<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><DIV>To say the 1024 is good enough, well, that answer isn't good enough. :-) The problem is that ANY error in position, whether linkage slop, servo resolution, etc, can be cumulative. I suspect that for pattern applications, 1024 is adequate. However, for guys that have IMAC planes that also do 3D freestyle with the same plane, 2048 might be better, but it really only matters when the stick is around neutral. Once you deflect the stick I don't think anyone can tell the difference between 2048 or 1024, or even 256 (yes, I had a radio with 256 resolution once -- sucked!!).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bob R.</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>--- On <B>Mon, 8/24/09, Atwood, Mark <I><atwoodm@paragon-inc.com></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><BR>
<DIV class=plainMail>Do you really think its the improvement in resolution and not the improvement in speed between the two systems? I'm sure I don't have tight enough linkages to take advantage of 2048. I'm not sure they're tight enough to detect 1024. That would require less than .001" slop. .0005" for 2048. <BR><BR>I pushed hard for 2048 because of all the "buzz" but after doing the math realized that no other part of my equipment has that level of accuracy. To be fair, I don't run the MK ball bearing linkages though. <BR><BR>I'm inclined to agree that were getting speed in excess of our ability to discern, though I'm guessing that the responsiveness of a full scale jet is less than that of a 3D Heli. <BR><BR>I think a LOT of this is similar to the old distortion specs for stereo equipment prior to CDs. Early CD players would boast signal to noise ratio's better than their competition even though even the
cheapest units far exceeded the level of human hearing. <BR><BR><BR>--------------------------<BR>Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld<BR><BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table>