Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Toys Operating Systems Software Windows

Windows CE R/C Transmitter 169

Posted by michael from the where's-the-autopilot? dept.
Si24601 writes "Futaba has released details of a new radio transmitter, the 14MZ, that incorporates a 640x240 colour touch screen, runs Window CE and uses a Compact Flash card. As someone in the midst of building a semi-autonomous model yacht, this screams to be used for telemetry feedback. Fly RC Magazine has a review of the 14MZ."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows CE R/C Transmitter More

Windows CE R/C Transmitter

Comments Filter:

  • When this baby hits 88 mph... (Score:4, Funny)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Thursday December 09, 2004 @12:32PM (#11042891)
    Marty: "you've got that thing hooked up to the...car?"

  • airplane cam? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by The Redwin ( 837889 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @12:34PM (#11042916)
    My only question is can I stick a digicam on my gas powered R/C plane, and get the live video feed from it right there on the R/C controller?

    The possibilities boggle me (somewhat evil) mind...
    • sure, stick on a 565 to process the video and stick it onto a wireles linkup

    • Re:airplane cam? (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by dgp ( 11045 ) *
      http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30 2503

      that might interest you.
    • My only question is can I stick a digicam on my gas powered R/C plane, and get the live video feed from it right there on the R/C controller?

      As I read it this is strictly a transmitter. There's no receive channel. The whole second processor/WinCE/display business is just control-panel candy, utterly useless for any feedback (though perhaps handy for giving you information on reconfiguring the controls or what they're INTENDED to do on the craft you're currently controlling.)

      So no remote-vision. No "se

    • Re:airplane cam? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by AcesAreWld ( 585270 )
      of course... I did it to my helicopter: www.rchelicam.com and http://runryder.com/helicopter/gallery/3682/ http://runryder.com/helicopter/gallery/3682/?scrip t=videos Works rather well.. 2 mile video range! --Geoff
    • You mean like this guy? [rob.com]

  • Windows-based? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geomon ( 78680 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @12:35PM (#11042926) Homepage Journal
    Why do I need a GUI on a device that requires that I dedicate my full attention to something *else*.

    If I am watching the screen, my aircraft is headed for the lake.

    Not everything electronic in the world needs a display.

    • The gui is just for reporting/adjusting/fine-tuning things like control-surface sensitivity, if they can make it pleasent to look at while it being functional, why not? If someone's willing to fork over over $1k for it (im just basing this on what the last model of a similar controller costed, i used to be into RC) they wouldn't be looking at the pretty GUI too much and controlling their aircraft which is probably an even bigger investment

      • Re:Windows-based? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Locutus ( 9039 )
        That would be fine and good but the article said that all INPUT is handled by WinCE and the 2nd processor handles the radio bits. Because of this, WinCE is not used for just fine tuning the controls but for all of the pilot input.

        We've all heard the old saying, "garbage in, garbage out" but we also know that with Windows, input can be valid and you still get garbage out. This would wreck a very expensive airplane.

        I'll pass. IMO, that kind of GUI belongs on the PC with data downloaded from the xmitter for
        • A custom Futaba processor expertly directs all functions dedicated to flight control. Input for general operating tasks -- such as set-up and programming -- is processed by Windows CE.
          Besides, Windows CE is not as bad as you make it out to be.
          • Besides, Windows CE is not as bad as you make it out to be.

            It wouldn't matter what operating system is running the display. I'd still be bemoaning the addition if the underlying OS was Linux or MacOSX. It is 'wiz-bang' appeal of having a display on your R/C controller that I think is a big waste.

            People have been running R/C gear for decades without a GUI. I doubt that the experience will be enhanced much by the addition of the added software and hardware. In fact, I believe this is just one more example
          • Yea, it must be good. After all, you can combine CE technology, ME technology and NT technology, and you have Windows CEMENT [ls-la.net], the toughest Windows of them all.
      • Well, it sounds like its all touchscreen - I hope they have some way to have a physical interface, some buttons or a joystick or something - touchscreens are generally terrible for joystick interaction, unless you're using it as a single large analog control (like Metroid Hunters does). After all, without looking at the screen, how does the pilot know what control he's pressing?
    • What about when you can't see the aircraft? I've heard of people trying to make videos by having cameras in their planes looking forward - now imagine if that transmitted the view from the cockpit to the controller - that could be useful.
      • High-frequency transmissions of the type you are describing (video feed) require uninterrupted line-of-sight.

