Frsky updates

erskyTx runs on many radios and upgrade boards
ersky9x was a port of er9x for use on the sky9x board.
User avatar
midelic
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 9:57 pm
Country: -

Re: Frsky updates

Post by midelic »

Frsky would not like that mainly because any new protocol will end up in Jumper T16.If MPM was " alone" they would not bother much.
If we give support for DIY rx new protocol, Frsky is loosing a lot while Jumper is gaining a lot,for free.

There were reports that DIY RX perform better that Frsky original rx.
Did you see this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez91IT_mc-I

planger
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 10:50 am
Country: France

Re: Frsky updates

Post by planger »

"What I can't understand is why and how Pascal, the Multi Module developer, is actually giving direct support to the Jumper radio, unless...... :( :? :roll: and I keep the rest of the sentence for myself, but you know what I mean.

João"
What are you saying here. I'm not helping Jumper or any other manufacturer. I'm just adding compatibility for FrSky V2 in Multi like any other protocol. What's wrong with that? Isn't it the purpose of multi to support as many as protocols as possible independently of the manufacturer? I'm lost here... What is so special to FrSky compare to DSM or HoTT or...
Pascal
Last edited by planger on Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Kilrah
Posts: 11108
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:56 pm
Country: Switzerland

Re: Frsky updates

Post by Kilrah »

midelic wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 2:27 pm If we give support for DIY rx new protocol, Frsky is loosing a lot while Jumper is gaining a lot,for free.
Well so far they have been complaining that Jumper (and other compatible receiver manufacturers like the many frsky compatible miniquads) were getting their "all so great" protocols, and they have a valid reason to complain about it since it's theirs and they did the dev - if they get another new protocol they won't be happier for sure but they won't have a reasonable reason to complain anymore, that's just how competition works.

FrSky seems to not care at all that they probably sell more receivers thanks to multi supporting D16, they just don't want their competitors to have access to the protocol.
User avatar
jhsa
Posts: 19480
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:13 pm
Country: Germany

Re: Frsky updates

Post by jhsa »

Pascal, good that you are here. :) I knew my message would get to you very fast if I wrote it in a certain way. :) And that proved other few things to me :) It worked though.. :mrgreen:
Well, let me start by saying that you probably haven't seen me lately at the MultiProtocol thread. I was an active follower having built a few units myself.
The reason I decided to stop following it, is that I have realized the the MultiProtocol thread became a Jumper radio support thread instead of the "DIY" multiProtocol thread I once knew. And I didn't like it.. :( So, I stopped following it, at least for now.
I personally think that it was a bad move the MPM development team to give direct support to a company, specially when that company sell radios using the frsky protocol as their main protocol. And you know very well the frsky protocol is Jumper's main protocol, otherwise they would not be so upset that frsky encrypted their protocol, right?
And in my opinion, this is the reason why frsky got really upset, and that will hurt all MultiProtocol users. frsky never complained about the MPM using their protocol, even if the Chinese cloned it and were selling MultiProtocol units. but of course, with a radio, that is nearly a direct copy of one of their radios, and it uses mainly the frsky protocols, even if it has a multi protocol module inside, frsky cannot be happy about that. Would you be happy with it if you were in their shoes? :o I definitely wouldn't.
I was shocked every time I logged in to the multi protocol RCG thread, it looked like a Jumper service center. I always said, when DIY stuff gets mixed with commercial stuff, there will always be problems sooner or later.
Why couldn't the Multi Protocol module thread just stay like it always was, as DIY thread? If it did, you would not need to be decoding any Frsky D16 V2 now, because it would simply not exist. In my opinion, someone messed up badly with frsky and now there is a war. :o :shock: But I have the feeling that it is an OpenTX war against frsky, for reasons that I don't know, and to be honest, I am not interested.
I am very disappointed with all this though.. I personally always thought you wanted to keep the MultiProtocol module DIY only, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be the case.. :( Why? can you tell us? I remember that a while ago, you said that was your wish. Or did I mis-undertastand it?

João
My er9x/Ersky9x/eepskye Video Tutorials
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5uJhoD7sAKidZmkhMpYpp_qcuIqJXhb9

Donate to Er9x/Ersky9x:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=YHX43JR3J7XGW
User avatar
Kilrah
Posts: 11108
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:56 pm
Country: Switzerland

Re: Frsky updates

Post by Kilrah »

jhsa wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:39 pm otherwise they would not be so upset that frsky encrypted their protocol, right?
Jumper have never been upset about anything.
Jumper USERS are.
jhsa wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:39 pmfrsky never complained about the MPM using their protocol, even if the Chinese cloned it and were selling MultiProtocol units.
Oh they sure did, just not publicly. But everyone involved in the various projects around this has at some point been "gently" asked to lock out the FrSky protocols.

How do you want to keep something "DIY only" when a project is open source? Anyone can use it, which happened.

