<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><DIV>I heard once that the pylon racers did not use PCM due to the latency. Also, a lot used basic 4ch PPM systems, since the frame rate is shorter with fewer channels. The Ace Micropro that I mentioned earlier (which was a PPM only system) allowed you to program the number of channels transmitted. If you only transmitted 4 channels, the frame rate was much quicker.</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>--- On <B>Mon, 3/22/10, Richard Strickland <I><pamrich47@hotmail.com></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><BR>From: Richard Strickland <pamrich47@hotmail.com><BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious<BR>To: "NSRCA" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>Date: Monday, March 22, 2010, 2:21 PM<BR><BR>
<DIV id=yiv1322204796>
<STYLE><!--
#yiv1322204796 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv1322204796 .hmmessage
{
font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
--></STYLE>
I think you are more <EM>likely</EM> to get better latency numbers from a matched system--but take the Futaba numbers, the 7 channel system has better--or at least as good--numbers as the more expensive systems. Maybe <EM>much</EM> less than the MZ/HS8 combo I have a good friend who purchased one of the super cheap 2.4 module/receiver combos and he could hardly hover with it.<BR>Craps anyone?<BR> RS<BR>
<HR id=stopSpelling>
From: geobet4@verizon.net<BR>To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:14:23 -0400<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious<BR><BR>
<STYLE>
#yiv1322204796 .ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P
{padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-top:0px;}
#yiv1322204796 .ExternalClass BODY.ecxhmmessage
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;}
</STYLE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I guess my next question would be,.......Is it possible that within the spectrum of the 2.4 Ghz technology could it be that there might</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial> be a difference in the processing speed of the low end receivers as opposed to the higher priced units?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I do have a low end rcvr.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>G.</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4"><B>From:</B> <A title=pamrich47@hotmail.com href="http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=pamrich47@hotmail.com" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:pamrich47@hotmail.com">Richard Strickland</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org href="http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA DISCUSSION</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March 22, 2010 10:42 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [NSRCA-discussion] curious</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR> <BR>
<STYLE>
#yiv1322204796 .ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
#yiv1322204796 .ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
</STYLE>
The original post was in '05 in that link. He has been updating it as he gets new info. It's worth a read--but takes a while. Some feel the thread has contributed greatly to latency being decreased in radios across the board. As someone pointed out "..radios got pretty damn fast pretty damn fast..."<BR>Regarding Futaba modules--at least on the TM14, the information is sent in groups of four, so you would have minimum latency difference for example between channels 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, etc.. so it would be better to have dual elevators next to one another and possibly ailerons in one of the 1-4 groups if your transmitter has the capability to reassign channel positions. It would also be helpful to those that have more than one servo per surface. It's very important to the helo guys as they need the swash plate to move evenly. Apparently not quite as noticeable in pattern.<BR>I switched from
50mhz/5114DPS to the 2.4/TM14/6008HS combo and the best one word description I can give is "silky"--but it could be additional latency--Futaba says there should be no difference. I think I like it--but I have to--it's what I've got! <BR> <BR>Richard<BR> <BR>PS Anyone need any DPS5114s on 50mhz.?..yeah, that's what I thought...<BR><BR><BR>
<HR>
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. <A href="http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850553/direct/01/" rel=nofollow target=_blank>Sign up now.</A>
<HR>
<DIV><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<HR>
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. <A href="http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850552/direct/01/" rel=nofollow target=_blank>Sign up now.</A> </DIV><BR>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----<BR><BR>
<DIV class=plainMail>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR><A href="http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR><A href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table>