        If you lose sight of the aircraft, your controller can't see it either.

        • LOS can transmit over distances beyond the distance that you can see - so not necesarrily.
          • LOS can transmit over distances beyond the distance that you can see - so not necesarrily.

            Right. But if I get an intervening hill between me and my aircraft, the signal will not get to my controller.

            My cell phone is evidence of that effect.

            • Re:Windows-based? (Score:4, Funny)

              by Cat_Byte ( 621676 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @12:53PM (#11043123) Journal
              I can't see...what is that thing coming at me really fast? What is that noise? Heyyy...thats....ME! AHHH! *smack*

              Does my insurance cover removing model airplanes from my abdomen?
            • Your cell phone is not as high bandwith as a video feed. And yes it works without line of sight, through hills. It's just not very long-range when you do that. I doubt anyone is trying to fly their model planes from a mile away.
              • Your cell phone is not as high bandwith as a video feed.

                Yep, I know.

                But the bandwidth requirements for a cell phone are higher than for a R/C plane. The bandwidth requirements for a video feed are higher than my cell phone.

                And yes it works without line of sight, through hills.

                You sound like my cell phone provider.

                I do not get signal at my house. The reason? I do not meet the line-of-sight requirements for my celll phone. Until the local power company put a tower up 8 miles east of me, I did not have
                • The point was that someone said it was pointless to have video feed to the controller of an RFC plane since you want to always look at the plane. Since the context was the RC airplane hobby, then what happens over miles of transmission is utterly irrelevant. What matters is what happens in the flight range area. Within that context, you could have obstructions of line of sight, like towers, a tree, something like that, but you're not going to worry about trying to transmit a few miles through hillsides.

              • And yes it works without line of sight, through hills. It's just not very long-range when you do that.

                What does? Your cell phone, or a video feed?

                A video feed will only work if it's a relatively low frequency, with plenty of power. Without much power, the range will very limited, as you suggested. The signal won't go through the hill, it'll diffract around it.

                Your cell phone probably uses microwave frequency signals, so the only way it'll work through a hill is that there's a tower behind yo

            • Yes, if you view of the airplane is *blocked* by an obstruction, then the RF will be blocked too. But if the reason you can't see it is because its too far away, there may still be sufficient LOS for the RF work.

        • High-frequency transmissions of the type you are describing (video feed) require uninterrupted line-of-sight.

          Incorrect. Sure, VHF signals don't go through ground very well, but they WILL diffract around a hill. Higher frequencies will do it less, and lower frequencies will do it more. Most cell phones are in the microwave range, and so they barely do it at all.

          Sure, many video feeds are done with very high frequencies, and therefore won't diffract well around hills and the like, but they can be d

    • Crashing... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Erioll ( 229536 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @12:44PM (#11043028)
      Now you won't only be crashing because of wind, visibility, or crashing into another plane (didn't happen to me personally, but happened at the club I belong to, and I was there), but now your RADIO can crash too!!

      I can't see this as a good thing. I'll stick with my older Futaba radio. It does what I need, and has never shown me a blue screen of death.

      Erioll
      Flying Model Airplanes for 9 years

      • Re:Crashing... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by geomon ( 78680 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @12:46PM (#11043051) Homepage Journal
        I'll stick with my older Futaba radio. It does what I need, and has never shown me a blue screen of death.

        And your batteries will probably last 3X longer as well because you aren't driving a GUI with all the WinCE overhead.

        • And your batteries will probably last 3X longer as well because you aren't driving a GUI with all the WinCE overhead.

          Very true. I should have thought of that. That alone would be a reason NOT to go to it.

          Erioll
        • good point. It would make way more sense to have put a USB connector on the xmitter and allow a laptop/handheld to connect to it for all that GUI stuff. That way, it's there when you might want it, trimming/programming/etc and NOT bulking up the xmitter when you don't need it, like flying. Which, BTW, should be most of the time.

          Dumb idea. Mod that poster up with the title of "The Hammer Revolution has begun". It's got to be a reference to having a hammer( WinCE ) and everything looks like a nail.

          LoB
          • Not every RC pilot has a laptop/handheld, you insensitive clod!