User avatar
jhsa
Posts: 19480
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:13 pm
Country: Germany

Re: Frsky updates

Post by jhsa »

But it hasn't been a reason for Frsky to encrypt their protocols. Jumper using MultiProtocol internally with the goal of using the Frsky protocol, triggered that.
And now you make me laugh, Jumper never been upset about anything? ha... I can read exactly that in several threads lol.
Jumper users are upset because they have been told to. I wonder by who?? ;)
and by the way, why are Jumper users upset with frsky? because frsky doesn't want the competition to use their protocols? Did you even realize what nonsense you are saying? They should be upset with the Jumper guys because they are promising something that doesn't belong to them..
I really hope that frsky really encypts their code reeeeally well.. better, they should start using those all in one chips, or whatever they are called..
You guys are unbelievable, :mrgreen: put a product on the market using frsky protocols as the main protocols, and still complain that frsky gets upset and encodes their protocols.
You see Pascal? it is this B.S. that makes me upset. Do you really think this is reasonable?? :o
If Jumper wanted to support frsky protocols, should have done it the same way Hobbyking has done with their 9XR-PRO radio. They contacted Frsky and reached an agreement. that was the right thing to do. But no, for free is best right?
And I can see that the OpenTX team seems to be in some kind of war against frsky, by looking at the posts here. What happened? did frsky kick you out?? Is that what all that hate is about? For the 3rd time, Can someone point me to a post where Bertrand expresses his opinion about this? I haven't seen him around since a while. I (and for sure many others) would be interested to know his opinion about all this..

João
My er9x/Ersky9x/eepskye Video Tutorials
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5uJhoD7sAKidZmkhMpYpp_qcuIqJXhb9

Donate to Er9x/Ersky9x:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=YHX43JR3J7XGW
User avatar
jhsa
Posts: 19480
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:13 pm
Country: Germany

Re: Frsky updates

Post by jhsa »

Kilrah wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 5:31 pm
How do you want to keep something "DIY only" when a project is open source? Anyone can use it, which happened.
I am no sure it is that simple..
But anyway, even if it was, it would have been decent from the open source radio firmware developers, to leave out support for the frsky protocols on the Jumper radios until they reached an agreement with frsky.
That was what Mike did when the 9XR-PRO radio came out, and in my opinion it was the right thing to do..
But i am guessing you are not going to do that, right?

João
My er9x/Ersky9x/eepskye Video Tutorials
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5uJhoD7sAKidZmkhMpYpp_qcuIqJXhb9

Donate to Er9x/Ersky9x:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=YHX43JR3J7XGW
planger
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 10:50 am
Country: France

Re: Frsky updates

Post by planger »

"I personally think that it was a bad move the MPM development team to give direct support to a company" Can you give me a pointer to which direct support I'm giving? All the companies are using the schematics that are available as opensource. None of them have received support on how to build their own versions. It's more the reverse as soon as a company starts producing a module then all of a sudden we need to add support what they've done differently.
I've never said to anyone you have a FrSky go away, you have a FlySky go away... I'm basically supporting all the radios equally. You may refer to the fact that lately I've been spending more time to add features to OpenTX. It's because the OpenTX developpers were and are still ready to be spend time with me to do so. Mike at the time was super busy but I'm still available to help Mike to add everything to erskyTX.
"specially when that company sell radios using the frsky protocol as their main protocol. And you know very well the frsky protocol is Jumper's main protocol"
This is written nowhere that Jumper main protocol is FrSky, I can't recall to have seen that in any of their pages. Can you point me to is information I would like to see it?
I haven't seen a communication from Jumper or iRangeX or others manufacturing the multi module stating that: "otherwise they would not be so upset that frsky encrypted their protocol, right?"
I'm the one saying that FrSky has added copy/clone protections and surely not encryption to protect their V2 protocol. There is no encryption what's so ever. There is a simple xor applied with a single value to any of their packets in and out.
"And in my opinion, this is the reason why frsky got really upset, and that will hurt all MultiProtocol users. frsky never complained about the MPM using their protocol, even if the Chinese cloned it and were selling MultiProtocol units. but of course, with a radio, that is nearly a direct copy of one of their radios, and it uses mainly the frsky protocols, even if it has a multi protocol module inside, frsky cannot be happy about that. Would you be happy with it if you were in their shoes? :o I definitely wouldn't."
So now your blamming is switching to Jumper copying FrSky products, this is another story. And that's not the first time that Chinese are copying products isn't it?
By the way Jumper has not only copied but they have enhanced it like adding 2 separated feeds for the telemetry compared to FrSky where telemetry is shared between internal and external modules.
It has to be noted that FrSky is playing a double game here since they are also producing multimodules under the cover of Vantac and URUAV... So the story is not as black and white as you suggest.
"that will hurt all MultiProtocol users"
Can you explain? The users can still access all the protocols. They might have one day frskyx v2 but may be not. And what's the deal if not? They will go away from FrSky all together? They will replace the multi module by a XJT module? People have a lot of choice today, everyone is free to do what he wants.
"I was shocked every time I logged in to the multi protocol RCG thread, it looked like a Jumper service center. I always said, when DIY stuff gets mixed with commercial stuff, there will always be problems sooner or later."
It's not a jumper service center, people are coming with a lot of different module/radio types and they get pointed to the documentation page that help them. There is nothing specific to the T16 or T12 or 9XR Pro or X9D or Xlite or ... they are either running OpenTX or erskyTX and they get the help associated with that not the radio hardware.
"I am very disappointed with all this though.. I personally always thought you wanted to keep the MultiProtocol module DIY only, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be the case.. :( Why? can you tell us? I remember that a while ago, you said that was your wish. Or did I mis-undertastand it?"
Not everyone can build their own module. So having manufacturers doing the hardware is not a bad thing.
You can't build everything yourself. You have to get a radio to support erskyTX isn't it or have you fully built your radio made the PCB and solders all the smd components?
Personnaly, I prefer adding protocols than supporting people that do not know how to solder 2 components and requires even more debugging.

