I had always been a confirmed Futaba user,but could not stomach the cost of their 2.4ghz systems.Hence I bought two 9x's from HK.Total cost around $110 freight inclusive.That's less than the cost of 1 Futaba rx locally.
I have no hesitation in using my Frsky converted 9x with ER9x on any aircraft I own.
I use mostly 7ch.rx's,and they cost less than $20.
I wonder exactly how many users actually know how to operate all the features incorporated into their all singing,all dancing $1200 transmitters.A fellow I know has a newish Futaba 12 ch,and all it's done for him,is make his crashes more expensive.
I can't see how I would need anything more than the current (ER)9X.

they need to come out with the new TX within a month or two, i need a new tx bad.

& you are all harping on about the 9X, regardless of how good a software you put into it's still poor quality hardware.

Even if the new 9XR uses the ER9x software, if the radio it self is anything like the current hardware I would not bother....But I'm not expecting it to be & only time will tell.

Originally Posted by simo71

& you are all harping on about the 9X, regardless of how good a software you put into it's still poor quality hardware.

Even if the new 9XR uses the ER9x software, if the radio it self is anything like the current hardware I would not bother....But I'm not expecting it to be & only time will tell.

When you say hardware...

The electronic circuit board quality is pretty much just as good as any mainstream board - Surface mount components, etc and built using automated equipment.

The weak points are the point to point wiring - but guess what - other suppliers have the potential issue of wires breaking at solder joints as well (likely with lower frequency of occurrence). If you are a pilot that is constantly moving sticks to the extremes while flying - regardless of transmitter make, I would check the wires attached to the gimbal potentiometers every year as a pre-season check. They could break sooner or later.

The switches don't feel great - lot of slop - but they work and are very functional. Unlike other radios, you have a choice - change to another switch if it breaks (using ER9X) or replace it.

The transmitter case is toy'ish but it works and some people (myself) appreciate the size. The gimbals are smooth but not $1200 like (no quad bearings) and I was considering moving to a new case with Hitec A9 gimbals until I saw this thread.

This is the not the transmitter for the masses - but for those willing to try and learn, it provides great rewards and makes it near impossible to want to go to any other solution (except new FlySky or FrSky transmitter with ER9X).

PS - there is a learning curve for ER9X - it is not the aurora touchscreen input. But once you learn, it is hard to go to any other approach as it is so direct.

I also keep my transmitter in a protective case (aluminum hardshell) as I don't want it to be the reason that I lose a plane. Shock, vibration are not friends to anyone's transmitter - regardless of make.

Originally Posted by caseih

With stock firmware yes I agree with you. With Er9x, the 9X exceeds the Aurora 9 in capabilities.

By far not true my friend. The Aurora 9 easily reigns supreme in a direct comparison, even with the custom firmwares.

I own both the Turnigy 9x (three actually, one of them is flashed with Er9x) and the Aurora 9 and it's easily and with great distance the better radio of the two.

It's not just the firmware, it's also the build, feel, touchscreen interface and so on.

Just about the only thing the Aurora 9 truly lacks is basically the same level of customizability the 9x has, but with the A9 stock firmware there's really no need to have any of that.

I don't see how any of you can compare the 9x to a radio like the A9 and act as if it's on par lol.

Regardless, it's perhaps the radio with best value currently available.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm a satisfied A9 owner, but the ER9X firmware easily does things that I can't get my A9 to do. Here's an example: My gws slow stick pulls upward under throttle, so I mixed in some down elevator onto the throttle. The problem is that I wasn't sure how much to add. I added a P. Mix for throttle -> elevator, but there's no way to assign an adjustment button to the programmable mixes. I had to bring the plane back down and adjust three different values to change the amount mixed (the plus side of the throttle, the minus, and the offset). This is incredibly clumsy.

ER9X? Mix the throttle onto a spare channel (CH4, for example). Offset it by 100 and give it 15% weight. Now add another mix on CH4 using one of the knobs as a multiplier for the mix above. Now add CH4 onto the elevator. Once in flight, I can use the knob to change the throttle to elevator mix anywhere between -15% to +15%.

The ER9X approach is very straight forward and could easily be even more flexible with only a very small additional effort (using a customized mixing curve, for example). If doing something like this is possible with the A9, please let me know. I'd be very happy to be wrong.

Wow an actual example. I'm amazed

Robert

Originally Posted by wingz

As I mentioned earlier, I'm a satisfied A9 owner, but the ER9X firmware easily does things that I can't get my A9 to do. Here's an example: My gws slow stick pulls upward under throttle, so I mixed in some down elevator onto the throttle. The problem is that I wasn't sure how much to add. I added a P. Mix for throttle -> elevator, but there's no way to assign an adjustment button to the programmable mixes. I had to bring the plane back down and adjust three different values to change the amount mixed (the plus side of the throttle, the minus, and the offset). This is incredibly clumsy.