            Seriously, you'd be surprised how often you end up changing settings on aircraft. Heat, cold, changing payloads (cameras, gyros, battery packs), wind, etc all change the dynamics of flying aircraft, so it's not uncommon to adjust settings at the field at least once or twice (usually at the start of the session). And then some days you feel liking being daring, which requires certain settings, and other days you want to lie back and just cruis
            • Open your eyes! Not every RC pilot has one of these overpriced xmitters either. But, I'll bet most RC pilots with expensive aircraft with a NEED for the configuration features of this all-in-one xmitter either has a laptop/computer or has the money to purchase one if it makes flying safer and more fun.

              Think about it, a $2000 xmitter with a display that has an OS which is known to fail and will probably cut xmitter battery life over 50% besides possibly losing a plane or two.... or a $1,000 tried, true, an
        • Exactly right! Backlight, touchscreen drivers, Windows Media Player (good grief!) and WinMain() idle loops chew a hell of a lot of power... power that should be spent sending signals to an aircraft, not playing stupid sound clips.

          From the manuf. webpage:
          >>The 7.4V 2200mAh Lithium-Ion battery... providing nearly 3 hours of flight time

          Note they say *nearly* 3 Hours? What's that translate to in real life? Two and a half hours with a BRAND NEW fully charged lithium ion pack? That's not very impressi
        • And your batteries will probably last 3X longer as well because you aren't driving a GUI with all the WinCE overhead.

          "Outdoor powered R/C models have typical engine runs of about 10-20 minutes. The R/C gliders can stay up as long is the air currents are favourable and flights are sometimes only limited by the battery charge left on the radio when that particular flight begins; say 10-45 minutes." Introduction to Model Aircraft [www.nosf.ca]

          Given the time expended in preparation, launch, recovery and repair, it seems

          • Given the time expended in preparation, launch, recovery and repair, it seems most unlikely that the batteries in your R/C controller would fail before you have to call it a day.

            It depends on the type of flying. If you're slope flying, it's quite common to have several hour flights, and for the flight to end only because you have to go pee.

            For other types of flying, if it's a problem, you throw your radio on a charger while not flying. Works fine. And you're right -- 3 hours of actual flying in a

          • The R/C gliders can stay up [...] say 10-45 minutes.
            I've personally flown a sloper vigorously (lots of servo motion) for 2 hours 15 minutes at a stretch. Had to land because my hands were beginning to ache. 300mAh NiCd on-board....

        • And your batteries will probably last 3X longer as well because you aren't driving a GUI with all the WinCE overhead.

          WinCE and the hardware it runs on is reasonably power-friendly for what it does (pretending to be a full PC on limited hardware.) It may be overkill for this application, but I'm sure there's a market for this sort of thing, so ...

          Most R/C transmitters last about 2-3 hours as shipped from the factory. If it's a computer radio, they add a bigger battery to compensate for the higher p

    • I don't know what all the features on this new beast will be, but generally the lcd screen is there for setup PRIOR to flying. I fly sailplanes and I can tell you that if you take your eyes of the glider at altitude you may never see it again. I highly doubt there would be anything worth looking at on the screen while flying. Audible alarms and timer pings would be useful though. So, I'm guessing the gui is there to help you setup your model. This can actually get quite complicated so a gui might be nice.
      • I can appreciate the use of a GUI on a setup device, but that is not what this GUI is mounted on. It is mounted on the device contoller.

        If it doesn't do anything to aid in guiding the R/C device, other than suck battery life out of your controller, then it doesn't need to be on the transmitter.

        I can certainly understand why someone would want a nice setup console. It can be turned off when the model is in flight/moving through the water/moving across the ground.

  • The plane, the plane! (Score:4, Funny)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Thursday December 09, 2004 @12:36PM (#11042937)
    Music can be played (Windows Media), and voice commands can be assigned to switches, e.g., "flaps up"

    I would find it incredibly distracting trying to fly my plane and hear someone nearby have "what's your vector Victor" come out of their remote control everytime it updates the screen :)
    • I was thinking how amusing it would be to walk up and down a line of RC pilots constantly saying "Flaps up!" and "Flaps down!" and watching them all try and deal with sudden excesses and losses of lift;-)
  • Now I can say "Crash land"!

  • One to many (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bradleyland ( 798918 )
    Wow, this sounds really nice. It's not uncommon to use one controller for many R/C devices. Normally you'd create a profile for each R/C device you intend to control, then switch profiles using an special interface or switching cartridges. Hopefully this will allow improvements to the management/switching of these profiles.