I still don't understand what's all this fuzz about FrSky. Why is FrSky so different than any other protocols?
Personnaly I don't own any of their products, I don't have a transmitter neither a receiver from them. I prefer to go to FlySky and others and that's my choice.
Why do you suddenly take the defense about FrSky and not Flysky? Flysky v1 and v2 have been reversed, why don't you say poor Flysky? or poor HoTT? or poor Hitec? or poor Devo? or poor xxx? Why are you targetting FrSky so much? I can't understand that point. You seem to be the one which "is actually giving direct support to the " FrSky ecosystem ", unless...... :( :? :roll: and I keep the rest of the sentence for myself, but you know what I mean."

Pascal
User avatar
Kilrah
Posts: 11108
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:56 pm
Country: Switzerland

Re: Frsky updates

Post by Kilrah »

jhsa wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 5:54 pm But it hasn't been a reason for Frsky to encrypt their protocols.
Yes, FrSky have started locking stuff down before the whole Jumper saga.
jhsa wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 5:54 pm They should be upset with the Jumper guys because they are promising something that doesn't belong to them..
Well, people are people. Users don't care about what is "right", only about what they can get, and they don't care how. All the owners of miniquads with FrSky compatible receivers that won't be usable anymore on v2 should be angry at the quad manufacturers, but they're angry at FrSky since they're the ones who are removing their ability to use them. Just how it is.
jhsa wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 5:54 pm they should start using those all in one chips, or whatever they are called..
Been like that for a couple of years.
jhsa wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 5:54 pm What happened?
You already forgot the explanations given to you a couple of months ago... FrSky's mess of a product line and release process is no more a recommendable experience for OpenTX users, lying to their customers at the time of xlite pro release has not been appreciated, making our job hard by retaining information including the presence of hidden devices that can activate independently of our actions and cause dangerous situations makes development uninteresting.
User avatar
jhsa
Posts: 19480
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:13 pm
Country: Germany

Re: Frsky updates

Post by jhsa »

planger wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 6:07 pm Can you give me a pointer to which direct support I'm giving?
As I said, the MPM thread looks like a jumper support thread. well, at least it did just before i stopped following it. :(

All the companies are using the schematics that are available as opensource. None of them have received support on how to build their own versions. It's more the reverse as soon as a company starts producing a module then all of a sudden we need to add support what they've done differently.
all the companies made an external module. That is a big difference in my opinion. :shock:
I've never said to anyone you have a FrSky go away, you have a FlySky go away... I'm basically supporting all the radios equally.
Hmmmmm... I am not to say that I agree, nor that I disagree.. But that doesn't matter anyway.
You may refer to the fact that lately I've been spending more time to add features to OpenTX. It's because the OpenTX developpers were and are still ready to be spend time with me to do so. Mike at the time was super busy but I'm still available to help Mike to add everything to erskyTX.
Probably that is why the thread looks like a Jumper support thread? That would explain it. So, let me guess, the openTX developers are now also developing MultiProtocol? :)
if so, I wouldn't be surprised to see the multiprotocol project merged with OpenTX?? let's wait and see. :)
This is written nowhere that Jumper main protocol is FrSky, I can't recall to have seen that in any of their pages. Can you point me to is information I would like to see it?
They would be very stupid if they wrote on their product page, don't you think?? :mrgreen:
C'mon, do you really believe that? I see it written all over the place (perhaps not directly). When the Jumper guys, and the Jumper users go bashing frsky all over the place, why do you think they do that? Because they don't care if Frsky encodes or encrypts their protocol?? :D
I'm the one saying that FrSky has added copy/clone protections and surely not encryption to protect their V2 protocol. There is no encryption what's so ever. There is a simple xor applied with a single value to any of their packets in and out.
oh, ok, then whatever they are doing, I hope they do it well :) It is time the so called open source community develops their own Protocol, as I have been saying since one or two years.
So now your blamming is switching to Jumper copying FrSky products, this is another story. And that's not the first time that Chinese are copying products isn't it?
Oh, that is another story, is it? Because the "good" guys did it, it is not a problem anymore, right? :lol:
By the way Jumper has not only copied but they have enhanced it like adding 2 separated feeds for the telemetry compared to FrSky where telemetry is shared between internal and external modules.
Wow, they used an available pin for adding a second telemetry feed yay :lol: just like for example the 9xtreme board, the Ar9x board, the Skyboard did long ago. Wait a minute, did they also copy the 9xtreme?? It is worse than I thought then :mrgreen:
Pascal, don't make me laugh now.. Those guys don't even know how to implement a voltage divider on their receiver. Do you want me to believe that they implemented something?? :mrgreen: If people weren't being flashing another code to their receivers and modifying the hardware, they would have been stuck with a piece of junk :)
It has to be noted that FrSky is playing a double game here since they are also producing multimodules under the cover of Vantac and URUAV... So the story is not as black and white as you suggest.
Are they? Don't know about it. Will have to check that.. link?

