OK,
Flitetest is a drug, hooking you on a new hobby, reeling you in without and hesitation or mercy. You get what material you can get (if not foamboards, depron sheets or IKEA furniture cartons [yepp, they heavy, but handles like a foamboard]). :black_eyed:
You buy engines, servos etc, no problem at all, though your bank account dwindles like ice in the Saharas.
But it is all your choice, if T-motor, Emax, or what ever motors, Hobbywing, Emax or SkyRC ESC, if Hitec, Emax, Futaba, Sanwa or something else servos, Gopro, Moebius, FT's and others assortment of FPV cameras, mixing all after your own head and have your bank managers threat with foreclosure . You have total freedom to chose whats on the market in your particular country.
But, and here is the "Curse" for us newbies, no RC/FT plane/quad will fly without a radio system. And in comes the slave drivers. Frsky, Taranis, Graupner, Spektrum, Hubsan, Wfly, Multiplex and the "No Name Park Flyer Brands" .
I can take my PC and my phone and tablet around the world, from Fiji to Hawaii, the North Pole to the South Pole, even into space. And my Internet and in most places also my 3G/4G/GSM will work perfectly, even if I have a iPhone, Samsung, Huawei, Nokia, Ericsson (yepp, I still have a 2009 Ericsson) or what ever, same with any HP, Dell, Apple or other laptop or tablet, as long as I have power and an Internet connection. My counterpart can have any possible combination and we can communicate fully, without problem.
But if choosing, even a particular model of, a transmitter, I fences me in to a bottomless pit of nuisances.
Today's Flitetest installment was about the Graupner 210 quad. Gee, I WANT ONE, I WANT ONE. Even if my bank manager will bankrupt me. It's the quad I've been looking for the last year to replace my Hubsan 107C, lacking FPV. Right size, can compete, FPV (onboard recording?), ready-built (!) to a good price, ready to fly.
But, I need a Graupner radio
My Hubsan 301F and 107 radios, my Spektrum Dxe, my no-name Park Flyer radio, my Silverwing radios, non of them abides. I need a 5:th radio, a Graupner to fly the 210 quad.
BUT I DO NOT WANT ANOTHER RADIO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Having worked with Internet since 1982, having communicated and built services since then, whats wrong with the RC industry?
Why not a single base protocol, used by everyone, inter-changeable. If Cisco, Alcatel, Huawei, Ericsson, Nokia (oh, they still exist) and several other global multi-billion dollar industries can earn real money the RC forms just can dream about, without locking in their customers, so can the RC industry. The businesses not concentrating on selling radios but control solutions, allowing a Frsky transmitter to steer a Graupner product, a Wfly a Hubsan one. That I as consumer can fly all my planes, wings and quads with one single controller unit.
Not possible?
Be real, Internet is controlled by some +6000 protocols descriptions, collected from thousands of organizations and individuals, the so called RFCs' or Request for Comments.
For a suggestion to be registered as a RFC by Internet Engineering Task Force, the IETF, the definers need to prove that two different implementations of the protocol can talk with each other (sender & receiver in the RC world). This process has ensured Internet inter-operability for over 30 years. If a manufacturer implements a function, that is up to the manufacturer, but their products can still communicate with a baseline with other manufacturers products.
It is time you oldies, with your influence on the manufacturers, do help us newbies to get out of the current peat bog, that is today's RC controllers market. Because it always been like this, doesn't mean that it has to be in the future. Pressure the radio manufacturers to develop a common base protocol for at least 9 ch radios, allowing product mixing.
As it is today, I am very reluctant to buy a ready-made plane/quad, just because of this reason. Several vendors, like my DXe manufacturer Spektrum, do looses sales I could have given them. Hubsan is a even more spectacular example, they likely sell a million of units per year, but likely +98% of the customers only buys one unit, due to not wanting a lot of radios lying around. The monopolistic radio strategy of the manufacturers do not help the hobby.
Having said all this annoying stuff, is there any way exchanging the Graupner receiver in the new 210 quad for a OrangeRC or LemonRC mini DXSM receiver? I do want one..................