  • Summary of next 100 posts (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 09, 2004 @12:38PM (#11042958)
    1. This thing runs WinCE? <insert joke about Windows here, with lots of "M$" and "Windoze" acronyms.>

    2. Why WinCE? Linux could do so much better.

    3. Anyone try this with a modded Linux XBox?

    4. Why Linux? BSD could do so much better.

    5. Why BSD? BSOD could do so much better.

    6. In Korea, only old people BSOD.

    7. In Soviet Russia, BSOD blue screens you!

    8. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!

    9. Profit!

  • All new meaning to system "crash" (Score:3, Informative)

    by SnowDeath ( 157414 ) <peteguhl@NoSpam.gmail.com> on Thursday December 09, 2004 @12:39PM (#11042970) Homepage
    Well, not really because it has two processors: one fore Windows CE and non-critical processes. The other is made by Futaba and controls flying the plane.

  • Ouch!!!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by dfn5 ( 524972 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @12:40PM (#11042987) Journal
    this screams to be used for...

    Ouch. When it screams, I WinCE.

  • I know it is poor form to like a WinCE device here, but that looks pretty cool.

    Looking at the website though it looks like all the processor power is in the controller. The screen is just for a pretty display of servo positions.

    I cannot help but think it would be so much cooler if there was some more general (ie programmable) intelligence in the controlled device. I don't expect RC plane fans particularly want autonomous robots, but even processing on the same level as a lego mindstorm would be cool.

    Do
    • then hook a laptop or computer up to the xmitter instead of building the computer into the xmitter.

      Make and add-on module or computer interface to the xmitter instead, it'll sell more units. Rookies with too much cash will be the only ones buying these.

      LoB
    • I know it is poor form to like a WinCE device here, but that looks pretty cool.

      Supposedly it is poor form here, also it is supposedly poor form to be a conformist in here. So, if you like this device and it suits a need or just plain looks cool...kudos to you. I think Windows CE is really cool, I like it on Windows terminal devices and embedded devices that need an interface. Win CE is far more stable than windows and much more user friendly than the the big commercial Linux CE distros. Umm which one is

  • Hunh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sheepdot ( 211478 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @12:40PM (#11042993) Journal
    As someone in the midst of building a semi-autonomous model yacht, this screams to be used for telemetry feedback.

    As someone who has read that sentence six times and still has no idea what it is you're exactly trying to do, I wish you the best of luck with the Windows CE installation.

    • Re:Hunh? (Score:3, Informative)

      by spudchucker ( 680073 )
      The author is building a model boat. She likes the idea that data (direction, fuel level) can be sent from the model boat to the remote control device.
      • Which, of course, can't be done with this device.

        • Which, of course, can't be done with this device.

          Precisely. Also, there's no mention of a 75 mHz model or module, so it may not be legally usable on ground vehicles in the US at all. (Actually, the radio isn't even available at all yet, but we'll ignore that for now.)

          Granted, when it does come out, I assume it'll use a module, or have a built in frequency synthesizer. It's designed for airplanes, so obviously it'll use the 72 mHz band.

          If it uses a synthesizer, it may be a long time before the

    • Considering CE isn't something you download. Manufactors who use windows CE recieve the source code from Microsoft and then customize the source to their application.
      • Considering CE isn't something you download. Manufactors who use windows CE recieve the source code from Microsoft and then customize the source to their application

        Unless, of course, you know what you're talking [windowsembeddedkit.com] about [microsoft.com]
  • One of the projects here last year was a RC helicopter with telemetry feedback and computerised control, plus a wireless camera feed (not over IP though) - the ground terminal was a laptop running RH9.

    No major hickups involved, which was good as their budget was bad enough after buying the first heli let alone having to buy a replacement after a crash :o)
  • With the addition of video (perhaps even two way) this would be a breakthrough in rescue equipment. Imagine not only being able to remotely locate survivors, but also being able to communicate with them. Very Impressive!
    • Nice concept...but even being there at the controls physically it is hard to navigate close to another ship in rough seas without smashing into them. I'm not sure I would trust doing it via video or the last image may be an extreme closeup of their ship hull followed by an image of people swimming.
    • Imagine not only being able to remotely locate survivors, but also being able to communicate with them. Very Impressive!