Can you explain? The users can still access all the protocols. They might have one day frskyx v2 but may be not. And what's the deal if not? They will go away from FrSky all together? They will replace the multi module by a XJT module? People have a lot of choice today, everyone is free to do what he wants.
Of course it will. If the V2 protocol is not decoded, at some some point users will have to update their stuff, including buying a module that works with the new receivers, and then update the old ones as well. Unless they don't buy new receivers anymore. Old receivers won't be compatible with the new modules they had to buy, so they probably have to be updated. and then they won't work with the MPM either. So yes, users of the frsky protocols wouldn't be able to use their MPM anymore.
It's not a jumper service center, people are coming with a lot of different module/radio types and they get pointed to the documentation page that help them. There is nothing specific to the T16 or T12 or 9XR Pro or X9D or Xlite or ... they are either running OpenTX or erskyTX and they get the help associated with that not the radio hardware.
Hmm, sorry wasn't that impression I was left with when I stopped following it. And that even before all this.
And no, I am not talking about any radio hardware when I say it looked like a Jumper service center :)
Not everyone can build their own module. So having manufacturers doing the hardware is not a bad thing.
You can't build everything yourself. You have to get a radio to support erskyTX isn't it or have you fully built your radio made the PCB and solders all the smd components?
As I said before MPM as an external module as it was before it was absolutely fine as far as I am concerned. But sold as internal in a commercial radio, i don't find it fine at all..
Personnaly, I prefer adding protocols than supporting people that do not know how to solder 2 components and requires even more debugging.
fair enough.. So, you aren't DIY guy after all, at least not for hardware :) I really miss the old MultiProtocol days.. :)
I still don't understand what's all this fuzz about FrSky. Why is FrSky so different than any other protocols?
You will have to ask that question to the OpenTX team and the Jumper Guys and users.
It looks they are in some kind of childish war against frsky. If you don't like them, don't use their protocols. But the war seems to be because frsky don't want the to use their protocols. So, frsky is so bad and those guys bash them all the time because they want to use frsky's protocols? Does this make sense? It would make sense if frsky was forcing them to use their protocols and they didn't want to, but not the other way round. So, some don't like it, the others don't want the first ones to use it.. Why bashing then? It doesn't make sense.
And as I said, and I repeat it again. It would have been nice that the Jumper guys asked permission to frsky to use their protocols on their radio, just like Hobbyking did for their 9XR-PRO.. That was a decent move from HK. Gotta give them credit for it.
Personnaly I don't own any of their products, I don't have a transmitter neither a receiver from them. I prefer to go to FlySky and others and that's my choice.
So, you don't have a jumper radio?? ;) :mrgreen:
Why do you suddenly take the defense about FrSky and not Flysky? Flysky v1 and v2 have been reversed, why don't you say poor Flysky? or poor HoTT? or poor Hitec? or poor Devo? or poor xxx? Why are you targetting FrSky so much? I can't understand that point
.
Because no one is bashing them. Do you understand now why I say that the Frsky protocol is the main reason Jumper used the Multi module as internal? And they can do it for free.. And still bash the poor owners of the protocol :)
And if this is not the case, why don't the open source firmware developers remove frsky support from the Jumper radio until they obtain permission from frsky to use it? And as matter a fact, they should ask permission to HOTT, Futaba, Hitec, Flysky, etc, because the module is being sold installed internally as part of the radio.
But I think the bashing and all this hate comes more from the OpenTX side, and as you know when you are in a certain position, you can pass that hate to the crowds. That is not difficult at all. I fell for this trick once, never again. :( Again, I would love to know Bertrand's opinion about this. :)

You seem to be the one which "is actually giving direct support to the " FrSky ecosystem ", unless...... :( :? :roll: and I keep the rest of the sentence for myself, but you know what I mean."
Pascal, I find it really funny that you use my quote against me ha ha ha :mrgreen: Are you trying to attract me to this thread as well? :mrgreen: I am already here.. ;) :roll: :mrgreen:

You know very well that I don't even use frsky hardware.. I build all my stuff.. and you know that very well, :P from Multiprotocol modules to receivers. I have no reason for defending them, I wasn't even a beta tester of some sort for frsky. and never had anything to do with them. I was a beta tester of the 9XR-PRO radio as I was invited for to do so..
But I don't like to see someone being unfairly bashed. And we all know where all this bashing comes from. This is only a guess, but after all this discussion, I also start to believe that frsky might want ONLY their firmware on their radios. at least the new ones. Am I wrong? Probably. Or maybe not? ;)
But it was interesting to know your opinion about all this, thanks for sharing :) No, I am not being sarcastic :) But I am still smiling because of your quote above.. :)

João
My er9x/Ersky9x/eepskye Video Tutorials
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5uJhoD7sAKidZmkhMpYpp_qcuIqJXhb9

Donate to Er9x/Ersky9x:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=YHX43JR3J7XGW
User avatar
jhsa
Posts: 19480
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:13 pm
Country: Germany

Re: Frsky updates

Post by jhsa »

Kilrah wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 6:15 pm
Yes, FrSky have started locking stuff down before the whole Jumper saga.
Which equipment? funny that I never read about it :shock: :? What did they lock?
For sure they weren't locking their protocols and their radios..

Well, people are people. Users don't care about what is "right", only about what they can get, and they don't care how. All the owners of miniquads with FrSky compatible receivers that won't be usable anymore on v2 should be angry at the quad manufacturers, but they're angry at FrSky since they're the ones who are removing their ability to use them. Just how it is.
They have nothing to complain about, they are not using frsky products. They (just like myself) are using compatible receivers. No reason to complain at all. If they were using frsky products, they could just update their stuff..

