Frsky - Europe needs the D8 protocol and D-Recievers

[Hellchecker]

Hello there,

allthough i didn´t found any time this year for some flight practise, i found enough to follow FrSKY and how they`re dealing with the ETSI-Norm EN 300 328 V1.8.1. I dont`wanna lose myself in details, thus the facts in a nutshell:

Many people feel offended that the D8 and LR12 protocolls have been removed with the new update for the European market ..and with these a bunch of well proven recievers. I won`t belive that nobody would like to change Frskys orientation in that case. Unfortunately there have been only a few attemps to bring about a rebound, but nothing seems to get the ball rolling.


The reputable german distributor EngelMT is keeping regular contact with FrSKY. A few months ago he has already posted the following information:

"FrSKY thinks about to make the D8 protocol EU-conform if sufficient demand exists. Please contact the technical support of FrSKY for it!"

--> [email protected]


I want to start an new appeal: >>Email to Frsky`s tech-support<<

Europe needs the D8 Protocoll, and D-Recievers! ...(and LR12 if you like )


Please, help and -->link this site to other Forums, spread it in social networks and tell everyone who might benefit from it. It`s in our all interests!



For those who are wondering what the hell is all about here, some shortcuts:

• A big selling point for Frsky products has been their modelrange of recievers. The discontinued D8 Mode for Europe affects that D-Recievers won`t work after the newest update. As of today it does not look then as if these will ever be replaced.

• The remaining XR recievers for D16 mode cannot compensate the old D-Series at all. Because of their specifications like lowlevel input voltage, size, weight, input/output connection etc..

• Older FrSKY Systems may continue to be operated with old firmware in the EU. But since there is no legal way to import recievers with the good old ETSI 1.7.1 Firmware, this is no option in the long run.

My holy opinion..

FrSKY ..are you serious?

I`m a great fan of this open-source project. Many people of the opensource-community did a great deal of work for FrSKY. As a thank-you we got back the best value radio up to date. But with the current decision they ´re causing uncertainty and will gonna lose reputation and acceptance. Now the time has come that FrSKY needs us again.. let´s help them, so that they don`t shoot into their own feet.


Are you with me?

--> [email protected]

...and if only to respect the great work and time which the open source community has put into this project...


Thank you for your attention ..and help!

Toni

[Hellchecker]

I have posted this thread in RC-Groups.com as well to reach as much as possible users of FrSKY transmitters and modules. Help each other to make sure...

> ...that owners of old FrSKY Systems could keep their old recievers in use parallel to the new XR-recievers <

> ...that europe customer of new FrSKY transmitters retrieve the same access to V- and D-Recievers, like the rest of the world <


If this appeal doesn´t affect any results, i will think about a petition or something else. Please, feel free to write what you think..

... especially if you hava an idea to improve this project!


Toni

[Rob Thomson]

To be fair...

The reason frsky has done this is because it is no longer legal to sell equipment in Europe that uses this protocol.

This is the result of new eu legislation on how the 2.4g band is used.

Silly thing is... it's illegal to sell the gear. .. but not currently illegal to use it!

So the solution is simple. Reflash the radio to turn the option back on!

[Kilrah]

What he wants is for FrSky to implement a EU-compliant version of the D protocol, like they did for X.

They had already talked about it and not formally excluded the possibility, so he might have a chance.

[Scram]

To be fair...

So the solution is simple. Reflash the radio to turn the option back on!

Having done that with my Taranis Plus (OpenTx v 2.0.17), why will it not bind with my V8 receivers when in Model Setup the Internal RF mode is set to D8?

[Kilrah]

Did you reflash the RF module? That's what he meant.

[Scram]

Did you reflash the RF module? That's what he meant.

Yes, answer to my problem here: viewtopic.php?f=96&t=7395

[Hellchecker]

What he wants is for FrSky to implement a EU-compliant version of the D protocol, like they did for X.

They had already talked about it and not formally excluded the possibility, so he might have a chance.

Thanks you, you make me hope

[bob195558]

Why did the EU officials make these regulations that have cause all of these problems ?

Bob B.

[kalle123]

Why did the EU officials make these regulations that have cause all of these problems ?

Bob B.

Interesting question Bob

Why are those guys putting a flow restriction on shower heads?
And removed standard light bulbs from the selfs of hardware depot?

You want more examples ......

[jhsa]

Cos they have nothing better to do?

[bob195558]

Hi kalle123, João,
So what you are saying, if I understand correctly, is the EU officials have no logical, reasonable, reason (The Why) to justify there regulation.

Are the EU officials not giving any logical, reasonable, reason (The Why) for there regulation and are just practicing tyranny over the people ?