ER9X? Mix the throttle onto a spare channel (CH4, for example). Offset it by 100 and give it 15% weight. Now add another mix on CH4 using one of the knobs as a multiplier for the mix above. Now add CH4 onto the elevator. Once in flight, I can use the knob to change the throttle to elevator mix anywhere between -15% to +15%.

The ER9X approach is very straight forward and could easily be even more flexible with only a very small additional effort (using a customized mixing curve, for example). If doing something like this is possible with the A9, please let me know. I'd be very happy to be wrong.

Originally Posted by wingz

As I mentioned earlier, I'm a satisfied A9 owner, but the ER9X firmware easily does things that I can't get my A9 to do. Here's an example: My gws slow stick pulls upward under throttle, so I mixed in some down elevator onto the throttle. The problem is that I wasn't sure how much to add. I added a P. Mix for throttle -> elevator, but there's no way to assign an adjustment button to the programmable mixes. I had to bring the plane back down and adjust three different values to change the amount mixed (the plus side of the throttle, the minus, and the offset). This is incredibly clumsy.

ER9X? Mix the throttle onto a spare channel (CH4, for example). Offset it by 100 and give it 15% weight. Now add another mix on CH4 using one of the knobs as a multiplier for the mix above. Now add CH4 onto the elevator. Once in flight, I can use the knob to change the throttle to elevator mix anywhere between -15% to +15%.

The ER9X approach is very straight forward and could easily be even more flexible with only a very small additional effort (using a customized mixing curve, for example). If doing something like this is possible with the A9, please let me know. I'd be very happy to be wrong.

IIRC you can use trims (LT, RT,..) to adjust the mix in flight. I'm almost sure I've used this while eliminating knife edge coupling (RUD->ELEV mix).

Originally Posted by mongo56

IIRC you can use trims (LT, RT,..) to adjust the mix in flight. I'm almost sure I've used this while eliminating knife edge coupling (RUD->ELEV mix).

Yes, in fact, you can program such a mix in many ways on the A9. You can even use those nice gradual trim knobs on the side to make such a mix adjustable if you set it up properly.

I'm starting to wonder where you are coming from with the argument as the A9 is one of the most programmable radios out there.

Originally Posted by StewieRC

they need to come out with the new TX within a month or two, i need a new tx bad.

Frsky Transmitter it will be out in few month comes with telemetry built in.

Originally Posted by simo71

& you are all harping on about the 9X, regardless of how good a software you put into it's still poor quality hardware.

Umm, yeah, well that is directly related to what this thread is all about, so I would expect people to harp on about the 9X.

Even if the new 9XR uses the ER9x software, if the radio it self is anything like the current hardware I would not bother....But I'm not expecting it to be & only time will tell.

I doubt you'd bother either way, so I'm a bit confused as to why you are posting on this thread. Obviously the 9X or 9XR isn't for you, so it doesn't matter what the hardware or software looks like.

Originally Posted by mongo56

IIRC you can use trims (LT, RT,..) to adjust the mix in flight. I'm almost sure I've used this while eliminating knife edge coupling (RUD->ELEV mix).

Yes, you are correct, but RUD->ELEV is one of the built-in mixes. I mentioned that I was referring to the P. Mixes. I don't see any way to add the trims (LT, RT, ...) to a P. Mix.

PHMX: You indicated there are many ways to implement an easily adjustable mix. Can you clarify using my P. Mix example of throttle to elevator? I haven't been able to get this to work on my A9.

I think both sides are making a valid points. The ER9X software is impressive in many ways, but it doesn't improve the physical characteristics of the various 9X radios. My old DX5e and even my friend's DX7 feel kind of cheap compared to my Aurora. I can imagine the 9X feels even more so based on some of the comments I've read. That's why I think Turnigy (or FlySky, whatever) should put their efforts into producing a better radio in the physical sense and make it so others can easily add their own code. Software development is expensive and time consuming, so it seems like a good move to encourage open source efforts where people are willing to donate their own time and ultimately give other users more reasons to buy the hardware.

Originally Posted by PHMX

I don't see how any of you can compare the 9x to a radio like the A9 and act as if it's on par lol. .

I agree. A9 is 4-6 times the price of a 9x. There is no comparison to make, they are for different people, the only similarity is they both control model planes.

The also have plastic and metal