Been like that for a couple of years.
Of really? well, they will have to find better chips then :mrgreen:

You already forgot the explanations given to you a couple of months ago... FrSky's mess of a product line and release process is no more a recommendable experience for OpenTX users, lying to their customers at the time of xlite pro release has not been appreciated, making our job hard by retaining information including the presence of hidden devices that can activate independently of our actions and cause dangerous situations makes development uninteresting.
So.... then let's just get some revenge, right? :D let's start a war against frsky until they can't sell one single radio anymore.. is that it? Childish in my opinion :) If frsky stuff is not so recommendable why are you guys insisting in using their protocols, and are so upset they are encoding them so no others can use them? It doesn't make sense, does it? The way I see it is that for some reason they don't want anyone else to be developing for them anymore, but they could have just said it.. or did they?

João
My er9x/Ersky9x/eepskye Video Tutorials
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5uJhoD7sAKidZmkhMpYpp_qcuIqJXhb9

Donate to Er9x/Ersky9x:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=YHX43JR3J7XGW
TomasJ
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:46 pm
Country: -

Re: Frsky updates

Post by TomasJ »

Heated discussions... Lets go back to technical side.
I will order some hardware I will try to repeat "random channel deflection ' bug. Not quick, it will take month or two.
I got through MPM source and took a look at cc2500 0x08 register. Only one protocol doesn't use hardware crc. You can guess which one :) Hott uses data whitening too.
So, it is very probably, that all FrSky had to do is to flip a coin - I mean one bit - in all their firmwares... And as I see, that doesn't break backward compatibility. Will wait for Midelic findings.
IMSNHO about FrSky - after going public they turned from innovation into profit oriented company...PMM, ACCESS, which has half of ACCST range, quick killing of ACCST transmitter line, ISRM authentication, no X10 Express ISRM availability as spare, X10 iXJT NLA (as told to my by horusrc), X10 upgrade ISRM 50$ vs 30$ for iXJT, RXSR bug with 50% frame loses for 1.5 years.
5,3,1 year ago if someone asked what transmitter to buy - I said - only FrSky. Not anymore.
planger
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 10:50 am
Country: France

Re: Frsky updates

Post by planger »

While fixing the servos sporadic issue by enabling hardware CRC, FrSky has added 6 anti "copy/clone" protections to their protocol:
- 3 on the bind packets: 1 weak, 2 strong
- 2 on the normal packets: 2 medium
- 1 on the telemetry packets from the receiver: 1 weak
The same applies to LBT and FCC with only 1 of the protection being different. The protections are making old/new incompatible together.
Personnaly I don't care about this protocol, I've only been investing time for the RC world but when I see how some people are reacting I'm not sure it's worth it...
Pascal
Carbo
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:55 pm
Country: Germany
Location: Freinsheim RP

Re: Frsky updates

Post by Carbo »

As the oldest looking in this forum I want to say, that a lot of people are very grateful, for the work some smart people are doing for the community. Without people like the OpenTX devs, Mike, mstrens, Pascal I would for sure not fly RC anymore. It is a lot of fun with you all! Keep going please.
planger
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 10:50 am
Country: France

Re: Frsky updates

Post by planger »

Joao, since you don't trust anything I'm saying, here is the FrSky double game with Vantac and URUAV modules: http://fpvcentral.net/wp-content/upload ... 155819.jpg . Check the markings just above the USB plug: MultiProtocol Rev 0.2 with underneath a beautiful FrSky logo. This is the lite module but they also have the JR size module in case you wonder I'll let you do a search online.
But I guess you will still tell me how FrSky is far more better than all the others... And that they have obtained the permissions from all the protocols that the multi module is supporting...
Pascal
User avatar
jhsa
Posts: 19480
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:13 pm
Country: Germany

Re: Frsky updates

Post by jhsa »

Pascal, I have nothing to do with Frsky, as I said, I don't even own any of their radios, only a couple old modules and receivers.
I do appreciate your work, a lot. I can see you are biased though. I am not.
I don't like all the hate I have seen here. It is clear to me that the openTX team is trying to turn everyone against frsky because of their childish war against them. I remember they criticising Jumper some time ago and not really liking that they were making a different version of openTX for their radio. But then suddenly everything changed from one day to the other. I don't have proof, yet.. But I have my suspicions of what might have happened..
I will have a look at the links when I get to a PC. What I am upset at, is at people that don't use frsky products, and still bash frsky because they made changes to their protocol to prevent them from using it. As if the whole thing was fraky fault. So, they didn't buy their product, and it is still their fault? Do you find that normal? Sorry, I don't.
That is why I hope that they lock their protocol in a way that no one can reverse engenner it. Good on them, and good luck with it. I am fine with D8 which was the best and more reliable protocol they made. Never had a problem with it. Zero. I have read, and have seen many failures with D16 and its hardware. The DIY rx seems to be much better and reliable. For sure more features. The MultiProtocol module also works well, even if it lacks a bit of RF power compared to a original DJT module.
But I have a Multi module that seems to be more powerful than the commercial Multi module. :)

I just wanted to know your opinion, and to see which side you are. I guess I have a little idea now. By the way, you didn't answer my question, do you have a jumper radio? ;) :mrgreen:

João

My er9x/Ersky9x/eepskye Video Tutorials
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5uJhoD7sAKidZmkhMpYpp_qcuIqJXhb9

Donate to Er9x/Ersky9x:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=YHX43JR3J7XGW
User avatar
MikeB
9x Developer
Posts: 17990
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:24 pm
Country: -
Location: Poole, Dorset, UK

Re: Frsky updates

Post by MikeB »

Interesting that Aloft sell this as the FrSky MPM Lite module, but WITHOUT firmware installed!