Bob B.

[bob195558]

HI,
I found this document

pdfd3d1acPkgu.zip

Final draft ETSI EN 300 328 V1.8.1 (2012-04)

(971.6 KiB) Downloaded 321 times

Is this the proper up to date document ?
I have not been able to find a reason for the Why the EU officials have created these regulations, is there a needed for them ?

Bob B.

[MikeB]

I think the main requirement, that actually makes some sense, is the idea of "listen before talk". We have several radio sources all sharing the same frequency band, even if it is just several RC transmitters. These 'hop' from one frequency to another.
Now if another transmitter is already using the particular frequency you are about to transmit on, if you just go ahead and transmit, then both the existing transmission, and your transmission may both become corrupted. If, however, you listen first and detect the other transmission, then you don't transmit on that frequency, so the other transmission doesn't get corrupted.

Mike.

[jhsa]

Is it not what 2.4GHz rc transmitter already did before this rule anyway?

João

[Hellchecker]

Why did the EU officials make these regulations that have cause all of these problems ?

Bob B.

Hi Bob,

the regulation has been passed by the ETSI. That´s an international organisation which developes standards for different wireless applications. It doesnt belongs to the EU. With the new EN 300 328 V1.8.1. technical applications which utilize the 2,4 Ghz radio network should coexist better in a harmonized way. In times of booming systems with this wireless technology and limited frequenties on the other hand, it`s a necessity.

In short.. With the new norm systems should "listen before talk". That means applications have to check if the frequenzy is free on they´re going to transmit signals. If the "channel" is occupied they have to search another, and so on..

That affects in more latency and makes real-time applications became more difficult or impossible. In particular automation technology for industries are in big trouble because there is no room for latency. Also our RC-hobby is thereby adversly affected, when you think about that we´re moving "kinetic energy" in midair..


Toni

[Hellchecker]

"listen before talk" hasn´t been in usage in a way like that, . Systems like our rc transmitters are using a Frequenz hopping mode.. Because of the increasing numbers of operators the spektrum is maxed out on set closed spots

[Hellchecker]

To avoid misleading..

The ETSI is not EU!

But the new regulation has only affect to europe..


The initiative of this norm has been a non european company named CISCO, it´s one of the biggest manufactors for communication-hardware.

There are rumors that they are trying to do some kind of market foreclosure. Reportedly they have developed technical solutions for the industries .. for the problems with real-time applications in the automation technology i wrote above. Because of that they initiated the norm to gain market shares in the industrie sector.

Honni soit qui mal y pense


Like i wrote in rcgrous:

If life would be a cake i would wish that the new norm never has been born.. But we all know... the cake is a lie!!

[MikeB]

Listen before talk may well not increase latency. If you transmitted in the face of an existing transmission, you probably lost that time slot so have the extra latency anyway.

There was a time previously where some company tried to 'take over' the 2.4G band and stop everybody else using it.

"Listen before talk" was not in common use before these regulations came in.

Mike.

[Kilrah]

I still believe there should be exceptions to this rule, RC being one of them.

LBT makes sense with regards to non-realtime and high-bandwidth systems like Wi-Fi networks, but things like ours should be exempted from it and be able to transmit whenever they want, with the others holding off if needed and thus having higher priority.

If 2 devices transmit at the same time on the same frequency it's still possible to get some valid info depending on relative placement of the devices (the 2nd signal might be comparatively faint and not significantly affect the data), error correction schemes etc, but with LBT there isn't even an attempt as should the TX sense even a faint signal it should refrain from transmitting at all.
At some point with a friend we wanted to design a little device to prove that for example it's much easier to jam an LBT device than one that doesn't care, but never got to it.

[Hellchecker]

Listen before talk may well not increase latency. If you transmitted in the face of an existing transmission, you probably lost that time slot so have the extra latency anyway.

Thanks for your exception

I also don´t believe that we have to struggle hard with the new norm. Especially because we´re not perfoming our hobby at hotspots of 2.4Ghz transmissions. That our RC-Systems are acting in a more defense way at long sight isn´t something to be happy with.

But i´m not skilled and experienced enough to estimate the negativ effects.


@ Kilrah

It´s not worth about to think that we could have a status of exeption, sadly. But i think it´s more worth to "help" Frsky with a.. let´s say shortsighted decision. Because if the D8 Mode"dies", this will lead in a negative way.


I would be glad if more people could give a feedback.. and if you are supporting this movement.

