If I Was Starting Over
- Thread starter Bricks
- Start date
tamuct01
Well-known member
I get the technical superiority of CSRF over SBUS, but the entire ELRS stack was built exclusively for the multirotor community. Only the first 4 channels are "full-range" and all the others are essentially binary switches. If you have a plane with flaps, gear, or other auxiliary channels that need at least a multi-position range, you're out of luck. I'm just sad that they made it so narrowly focused instead of looking for broad appeal.
XSrcing
Creator of smoking holes
The Matek flight controller I linked on the previous page has 12 full PWM outputs.
What you wants exists, you just refuse to look at it because "it was made for multi-rotors.". Which is silly.
Flying Monkey fab
Elite member
Perhaps not so much refusal as just being confused. I know I get confused about full on controllers.
Made for fixed wing
Made for mulirotors but will work on fixed wing
Made for mulirotors only....
Then there are all the ways to flash, lord.
XSrcing
Creator of smoking holes
There are so many options out there now that pretty much anything you want exists, you just have to ask where to find it.
I'm brand new to FPV and flight controllers. I just built a plane that will fly itself and I don't even own a computer!
Well... they saw a need and filled it with an optimized solution. You can't always please everyone. There are plenty of other options that fit your requirements.
Bricks
Legendary member
I believe as more manufactures get involved we are going to see major strides, such as this receiver by Matek 7 channel for gliders with built in Vario and altimeter not needing extra sensors, there is nothing out there that can compare at this price.. The Devs may be turning a little more towards fixed wing, that would be huge.
XSrcing
Creator of smoking holes
What is funny is that everything in quads was stolen from helicopters and airplanes.
Now we want quad tech in our airplanes and helicopters.
And it is because quads, and multi-rotors in general, are many fold more popular than airplanes and helicopters combined. So all the R&D money goes there.
Now we want quad tech in our airplanes and helicopters.
And it is because quads, and multi-rotors in general, are many fold more popular than airplanes and helicopters combined. So all the R&D money goes there.
Matek has been one of the best things that has happened to the hobby in the last few years. I have quite a few of their FCs. They have been instrumental in pushing the higher power FCs with F7 and H7 processors. They have also helped support Adupilot (all branches), Betaflight, and INAV. Been flying their "Wing" series FCs since they released their first, the F405-Wing. I documented some of those builds on this thread https://forum.flitetest.com/index.p...ra5-ardupilot-fc-enabled-wingy-thingys.53689/
Last edited:
PsyBorg
Wake up! Time to fly!
You guys need to also consider with the F.A.A.'s mandate to dismantle the RC hobby that they will soon turn to the F.C.C. to impose more regulation there as they try to remove FPV for anything other then government and military.
They are not making the money they thought they could from hobby RC so rather then regulate and enforce they will move to remove it. Which is why they STILL have not finalized what CBO's should be as well as why their "suggestions" are more the reason to not certify particular CBO's that don't roll with their agenda.
Look into what new happenings on the F.C.C. side of things are in the works. I am sure they are already backdooring new stuff just as they did with the F.A.A.
Just like the actual rc aircraft having to be built by certified entities so shall things like radio protocols be managed under the same financial motivations. My guess will be some companies with proprietary protocols willing to give governmental access over rides will be the ones receiving the certifications for future RC and NOT open source entities which tend to be anti corporate in the desire for less regulation and oversight.
They are not making the money they thought they could from hobby RC so rather then regulate and enforce they will move to remove it. Which is why they STILL have not finalized what CBO's should be as well as why their "suggestions" are more the reason to not certify particular CBO's that don't roll with their agenda.
Look into what new happenings on the F.C.C. side of things are in the works. I am sure they are already backdooring new stuff just as they did with the F.A.A.
Just like the actual rc aircraft having to be built by certified entities so shall things like radio protocols be managed under the same financial motivations. My guess will be some companies with proprietary protocols willing to give governmental access over rides will be the ones receiving the certifications for future RC and NOT open source entities which tend to be anti corporate in the desire for less regulation and oversight.
Flying Monkey fab
Elite member
If you are right and not just being paranoid (I tend to you being right) then a box of things that will become scarce will end up having a lot of personal and fiscal value.
The good news is that most things we need are ubiquitous.
RossFPV
Well-known member
What are the benefits of flashing opentx?
XSrcing
Creator of smoking holes
For me it was mainly about getting ExpressLRS support without having to spend a couple hundred on a new radio.
XSrcing
Creator of smoking holes
I unfortunately have maxed out my play budget until 2023. So gotta wait!
Bricks
Legendary member
Transmitter module is only $39 sure if you dig around, they can be had cheaper receiver was $12 receiver is for a quad I am hacking together.
XSrcing
Creator of smoking holes
I know they are inexpensive. But $40 here, $12 there, it all adds up.
And I have to replace my furnace roofjack due to a recent wind storm. That is not cheap.