As well as the hardware CRC, I think FrSky have/had another problem. Every packet includes data relating to how to get to the next channel in the hopping sequence. This should be the same in every packet. My guess is that FrSky is using the value from the packet every time a packet is received. If a packet with errors is accepted, then this value could be wrong, and the result would be the 0.9 seconds lock out as they would be hopping incorrectly in the Rx.

My understanding of an event that happened a while ago is that someone working on openTx had some information from FrSky (under NDA), but published it. This upset FrSky, who are now being much more careful in releasing information to developers.

Mike
erskyTx/er9x developer
The difficult we do immediately,
The impossible takes a little longer!
User avatar
Kilrah
Posts: 11108
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:56 pm
Country: Switzerland

Re: Frsky updates

Post by Kilrah »

The information was not given under NDA, it was precisely not disclosed. It was found out by the team members after investigation as to the reason why things didn't operate correctly when people reported not being able to use the radio as expected. We didn't even have the affected hardware to look at, the reason was found with help from users supplying photos of their boards and data logs.

It was then given as a response to other owners coming with bug reports.

FrSky apparently wanted people not to know what they had done and their "official" explanation was a "bug". But specific hardware added for the sole purpose of causing that behavior does not count as a "bug".
User avatar
ddano007
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:40 pm
Country: Slovakia
Contact:

Re: Frsky updates

Post by ddano007 »

jhsa wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2020 11:00 am ... I have nothing to do with Frsky, as I said ...
João, I don`t believe You, all the time You are talking like the FrSky`s advocate :lol:
I was flying FrSky since autumn 2010, when they released DJT module + first generation od D8R. And `till 2019 I was buying only original D8Rs, no clones. When X-series RXs started I was few times asking them through sales representative to make X RX with two external analog inputs... with no result.
OK, no problem, one can`t have all he want...
All the time I bought no one sensor from them, I`m electronic man, HUB protocol + OXS + current sensors did good job for my models.
The first issue, when I started dislike them was T16 story. I don`t know, why anybody else couldn`t make a copy of someone`s TX, all the time FrSky was manufacturing clones of RXs and nobody cares.
The second - and final - issue, when I decided to go away from FrSky`s products was they discontinued D8 protocol in their new TXs. Keep time and space and don`t discuss if it is legal or not: on one side FrSky`s guys are crying, that`s not legal, on the other hand FrSky is still selling external modules with D8 & D16 FCC protocols :mrgreen: So that`s not about they can`t integrate it to FW, that`s about they decided to throw away their customers with D8. Of course, not exactly, You can buy their external module :twisted:
When was I was talking, that discontinuing D8 support in their new TXs is unserious, many guys said me: take it easy, You are probably the only man still using D8 RX, be happy. And my opinion was: as easy, as they throw away D8 users, they will throw away X16 users... and that`s now.
Of course, You can still use their products... ONLY their ones.
I can see FrSky started to do politics instead of doing good technical devices, and that`s sad. When they started in 2010 they were talking about free sky for everybody, but today they are going to lock their users to only their products. And - sorry - that`s nothing for me. What will be next? Will they lock SPORT ans SBUS? Or something else?
That`s why I`m thanksfull to Pascal, mstrens, midelic, OTX group and other guys for their job allowing us to fly free no care, what company hardware we are using.
Thanks, guys.
User avatar
jhsa
Posts: 19480
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:13 pm
Country: Germany

Re: Frsky updates

Post by jhsa »

You are entitled not to believe me. I don't own a single radio from them.
Now, about being FrSky`s advocate, I don't even like their radios. I only own their old stuff. as you say D8 is frickin' brilliant.
I just don't like the way people are bashing them. Don't you see this is a personal childish war done by OpenTX against frsky? :o I can see it because I am not biased at all.
In my opinion, they can do what the hell they want with their protocols, it is THEIR stuff. but what i see is people that don't even OWN their products bashing them because the protocols will not work with their multiprotocol module. Do you find that fair? I don't.
In my opinion, if frsky doesn't want others to use their protocols anymore, they are entitles do do what the heck they want to achieve that. as long as they provide their costumers with an update, which it looks like they do. This is valid to any other company. And you know that other companies also lock, encrypt, encode, whatever you want to call it, their protocols, so others can't use them.

Don't get me wrong, a I am a big fan of Pascal, mstrens, midelic, and Mike. I think they have completely changed the RC world in different fields.. I have been following Mike's great work since he came into the er9x program. And it is amazing what he has been doing at many levels. Stuff that we thought being impossible. In my opinion, he was, and is responsible for most of the innovation in the open source radio firmware.
Pascal, Midelic and mstrens also have my deepest respect.

but you know, believe what you want.. if it makes you happy that I am frsky's advocate, then it is up to you, if that makes you happy.. :mrgreen: I don't really care.. :)

João
My er9x/Ersky9x/eepskye Video Tutorials
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5uJhoD7sAKidZmkhMpYpp_qcuIqJXhb9

Donate to Er9x/Ersky9x:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=YHX43JR3J7XGW
User avatar
ddano007
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:40 pm
Country: Slovakia
Contact:

Re: Frsky updates

Post by ddano007 »

jhsa wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2020 12:20 pmIn my opinion, they can do what the hell they want with their protocols, it is THEIR stuff. but what i see is people that don't even OWN their products bashing them because the protocols will not work with their multiprotocol module. Do you find that fair? I don't.
And do You think it`s fair to do politics instead of RC thinks?
From my scope of view they made angry a lot of their - until past year - very satisfied users. Of course they can do, what they want with their protocols, no disagree about that. That`s their job. Of course they can discontinue support for anything, that`s also their job, I absolutely respect it.
But my job is to say: Bye, You become unserious company for me, because I`m not sure, what You will lock in the future, or what You will discontinue. I will buy no longer Your products.
That`s all.
BTW that advocate was only joke, I hope You understood it ;)
RCJohn
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:23 pm
Country: -