Thanks to all who are taking part in here


Toni

[jhsa]

I only l use D8 equipment. It's well proven, and accordng to what I read in forums it seems to be also more reliable than the new X series. I live in EU but I am not planning to change to the X series and I would actually like to avoid it.. in about 5 years of using the D series, never had the slightest glitch..

João

[bob195558]

I think the main requirement, that actually makes some sense, is the idea of "listen before talk". We have several radio sources all sharing the same frequency band, even if it is just several RC transmitters. These 'hop' from one frequency to another.
Now if another transmitter is already using the particular frequency you are about to transmit on, if you just go ahead and transmit, then both the existing transmission, and your transmission may both become corrupted. If, however, you listen first and detect the other transmission, then you don't transmit on that frequency, so the other transmission doesn't get corrupted. Mike.

How dose "listen before talk" work ? Is it that through the radio XJT module telemetry receiving,
it checks for a non-used transmitter signal before it begins to transmit a particular frequency hopping transmission ?

Bob B.

[Hellchecker]

How dose "listen before talk" work ? Is it that through the radio XJT module telemetry receiving,
it checks for a non-used transmitter signal before it begins to transmit a particular frequency hopping transmission ?

Bob B.

Perhaps this answers your question. I read that yesterday in a german professional journal for communication technology.

The sending modul is hearing a special amount of time at the frequenzy, before it will be going to send the signal. If there are no other signals detected in this amount of time, it will starting with transmission.(That´s the additional latency we have to get on) When there are found other signals, it´s going to change the frequenzy and everything starts again..

However this doesn´t affects the USA or any other non-european country... at least not yet


Toni

[MikeB]

I think you will find the listening time is very short, perhaps a millisecond. The FrSky modules. for example, send data every 9 mS, so can't listen for very long if they are going to send the channel data in that time slot.
From an investigation I did, the non-listen firmware only sent 8 of the channels every 9 mS, with the listen firmware, it sends all 16 channels every 9mS.

Mike.

[Hellchecker]

I think you will find the listening time is very short, perhaps a millisecond. The FrSky modules. for example, send data every 9 mS, so can't listen for very long if they are going to send the channel data in that time slot.
From an investigation I did, the non-listen firmware only sent 8 of the channels every 9 mS, with the listen firmware, it sends all 16 channels every 9mS.

Mike.

Thanks for sharing your results. I´m only afraid a bit they couldn´t be significant enough, depending on whether "where" your investigation have been done.

As far as i know there are a few different LBT mechanics out there. And i don´t know which of this standards have been implemented in our RC-equipment. I suppose it could be a kind of dynamic adaptiv Media-Acess Uitilization, so its called in german. In this case the implemented mechanics like LBT or DAA (Detect and avoid) are working in an automatic adaptiv way. The product has to adapt in a dynamic way to it´s environment. With every additional operator in range, every system has to hold back itself more. This results in a rising latency with evey added user. If your investigations have been made under good conditions it wouldn´t affect any negativ results.

I think i´m with you, when i say that the "normal" RC-pilot will never take notice of it, because he´s performing his hobby far away from any radio-hotspots. Except at a big RC-Airshow with many pilots and hundreds of visitors and their smartphones.

Toni

[Hellchecker]

Anyway, i don´t know about any other RC-producer that they have problems to make recievers and protocols work with the new regulations. Sadly, the way Frsky tooks to deal with the euopean customers is a hit in the face.This is going to have a big impact on their sales at the europe market. I don´t believe they could overwatch the wave which is rolling toward them. Unforunately many people still do not know that many recievers will disapear from the market if the D8 protocol is dropped forever.

Mike, i believe it is important that well-kown people like you are, help to make this appeal successful. I don´t do this for me, or to have a well-viewed thread. It´s all about to keep Frsky and their users happy. I would be deeply grateful if you could support to spread this message:

>>Email to Frsky`s tech-support<<

Europe needs the D8 Protocoll, and D-Recievers! ...(and LR12 if you like

I think i´m not well-known enough to make a serious difference.

Thx

Toni

[MikeB]

I did ask in the Middle of May this year, the response I got was:
"Temporarily yes, current EU firmware only supports D16-EU mode. I heard that once our RF team members have more time, we might integrate D8-EU mode into the EU firmware."

I'll see about asking again if there is any progress.

Mike.

[Hellchecker]

Thank you Mike

[minze]

Mike,

I hope you get a real answer. Because all the answers I have seen are vague or just misinformed (even from frsky themself as can been seen in my last thread on their forum).
Just out of curiousity, I see people have managed to dump firmware from some D series RX's. Has anyone managed to reupload the dumped firmware into an RX ?

Minze

PS : Hi Toni, I don't dont like to crosspost , so this seemed like a good place to start.