<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document>
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 9">
<meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 9">
<link rel=File-List href="cid:filelist.xml@01CA257E.B23E1300">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:DoNotRelyOnCSS/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DocumentKind>DocumentEmail</w:DocumentKind>
<w:EnvelopeVis/>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:1627421319 -2147483648 8 0 66047 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:536871559 0 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoNormalIndent, li.MsoNormalIndent, div.MsoNormalIndent
{margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoAutoSig, li.MsoAutoSig, div.MsoAutoSig
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p
{margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.NormalWeb1, li.NormalWeb1, div.NormalWeb1
{mso-style-name:"Normal \(Web\)1";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US style='tab-interval:.5in'>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=EmailStyle18><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Great Rex.
I'll bring another receiver to Creswell and we can see what it looks like.<o:p></o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=EmailStyle18><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Jim<o:p></o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=EmailStyle18><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Arial'><![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=EmailStyle18><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Arial'><![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 color=black
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;color:black'>-----Original
Message-----<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b>
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]<b><span style='font-weight:
bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Rex<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, August 25, 2009
11:27 AM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> NSRCA-discussion<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
SD-10</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 color=black
face=Verdana><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black'>Yes
there is Jim... Have you looked at the volt meter that Gordon made
for me?... it'll<br>
do exactly what you are asking. You can also test your servos with
it. He has a website...<br>
I can't remember the site address right off hand.<br>
<br>
<br>
Rex<br>
<br>
> From: jnhiller@earthlink.net<br>
> To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:47:27 -0700<br>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] SD-10<br>
> <br>
> A big thank you to all for this discussion. About a week ago I solicited<br>
> input on a Futaba system and it was suggested that I also consider the<br>
> SD-10. I was hoping for more discussion at the time.<br>
> I looked at an SD-10 in the local hobby shop yesterday and the price is
very<br>
> hard to walk away from and it fit my hands nicely.<br>
> My thumb resolution isn't what it once was and will likely get worse but
I'm<br>
> now becoming more aware of 'bounce-back' and poor centering likely due to<br>
> worn (non-BB) stick assemblies and cheap servos.<br>
> The TX stick assembly centering detents that I've looked at in the past
have<br>
> a spring loaded bar against a flat spot on a round shaft. I've never felt<br>
> that this offered accurate repeatability for very long. Have there been<br>
> improvements or changes to mechanical stick centering?<br>
> In the old days I remember a test device that could be plugged into the<br>
> receiver that displayed the count relative to stick movement, which was<br>
> useful for understanding centering repeatability. Am I dreaming or did
such<br>
> a device really exist? Is there something available now?<br>
> Jim H<br>
> <br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<br>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark<br>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 6:59 AM<br>
> To: General pattern discussion<br>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] SD-10<br>
> <br>
> Hey Tony,<br>
> <br>
> I don't disagree with your math or understanding, though I'm trying to
make<br>
> a slightly different point I think. I also misspoke in a previous post<br>
> regarding how the resolution and EPA settings interact, you're explanation<br>
> is clearer and is also my understanding.<br>
> <br>
> I also want to state that I'm not advocating that 2048 isn't
"better". The<br>
> original question was "Why didn't ATX choose 2048 over 1024" and
the answer<br>
> from their end was cost and the "opinion" that given the cost
choice between<br>
> speed and resolution, that speed had a more noticeable impact on most<br>
> setups.<br>
> <br>
> The point I want to express is analogous to making your house more secure
by<br>
> putting 4 giant deadbolt locks...on a hollow core door. You're only as
safe<br>
> as your weakest point of entry. Be it kicking through the door or breaking
a<br>
> window...the locks are more than adequate and no longer the weak point in<br>
> the system. I believe the same is true for resolution, it's no longer the<br>
> weak point in the system.<br>
> <br>
> To follow your math/understanding, the "step" size for a given
resolution is<br>
> constant. So in your max travel example, which I think is a good one,
we're<br>
> probably talking about spreading 1024/2048 across 135 degrees of throw at<br>
> max. Thus the "step" size for 2048 is approx 1/15 of a degree,
and<br>
> therefore at 1024 it's approx 1/7th of a degree. Regardless of how you
dial<br>
> down your rates, that will always be the smallest step size. I.e. if you<br>
> reduce rates as you suggested, reducing EPA to 100% from 150% (down to<br>
> 90degrees) and D/R down to 80% from 100% (down to 72degrees of rotation)
we<br>
> now have 1080 pts across 72degrees with 2048, or 540 pts across 72degrees<br>
> with 1024. In Both cases the step size is still 1/15 of a degree or 1/7th<br>
> respectively.<br>
> <br>
> My assertion is simply that 1/7th of a degree of resolution (approx
.0012"<br>
> movement on a 1" servo wheel) is smaller than other area's of
inaccuracy in<br>
> our setups. Or at least in most people's setups. Getting a setup tighter<br>
> than that is hard. Keeping it there is even harder. Servo gear trains have<br>
> slop, ball links, clevises (big slop), wing adjusters, even the wing tube<br>
> all allow for movement in micro amounts that ruin our accuracy at a given<br>
> point. And I won't even mention the variance in deflection if you're
flying<br>
> glow due to vibration which I'm sure makes this whole conversation moot.