Re: Frsky updates

Post by RCJohn »

FrSky is not an NGO who can survive from some sponor's donations.
They need to compete in our economical world where growth is mandatory to survive.
They have to secure their return on investement, by adequate means, that is their right and their duty to their customers, if they want them to be around for some time.
When you cant secure your ROI by international patent- or design protection, what else is left? File a patent on your SW? Forget it.
Its an unrealistic dream, that a company can keep one product on the shelf for years and just wait for customer improvement requests in parallel with deteriorating prices. In the PC and Mobile world, you make your profit in the first 3 months after launch. The rest is just maintenance. If your market launch is delayed by 1 month, half profit is gone and propably nothing left in your books after investment and taxes.
I am not taking sides of any opinions here, please all ask yourselves, whether you aren`t partly responsible to push FrSKy into the situation, where they are today. Who prepared the ground, that products can sprout up with un-beatable minimum investment and market price and cause unbalanced competitive situations?
So don't complain in any direction, but enjoy the freedom to do what you want to do.
Me, just for myself, I appreciate very much what you made available for my hobby.
An opinion.
Last edited by RCJohn on Wed Jan 29, 2020 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jhsa
Posts: 19480
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:13 pm
Country: Germany

Re: Frsky updates

Post by jhsa »

ddano007 wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2020 1:27 pm
And do You think it`s fair to do politics instead of RC thinks?
No, that is why i find OpenTX little childish war against Frsky, stupid. :) Any war is stupid by the way :)
From my scope of view they made angry a lot of their - until past year - very satisfied users. Of course they can do, what they want with their protocols, no disagree about that. That`s their job. Of course they can discontinue support for anything, that`s also their job, I absolutely respect it.
But my job is to say: Bye, You become unserious company for me, because I`m not sure, what You will lock in the future, or what You will discontinue. I will buy no longer Your products.
Of course, you can say what you think. but again, they locked what? the ability for others to use their protocol? You will be affected only if you use their protocols on other hardware than theirs.. If you use their hardware, nothing will be locked, as far as I understand. they are providing updates to their clients so they can fully use their protocol. I think no one has the right to complain if they are not using their hardware. Now if your original gear doesn't work as it should, that is another story, and frsky, or any other company will have to get their S*** together.

What I am against, as a mentioned a trillion times above, but no one seems to read it because they are so biased, is people using other hardware bashing a company because the company wants to lock their firmware on this other hardware that is not the company's hardware. That I don't find correct sorry. But of course, people only read what is convenient for them :) And the other people that just start bashing the company because they have read on the forums that they should do it. it is very clear for someone that watches all this from an outside perspective that for example the OpenTX team wants to HURT the company for whatever reason (were they kicked out?? :) ) and not just stop using it and leave it alone with their own stuff. it seems they want to cause as much damage as they can, Just like some angry children.. :mrgreen: And that I don't find decent..

No, you, as frsky equipment user, have all right to share your experience with others, and complain TO FRSKY about their policy or their equipment flaws, if you think it is not working as it should. You can say you don't like their stuff, just like I do sometimes. As I said before, I don't like their radios and was very disappointed with the Horus when it came out very different from the prototype I fell in love with, but I don't go bashing them for that.. :) It would be stupid if I did. As I don't go bashing Futaba for locking their protocols and not wanting others to use them.
But my job is to say: Bye, You become unserious company for me, because I`m not sure, what You will lock in the future, or what You will discontinue. I will buy no longer Your products.
So, they are unserious company because you are NOT SURE WHAT THEY WILL LOCK IN THE FUTURE? OR WHAT THEY WILL DISCONTINUE?
So, according to you they are not a serious company because of something they MIGHT (or might not) do in the future? C'mon... :mrgreen:
And if they discontinue their stuff? Don't the other companies do the same? Of course they do.
As far as I know, D8 should have been discontinued long time ago, and again, as far as i know, they only didn't do it because their users asked them to keep it. So they did.. And now they are also being bashed for that? see, this is the kind of behavior I am against, no matter if it is against frsky, futaba, spektrum, or any other company. maybe I am an advocate for all off them, who knows.. :roll: ;)
That`s all.
BTW that advocate was only joke, I hope You understood it ;)
yeah, I did :) But even if it wasn't I would be ok with it.. Have seen much worse.. :mrgreen:

João
My er9x/Ersky9x/eepskye Video Tutorials
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5uJhoD7sAKidZmkhMpYpp_qcuIqJXhb9

Donate to Er9x/Ersky9x:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=YHX43JR3J7XGW
User avatar
ddano007
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:40 pm
Country: Slovakia
Contact:

Re: Frsky updates

Post by ddano007 »