      I tried hard to read this whole thread without making any windows jokes, but I can not.
      Scene: tropical island, hungry, lonely survivor of a small ship wreck is rejoicing as a remote control coast guard helicopter comes to within speaking range of the man. The speaker comes to life....."Windows has downloaded updates for your computer"
      Hungry man: "WTF!"

  • Cost (Score:4, Informative)

    by MrRee ( 120132 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @12:44PM (#11043031) Homepage
    TowerHobbies (www.towerhobbies.com) had this listed yesterday for a little over $2k. A little pricey for me. As a long time rc pilot, I love the features. Give it 5 years and every computer radio will have this kind of technology.
    • Cripes. For that price, just make the damn thing an external USB device and use a laptop or a tablet PC to control it.

  • yeah ok (Score:1, Redundant)

    by NetMagi ( 547135 )
    Like I REALLY want something running windows ANYTHING controlling my brushless R/C doing 60+ mph. This is one of those areas of tech where the item CANNOT fail. It's not acceptable for a lockup or restart to occur when you're R/C plane is in the middle of a stall or you're car/truck is doin 60mph str8 into a wall.

    I hope they have success with it, but I'd prefer one of the simpler computerized transmitters already on the market personally.
    • lol, I love when ppl score stuff as redundant when it's one of the first 50 msgs. Obviously whatever post that makes this one 'redundant' wasn't there when I authored mine. Craks me up.
      • To be fair, to say `Windows crashes' or talk about Windows crashes of any sort, on Slashdot *is* redundant. Even if you're the very first person to say it in a given thread, it's already been said six zillion times before in other threads :)

        And even if you were the first to post about it, everybody else was already thinking about it anyways ...

        In this case however, I've heard that the two computers are seperate, with WinCE used (while not flying, if you're smart) to set up the other computer, the

  • Sorry, no telemetry ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dougmc ( 70836 ) <dougmc+slashdot@frenzied.us> on Thursday December 09, 2004 @12:49PM (#11043094) Homepage
    this screams to be used for telemetry feedback
    Perhaps, but in the US the FCC isn't going to allow you to do that, unless Futaba has already done it for you. The FCC certifies the entire device, which doesn't really allow the end user to modify it at all, _unless it's used on the ham bands_ (which is an option.)

    In any event, the most useful R/C plane telemetry generally isn't visual -- it's audible. You're too busy looking up at your plane to watch a display on your radio (looking at your radio while flying is a recipe for losing your plane), but a variable pitch tone that's telling you if your glider is gaining or losing altitude can be very useful in determining if you're still in that thermal. Full scale glider pilots use the same system, but of course in that case it's not done via radio.

    Again, looking at your radio in flight is very bad, especially if several people are flying at once or your plane is way up there. MANY times somebody has looked down at their radio for some reason, and looked back up and never found their plane again. Or looked back up, found their plane, and kept flying it for a while longer but then realized that it wasn't obeying their controls anymore. (Eventually, they learned that they `found' the wrong plane up in the sky and that their plane had crashed shortly after and they didn't even notice, because they were `flying' something else.)

    • Again, looking at your radio in flight is very bad,
      Then why not have something like a pair of plastic glasses with a transparent/translucent overlay?

      The overlay could even point out your plane in the sky with a nifty crosshair effect. :D
    • If you are looking for good cheap on-board telemetry for your RC aircraft, check out

      http://www.eagletreesystems.com/

      For the price, you can't beat the data you get.

  • I can see it now... (Score:3, Funny)

    by whterbt ( 211035 ) <m6d07iv02@sneakemail.com> on Thursday December 09, 2004 @12:55PM (#11043158)
    So, instead of yelling, "Dead stick!" you'll be yelling, "Blue screen!"
  • Imagine you had a device like this in the future. Low-range transmitters could be in place to allow you to control doors, lifts etc. It could be very handy those who are not able-bodied.

    Also, it could transmit infomation to the device, such as historical background about the area, and the nearest popular buildings. I know WAP can already provide such features, but wouldn't be convenient if this data was automatically downloaded..

  • I like it..."oh sh*t" turns off the engine and pops a chute to lower the model safely to earth...
  • Sorry, folks, not for me.. My RC airplanes crashes WITHOUT windows.
  • I saw an add for this radio over on the tower hobbies website, and almost choked on the price (around $2k).

