<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I was trying to make the point that the Futaba FASST modules used in a
Futaba radio do not increase the latency for any particular
transmitter. Also, that within the Futaba line the concept of module
based versus "native", or built in does not mean much. At least that is
what I have been told by the tech folks in Champaign. The 12FG and 12Z
with a module both have the same overall latency for instance.<br>
<br>
And I have been told the same thing that the FASST module using the PPM
stream in the older transmitters is faster than when those transmitters
were using PCM mode. <br>
<br>
Bob Richards wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:978029.77481.qm@web1112.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-size-adjust: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;"
valign="top">
<blockquote style="margin-right: 0px;" dir="ltr">
<div>--- On <b>Sun, 3/21/10, Bill's Email <i><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wemodels@cox.net"><wemodels@cox.net></a></i></b>
wrote:<br>
If you are using a Futaba FASST module and receives there is absolutely
no difference between module based systems and built-in non-module. If
you are using another after market module then you may very well be
seeing an effect of latency. All other non-Futaba modules will not be
as fast as the Futaba module in a Futaba radio.</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Actually, there are two different type of FASST modules.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>1) The TM-7 and TM-8 modules fit the older radios (9C
included) and must use the PPM pulse train that the older 72MHz modules
used. As such, the transmitter MUST be in PPM transmission mode, so
the latency can't be any better than a PPM system. (Which is actually
faster than the 72MHz PCM systems from what I understand).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>2) The 10 and 14 channel modules (10C, 12Z and 14MZ
systems). These have a different means of communicating with the
modules in native FASST mode, and should be no different than the
non-module native 2.4g systems. The latency should be faster than the
PPM pulse train used above. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The link previously posted to the latency testing did not
show any TM-7 or TM-8 information. I believe these are the only FASST
modules that will work in the 9C under question. However, my experience
with both in my 8UAPS has been positive.<br>
<br>
Bob R.</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>