(I<br>
> know I know...I need to convert to Electric...you keep telling me! I'm<br>
> working on it!).<br>
> <br>
> Anyhow, I hope you understand my perspective. People are choosing where
best<br>
> to spend their money to gain the most functionality and advantage in their<br>
> flying setups, and in a similar fashion Airtronics did the same. They felt<br>
> they were giving the pilot the best bang for the buck by choosing speed
over<br>
> resolution. I DO think when they complete their flagship radio (a ways
out)<br>
> it will likely be 2048 so as to be comparable with the other top of the
line<br>
> systems. I'm also pretty sure it won't be $500 though.<br>
> <br>
> This has been a great discussion though and hopefully enlightening to
some.<br>
> I did not mean for it to be a brand war on features though as clearly I
have<br>
> bias as an Airtronics pilot. I just wanted to try and answer the question.<br>
> I'm happy to discuss further off list, or answer other specific questions
on<br>
> or off list, but for now I'm going to bow out of this thread.<br>
> <br>
> Thanks,<br>
> <br>
> Mark<br>
> <br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<br>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony<br>
> Frackowiak<br>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 12:55 AM<br>
> To: General pattern discussion<br>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] SD-10<br>
> <br>
> I'll try to explain this as I understand it. With a 2048 system you<br>
> get 2048 TX step outputs through the entire stick travel only if the<br>
> electronic throws in the TX are set to Max. Say that's 150% Travel at<br>
> 100% Dual Rate. Those numbers vary amongst the brands and models but<br>
> this is a start. Any reduction from there will reduce the 2048 by some<br>
> percentage. Let's say Travel is set to 100% and Dual Rate remains<br>
> 100%. You have just reduced the number of steps by 33% so now you're<br>
> down to around 1350. If you reduce the Dual Rate to 80% from there<br>
> you're now flying on 1080. If this started out as a 1024 you would end<br>
> up at 540. I guarantee you'll feel the difference between 1080 and 540.<br>
> <br>
> I always try to maximize the electronic throws and set the mechanicals<br>
> to get the surface travel I desire. But some things are inevitable. To<br>
> get the model to properly break in a spin takes a lot of elevator<br>
> deflection, so I end up flying with DR set to 50% or so for normal<br>
> flying. The higher 2048 system makes a difference with this sort of an<br>
> example. And I do believe the better servos will respond to this fine<br>
> of a command.<br>
> <br>
> Hope this isn't too confusing.<br>
> <br>
> TonyF<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On Aug 24, 2009, at 8:14 PM, Atwood, Mark wrote:<br>
> <br>
> > The resolution is for the full throw of the servo. If you bump your<br>
> > endpoints up to 150% and have 135deg of travel, you have 512 / 1024<br>
> > or 2048 individual points in between. At a normal 100% that's<br>
> > across 90degs of throw. If you dial your endpoints down, it's<br>
> > spread across a smaller arc.<br>
> ><br>
> > We're talking about extremely fine movement even at 512 resolution.<br>
> ><br>
> > What's nice is that all the components of the Accuracy
"system" are<br>
> > improving together. The pots in the new radios (all brands) are<br>
> > significantly more accurate, the digital servos of all brands are<br>
> > significantly more accurate, and our linkage systems continue to<br>
> > improve as well. My argument was simply that after 1024 (and<br>
> > probably lower actually), the resolution is probably not the
"weak<br>
> > link" in the accuracy chain. We have too much slop elsewhere.