    I have been flying for a few years, and I am wonder who on earth has a 14 channel RC aircraft. Most Planes I fly at the most use 6 channels (ailerons, elevator, throttle, rudder, retracts, and flaps). Perhaps some one building a scale model B-52 (it has been done btw) would need this many channels. I imagine that they will sell a lot more of these on ground frequencies than air frequencies. Most o

  • Heh (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Ho-Lee-Cow! ( 173978 ) *
    One good 100w 20m signal and you'll BSOD!

    *cackle*
  • You know, you /.ers would be all over this thing if the title of the article was "Linux Embedded R/C Transmitter". But you see Windows and you're all, "OH NOES, BSOD PLANE GONNA DIE!"

    Windows CE is stripped down and optimized enough that it actually works. Get over the fact that you have a personal vendetta against Microsoft, and see the possibilities this product could offer. I bet you would all have fun with this either way.
  • I'd really like something sophisticated to replace my 8U, but the idea of trusting my Fokker [anjo.com] to Windows makes my skin crawl!
  • Hmm ... I fly R/C regularly. The submitter doesn;t actually say much.... but his intended use for this is simply wrong.

    This is a Transmitter, a TX. Not an RX (Receiver). There will be no telemetry to the screen from the plane.

    gus
  • "...used for telemetry feedback."

    You could use a CF WLAN card for this. You only need something lightweigth on the yacht. Anybody know about a simple setup using 802.11g? I looking for something that can be driven with a microcontroller. Prefably a SoC or SiP.
  • The Feds have made serious model rocket enthusiasts suspect. How long before this sort of technology gets regulated as it approaches UAV's [lowobservable.com] capabilities?
  • this screams to be used for telemetry feedback.

    [Thinks about hourly Windows CE crash and flying an RC plane].. NO IT BLOODY DOESNT!
  • Look at the price!

    Hell, for that price you can buy a nice full-featured transmitter *and* a laptop or pocket PC along with the necessary cord to connect the two together.

    If Futaba had half a clue and were more interested in providing a functional cost-effective solution than a "gee whiz!" box of tricks, they'd have separated the fancy LCD screen and WinCE bits from the transmitter itself.

    This alternative approach would have meant that the system was just as powerful and configurable but with the added bo

    • If Futaba had half a clue and were more interested in providing a functional cost-effective solution than a "gee whiz!" box of tricks, they'd have separated the fancy LCD screen and WinCE bits from the transmitter itself.

      You're absolutely right.

      The complex configuration needs to be offloaded to a PC, perhaps using some graphical tool to connect and adjust mixers and hook them together with inputs (sticks, switches, timers, etc) and outputs (servos, LCD, speaker, etc). Only minor in-the-field tweaking nee

  • Airtronics RD8000 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by uid100 ( 540265 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @03:47PM (#11045186)
    I fly with an RD8000 http://www.airtronics.net/RD8000.htm/ [airtronics.net] which can be bought for less than $300 including a _complete_ flight pack.

    My RD8000 can do just about any imaginable mix for aircraft and helicopter use you can think of. If you really need a step up from there the Airtronics Stylus, JR 10X, Futaba 9Z are great, then there is the Multiplex truly high end.

    I see the 14MZ as a flashy, marketing exersize so Futaba can claim to be an industry leader again. Most people flying R/C recognize Futaba as a good sport radio but JR is what all the top national pilots fly (unless they are sponsored). I would argue that there are features that even Hitec and Airtronics offer above Futaba, features that Futaba still does not incorporate.

    Such as, you say: My Airtronics can transmit to _any_ brand 72mhz receiver, positive or negative shift, PCM or PPM. Hitec has an option to _easily_ change the frequency you are going to transmit on.

    Bottom line, there is a lot more to radios than a fancy color screen. If you want that, add a USB uplink to your radio and have it programmable via a PC, liek the high end JR equipment.

    WinCE interface is a gimick - IMO
  • Dude.

    Have you EVER talked to a girl? Without using a credit card number?

    How do you plan to get your RC boat down to the lake without exposing yourself to natural sunlight?

    Flame away. I've got karma up the wazoo.

  • After reading the Futaba speil at 14MZ [14mz.com]...

    Thank goodness Futaba had the wisdom to have two seperate processors, with Windows CE only used for setup and not for actual control.

    I fly model aircraft. Model aircraft can crash. Crashing models can hit, injure or even kill people. Could you imagine the consequences if Windows CE was running the control system and bluescreened? (Impossible, I know.) I shudder at the thought of someone releasing a single-CPU controller running Windows CE.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close