Flitetest is a drug, hooking you on a new hobby, reeling you in without and hesitation or mercy. You get what material you can get (if not foamboards, depron sheets or IKEA furniture cartons [yepp, they heavy, but handles like a foamboard]). :black_eyed:
You buy engines, servos etc, no problem at all, though your bank account dwindles like ice in the Saharas.
But it is all your choice, if T-motor, Emax, or what ever motors, Hobbywing, Emax or SkyRC ESC, if Hitec, Emax, Futaba, Sanwa or something else servos, Gopro, Moebius, FT's and others assortment of FPV cameras, mixing all after your own head and have your bank managers threat with foreclosure
. You have total freedom to chose whats on the market in your particular country. But, and here is the "Curse" for us newbies, no RC/FT plane/quad will fly without a radio system. And in comes the slave drivers. Frsky, Taranis, Graupner, Spektrum, Hubsan, Wfly, Multiplex and the "No Name Park Flyer Brands"
.I can take my PC and my phone and tablet around the world, from Fiji to Hawaii, the North Pole to the South Pole, even into space. And my Internet and in most places also my 3G/4G/GSM will work perfectly, even if I have a iPhone, Samsung, Huawei, Nokia, Ericsson (yepp, I still have a 2009 Ericsson) or what ever, same with any HP, Dell, Apple or other laptop or tablet, as long as I have power and an Internet connection. My counterpart can have any possible combination and we can communicate fully, without problem.
But if choosing, even a particular model of, a transmitter, I fences me in to a bottomless pit of nuisances.
Today's Flitetest installment was about the Graupner 210 quad. Gee, I WANT ONE, I WANT ONE. Even if my bank manager will bankrupt me. It's the quad I've been looking for the last year to replace my Hubsan 107C, lacking FPV. Right size, can compete, FPV (onboard recording?), ready-built (!) to a good price, ready to fly.
But, I need a Graupner radio
My Hubsan 301F and 107 radios, my Spektrum Dxe, my no-name Park Flyer radio, my Silverwing radios, non of them abides. I need a 5:th radio, a Graupner to fly the 210 quad.
BUT I DO NOT WANT ANOTHER RADIO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Having worked with Internet since 1982, having communicated and built services since then, whats wrong with the RC industry?
Why not a single base protocol, used by everyone, inter-changeable. If Cisco, Alcatel, Huawei, Ericsson, Nokia (oh, they still exist) and several other global multi-billion dollar industries can earn real money the RC forms just can dream about, without locking in their customers, so can the RC industry. The businesses not concentrating on selling radios but control solutions, allowing a Frsky transmitter to steer a Graupner product, a Wfly a Hubsan one. That I as consumer can fly all my planes, wings and quads with one single controller unit.
Not possible?
Be real, Internet is controlled by some +6000 protocols descriptions, collected from thousands of organizations and individuals, the so called RFCs' or Request for Comments.
For a suggestion to be registered as a RFC by Internet Engineering Task Force, the IETF, the definers need to prove that two different implementations of the protocol can talk with each other (sender & receiver in the RC world). This process has ensured Internet inter-operability for over 30 years. If a manufacturer implements a function, that is up to the manufacturer, but their products can still communicate with a baseline with other manufacturers products.
It is time you oldies, with your influence on the manufacturers, do help us newbies to get out of the current peat bog, that is today's RC controllers market. Because it always been like this, doesn't mean that it has to be in the future. Pressure the radio manufacturers to develop a common base protocol for at least 9 ch radios, allowing product mixing.
As it is today, I am very reluctant to buy a ready-made plane/quad, just because of this reason. Several vendors, like my DXe manufacturer Spektrum, do looses sales I could have given them. Hubsan is a even more spectacular example, they likely sell a million of units per year, but likely +98% of the customers only buys one unit, due to not wanting a lot of radios lying around. The monopolistic radio strategy of the manufacturers do not help the hobby.
Having said all this annoying stuff, is there any way exchanging the Graupner receiver in the new 210 quad for a OrangeRC or LemonRC mini DXSM receiver? I do want one..................