RCJohn wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2020 1:56 pm ... please all ask yourselves, whether you aren`t partly responsible to push FrSKy into the situation, where they are today. Who prepared the ground, that products can sprout up with un-competitive minimum investment and market price and cause unbalanced competitive situations?
Many people - many opinions. On my opinion the first responsible is FrSky by increasing their price for their products. And that`s the opinion I heared from a couple of their customers. I don`t wait, the price for D8R 18$ as it was in 2010. We are ten years later, OK, 27$ is acceptable for me. But 37Eur for X8R? For my poor foamie flying on the field - thanks, I don`t want.
And that`s the problem: you have always three kinds of people. Those with price as main criterion. You can do nothing with them, every time is somebody cheaper, than You. The third group are people, that will always buy You products, because You are their favourite company etc. This is good for business. And the third group of people will compare the price vs value, and that`s that, what You must find: what`s the price they will accept for Your products. BTW, how it is possible, that FlySky`s iA10B RX is for 15$ and FrSky`s X8R is for the upper mentioned price? Are You surprised, people will buy clones for that money? Not me.
And the FrSky`s solution: we will lock our users to our products is - from my scope of view - the worst possible :cry:
User avatar
jhsa
Posts: 19480
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:13 pm
Country: Germany

Re: Frsky updates

Post by jhsa »

ddano007 wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2020 2:35 pm
And the FrSky`s solution: we will lock our users to our products is - from my scope of view - the worst possible :cry:
Oh really? Then what about other companies solution then? Futaba, Spektrum, Graupner, Hitec, Jeti, etc? Don't they do the same? :o :shock:
Frsky was the only one that at least accepted opinions from their costumers, and did listen to them for many years, at least until recently, when as far as I understood some open source person might have broken their trust. But I can't really speak about it. I am just repeating what I read above. Just saying that perhaps that was the reason..
it is funny that it is ok for the some companies to do the same thing, but not for others.. Again, an unfortunate comment from someone that is totally biased :) And I am the advocate of the devil here :mrgreen: :mrgreen: So be it :) :D

João
My er9x/Ersky9x/eepskye Video Tutorials
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5uJhoD7sAKidZmkhMpYpp_qcuIqJXhb9

Donate to Er9x/Ersky9x:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=YHX43JR3J7XGW
Carbo
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:55 pm
Country: Germany
Location: Freinsheim RP

Re: Frsky updates

Post by Carbo »

I want to add my last personal episode with FrSky. I'm testing my gear intensively, because I can not afford any mistakes where I fly. I've flashed v2 to have a first impression inhouse. I know what RSSI and frame loss I can expect. My first thought was, wow what a progress in link quality. At the second glance it was somehow unbelievable. Then I remembered the feature request for a link quality sensor and the improved frame loss with R-XSR and I started to verify the lost frame bit in SBus. And guess what: FrSky is indeed cheating.

Is this the company you want to trust? I hope they think it over or they will loose a lot of old customers.
User avatar
Kilrah
Posts: 11108
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:56 pm
Country: Switzerland

Re: Frsky updates

Post by Kilrah »

jhsa wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2020 3:46 pm Frsky was the only one that at least accepted opinions from their costumers, and did listen to them for many years, at least until recently
Yes but that stopped quite a while ago, way before the events you refer to.

Scott's view that it was back in 2016 when they went public actually seems pretty much on point. But since the majority of their users went with them for that reason they get angry, and since every one of their moves since had been departing further from that and quality overall keeps going down the users get more and more angry as they lose their investment in the system (and I'm not just talking of financial investment).

The whole point is not about just protecting their stuff, it's protecting their stuff taking more importance than delivering a reliable and safe product.
User avatar
jhsa
Posts: 19480
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:13 pm
Country: Germany

Re: Frsky updates

Post by jhsa »

Carbo wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2020 4:06 pm
Is this the company you want to trust? I hope they think it over or they will loose a lot of old customers.
Yep, they will have to get their s*** together :)

João
My er9x/Ersky9x/eepskye Video Tutorials
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5uJhoD7sAKidZmkhMpYpp_qcuIqJXhb9

Donate to Er9x/Ersky9x:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=YHX43JR3J7XGW
User avatar
jhsa
Posts: 19480
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:13 pm
Country: Germany

Re: Frsky updates

Post by jhsa »

Kilrah wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2020 4:32 pm
The whole point is not about just protecting their stuff, it's protecting their stuff taking more importance than delivering a reliable and safe product.
Well, at the moment, I do understand if their priority is to lock / encode their stuff, and then go from there. Can't blame them for that.. Obviously they don't trust the open source people anymore. Also can't blame them for that. And I stop here. I bet they regret it all now.

João
My er9x/Ersky9x/eepskye Video Tutorials
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5uJhoD7sAKidZmkhMpYpp_qcuIqJXhb9

Donate to Er9x/Ersky9x:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=YHX43JR3J7XGW
User avatar
ddano007
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:40 pm
Country: Slovakia
Contact:

Re: Frsky updates

Post by ddano007 »

jhsa wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2020 3:46 pm Oh really? Then what about other companies solution then? Futaba, Spektrum, Graupner, Hitec, Jeti, etc? Don't they do the same? :o :shock:
Yes. But I `m flying nor of them, I`m flying FrSky. I`ve said You before: They can do, whatever they want, they are commercial company, that`s their business. But my business is to choose HW/ SW I will trust in. I`m sorry, but as the last FrSky`s steps result they definitely lost my trust. I`m not talking about others, abot OTX development, etc., I`m talking about me.
jhsa wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2020 3:46 pmFrsky was the only one that at least accepted opinions from their costumers, and did listen to them for many years, ...
1, As far as I know it was very- very - very long time ago. But once more: their business.
2, I think they forgot their beginning: because of public HUB protocol description, because of support of large community of DIY hobbyist, because of OTX community job they`ve made high reputation. But it`s quite easy to lost customer`s trust...

Post Reply

Return to “erskyTx (was ersky9x)”