[NSRCA-discussion] S.bus

[Ed Alt]

Good article Jon.  Hopefully this clarifies the advantage of ever decreasing latency in the control system.  Not to be confused with human reaction time!

Ed


From: Jon Lowe 
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 11:08 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] S.bus


There is a great article on latency here: 


http://www.rcmodelreviews.com/what_is_latency.shtml


A lot of people are hung up on transmitter/receiver latency numbers, and don't see the whole picture.  This gives as good a fact based write up as any I've seen.


Jon Lowe



-----Original Message-----
From: John Fuqua <johnfuqua at embarqmail.com>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Fri, Jul 9, 2010 8:48 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] S.bus


How fast is anyone able to practically see a faster "command repetition
rate" anyway and relate it to some surface movement???   We are all ready at
instantaneous

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed Alt
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 8:03 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] S.bus

Not only could the command repetition rate be increased, but you now have a 
comms bus that will support duplex communication.  This is a great way to 
add telemetry devices.

Ed

--------------------------------------------------
From: "James Oddino" <joddino at socal.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 1:26 AM
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] S.bus

> I was thinking that maybe now without the pulse width interface, they 
> could have three times the rep rate with a digital interface, but who 
> knows.  There was a time when I knew what was going on inside RC systems 
> so I could decide what was best.  Futaba doesn't seem to care, or maybe 
> the marketing guys don't know what is important.
>
> Jim
>
>
> On Jul 8, 2010, at 8:10 PM, Ed Alt wrote:
>
>> The only thing I would want to see is a redundant connection option.  As 
>> neat as the single bus is, one connection failure at the serial driver 
>> source does you in no matter what.  Some redundancy is really needed to 
>> make this have more appeal IMO.  Still a really good step forward though.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Bill's Email" <wemodels at cox.net>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 5:02 PM
>> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] S.bus
>>
>>> There is a whole page of info as well on the Futaba FASST Site:
>>>
>>> http://2.4gigahertz.com/sbus/index.html
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100709/2411a83d/attachment.html>