ the X9D+ results are 3db to 6db better again. Its strange because running the X10S Express in ACCST I sometimes get a Antenna defective warning. Have changed antenna etc but no difference. In ACCESS mode all appears fine. I,m hopping the next firmware upgrade will fix some these issues or maybe I have a defective radio RF section.
You might have a defective ISRM module maybe? I use my X12S with the X10 Express ISRM module and I never got such a warning. I use the RX6R - one with ACCST and one with ACCESS. I have no way to compare range to IJXT though unless I put the old module back in and that is something I don't wanna do just for testing purposes.

I had no range issues in with either of them so far but I only planes line of sight with them.
Feb 27, 2020, 03:26 AM
Melbourne Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoemse
You might have a defective ISRM module maybe? I use my X12S with the X10 Express ISRM module and I never got such a warning. I use the RX6R - one with ACCST and one with ACCESS. I have no way to compare range to IJXT though unless I put the old module back in and that is something I don't wanna do just for testing purposes.

I had no range issues in with either of them so far but I only planes line of sight with them.
Thank you for your reply. I also fly planes and Multirotors, I also fly line of site. Have never had any range issues with FRsky transmitters. Our club is in an open area away from buildings and homes. Have been trying to contact HORUSRC where I purchased the radio without success. Maybe I should have purchased a Jumper Pro?

This is very frustrating as I have been an advocate of the FRsky products in our club and now I don,t even trust my Horus X10S Express.

Maybe time to take up a different hobby.
Feb 27, 2020, 03:58 AM
FrSky radio + plane exclusive
Thank you Nihonsky to have pointed out how rough the CC2500 is reporting RSSI.
If linked to the absolute AGC scaling, it is a very basic and inconsistent value. As soon as another Tx in the field (not the one binded on the receiver) or perturbation of second order modulation will transmit over the same frequency captured by Receiver, the AGC will consider this signal like potentially being transmitted by the right binded Tx. In average the information is still a good indicator about which energy is received but not which energy is received from the binded Tx.
Here a more robust protocol should consider measuring RSSI after having correlated the received signal with expected known information (pilot symbols). This will give the energy received from the binded Tx and not from all OTA contributors. Such measurement cannot be done over the raw symbols energy (based on AGC measurement and static gains only) but needs a post correlation computation performed by the DFE.
This is how mobile phones work and I guess ACCESS being a new protocol, FrSky did the job to do so.
As a result, of course there is no way to compare "RSSI" reported values from a given receiver when it is exercising ACCTS or ACCESS.
Then asking to have all receivers from all protocol reporting same scaled RSSI is perhaps useless.
Having LQ being computed the same way is a must have. No doubs. Having RSSI still being computed as simply as done based on AGC just to keep compatibility with former receivers appears me like a step backward.
Of course, if FrSky satisfies the request to keep the old RSSI as this, I guess the new receivers and protocol will offer a third measurement: SINR. This one will be more representative of the real energy captured on the receiver comming from the binded Tx, This is the one I would consider to qualify the quality of the OTA link.
Feb 27, 2020, 12:22 PM
Registered User
Got a quick range test with my x12s and ISRM upgrade module on ACCST and a x8r, plane sat waist height on bench and twiddling ailerons with a couple helpers watching plane. Graph shows going into range mode then walking back about 80m , the dips in rssi are the helpers walking between plane and me and near the end at 80m the dip is where they intentionally made a human wall between plane and tx. At no point was control lost, rssi low was called about 50m and rssi critical as they shadowed the model intentionally with their bodies at 80m. Had about 75 db at 80m in normal range mode.

I have to be honest and say I have not spent much time (practically none) range testing in the past so don't have a wealth of experience to compare too but for me the results were acceptable if I can assume range test is 1/30 of actual range in full range mode which would give me 2.4km of range. I doubt I am ever 1000m away when I fly LOS.
Last edited by raydar; Feb 27, 2020 at 12:42 PM.
Feb 27, 2020, 02:40 PM
Computer Programer
After read and see all problems i going to sales my new FrSky Taranis X9D Plus SE 2019 24CH ACCESS ACCST D16 Mode2 Transmitter M9 Hall Sensor Gimbal PARA Wireless Training Function is in the box with battery.
PM if any one for the price.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion ACCST D16 v2.0.1 for XSR needed GVT FrSky 3 Jan 18, 2020 06:40 AM
Mini-HowTo Update Firmware for Devo TX - Import/Export Devo TX Models - Update Devo RX Firmware Tom Z Micro Helis 22 Jun 28, 2015 12:20 AM