Even<br>
> > a tight servo has some lash, as do the connections to the servo and<br>
> > even movement of the control surface on the hingeline.<br>
> ><br>
> > Admittedly though, On a LARGE control surface like a 40% IMAC<br>
> > Rudder, you can still see the surface "Step" if you move it
slowly<br>
> > and watch carefully even with 1024. So to say that 2048 is not<br>
> > smoother would be foolish. But on our pattern planes and the throws<br>
> > we use, the other sources of error take resolution off the critical<br>
> > path to more accuracy.<br>
> ><br>
> > So to slightly change the topic, how do we get spec's on the<br>
> > resolution/accuracy of the servos? Does anyone publish that? (I'm<br>
> > pretty sure Atx doesn't). That would be as important than just<br>
> > about any other spec I would think.<br>
> ><br>
> > -----Original Message-----<br>
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<br>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<br>
> > ] On Behalf Of Lisa n Larry<br>
> > Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:31 PM<br>
> > To: 'General pattern discussion'<br>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] SD-10<br>
> ><br>
> > I'm curious...<br>
> ><br>
> > How many degree of servo throw for 1024/2048 are we talking?<br>
> ><br>
> > -----Original Message-----<br>
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<br>
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of<br>
> > Ronald Van<br>
> > Putte<br>
> > Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 8:34 PM<br>
> > To: General pattern discussion<br>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] SD-10<br>
> ><br>
> > Geez! I was happy with 512.<br>
> ><br>
> > Ron VP<br>
> ><br>
> > On Aug 24, 2009, at 3:13 PM, mike mueller wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> >> So a 2048 is smoother than a 1024 by double. I wonder at what<br>
> >> point you no longet "feel the difference".?<br>
> >> For me it could be as soon as tomorrow. M2<br>
> >><br>
> >> --- On Mon, 8/24/09, Jay Marshall <lightfoot@sc.rr.com>
wrote:<br>
> >><br>
> >>> From: Jay Marshall <lightfoot@sc.rr.com><br>
> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] SD-10<br>
> >>> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-<br>
> >>> discussion@lists.nsrca.org><br>
> >>> Date: Monday, August 24, 2009, 3:05 PM<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Frank, you<br>
> >>> are getting your terms mixed<br>
> >>> up. The 1024 & 2048 refer to the number of<br>
> >>> "steps" from one end<br>
> >>> of the stick movement to the other. The speed, known as<br>
> >>> latency, is the time it<br>
> >>> takes from the instant you change the stick to the time the<br>
> >>> servo moves. Actually,<br>
> >>> it is the time until the servo receives the command to<br>
> >>> move. The two functions<br>
> >>> are not dependant upon each other.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> As far as<br>
> >>> keeping up, that depends on<br>
> >>> servo speed. It is possible to have a switch change which<br>
> >>> instantly commands a<br>
> >>> function from low to high, for example. The time to get<br>
> >>> there, however, will<br>
> >>> depend on how fast the servo can move.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Jay Marshall<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> -----Original<br>
> >>> Message-----<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> From:<br>
> >>> nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<br>
> >>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]<br>
> >>> On Behalf Of<br>
> >>> frank<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Sent: Monday,<br>
> >>> August 24,<br>
> >>> 2009<br>
> >>> 3:30<br>
> >>> PM<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> To:<br>
> >>> 'General pattern<br>
> >>> discussion'<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Subject:<br>
> >>> [NSRCA-discussion] SD-10<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Hi Anthony,<br>
> >>> Jim, Mark , and Others<br>
> >>> who Responded,<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Thanks for<br>
> >>> your valuable input.<br>
> >>> I've read that this radio's resolution is or is<br>
> >>> among the very<br>
> >>> fastest; so much so that even digital servos<br>
> >>> can't keep up with it.<br>
> >>> I understand that the system is 1024 , but<br>
> >>> can't help but<br>
> >>> wonder why it isn't 2048. I'm sure<br>
> >>> I'll get past my<br>
> >>> hangup, but would appreciate everyone's<br>
> >>> insight's on that<br>
> >>> one.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Thanks,<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Frank<br>
> >>> Imbriaco<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> _______________________________________________<br>
> >>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
> >>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
> >>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> _______________________________________________<br>
> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
> >> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br>
> ><br>
> > No virus found in this incoming message.<br>
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<br>
> > Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.60/2311 - Release Date:<br>
> > 08/20/09 06:05:00<br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br>
> <br>
> No virus found in this incoming message.<br>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<br>
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.60/2311 - Release Date: 08/20/09<br>
> 06:05:00<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</span></font><font
size=2 color=black face=Verdana><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
color:black;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>