Frsky updates

[mak]

It does because if you say "we're now going to support existing D16 receivers for several years", which they did, it would not have gone well if they hadn't done so for that fix.

Maybe, maybe not - as stated before, not too many options out there for the price. We may continue to speculate here. Nevertheless facts are that users of genuine FrSky gear are fully protected. Blind clone makers (Jumper / Hobby Porter) are potentially affected, unless the MPM project can reverse engineer the D16 v2. In any case FrSky had every right to do what they think is right to do with D16, as long as they provide support for their users - which they do.

[Kilrah]

In any case FrSky had every right to do what they think is right to do with D16, as long as they provide support for their users - which they do.

That's never been questioned, what has been is their shift in priorities resulting in releases of dubious quality and reducing options for users, and whether enough of their users are happy with it for it to be the right thing for them to be doing for their future.

[mak]

That's never been questioned, what has been is their shift in priorities resulting in releases of dubious quality and reducing options for users, and whether enough of their users are happy with it for it to be the right thing for them to be doing for their future.

That would not be a problem. But I often observe different approach: "How FrSky dares to respond to blind clones produced by Jumper / Hobby Porter using MPM project? They have no (moral) rights to do so, etc." - will not repeat myself, I explained everything few posts before. This is fundamentally wrong and unfair and this is what I wanted to point out.

[Carbo]

Here is another log from Juergen with a documented lockout with ACCST pre2.0. Eventually combined with an unintended roll command, if you look at the pilot's reaction with aileron (blue), but it may also be a coincidence. It took 8 months to find a pilot with an affected TX and the ability to build and use tadango's lost frame counter. Juergen will test V2.0 in the future. In spite of the manipulation with lost frames, lockouts should still be visible. But there is a good chance that FrSky has found the root cause for lockouts and lasting unintended channel data according to Mike's post. The better CRC method should generally prevent incorrect channel data, as far as I understand.
The other anomaly in the logfile is a manual midair telemetry reset

[Kilrah]

That would not be a problem. But I often observe different approach: "How FrSky dares to respond to blind clones produced by Jumper / Hobby Porter using MPM project? They have no (moral) rights to do so, etc." - will not repeat myself, I explained everything few posts before. This is fundamentally wrong and unfair and this is what I wanted to point out.

Well, FrSky used to be the definition of "everything compatible with everything", bringing back the module slot so you could use 3rd party modules, etc. Then they started "degrading" it so that it didn't work properly with some competition once they had their own offering.
There have been FrSky compatible DIY and compatible RXes for a while now and they've never done anything about it. People bought their radios for that reason. Now they changed their mind, so it's normal for people to be upset as some of the reasons they made their purchase decision around are not valid anymore.

But more importantly it's their double game. FrSky sells Futaba FHSS and S-FHSS, as well as Hitec compatible receivers. They manufacture (or have manufactured) Spektrum compatibles as an OEM for sale under other brands. That's somehow no problem.
FrSky says that it's unfair and they're hurt that the Multiprotocol module talks D8/D16, yet they manufacture and sell multiprotocol modules that talk all of their competitors' protocols, and they're perfectly fine with that.

FrSky are upset when people reimplement their proprietary smart port, but all their products reimplement proprietary SBUS.

What goes around comes around. You can't play the game when it's to your advantage then complain when the same is done about you. To people who bought FrSky equipment and can't do what they were doing with it anymore because they decided to lock things down "becasue of clones/compatibles" yet sell compatibles for other brands themselves it's a freaking joke and there are all the reasons in the world to be upset about it.

[mak]

There have been FrSky compatible DIY and compatible RXes for a while now and they've never done anything about it. People bought their radios for that reason.

Well, FrSky didn't mind and probably wouldn't mind still, if some companies would not decided to make blind copy of their radio / protocols and start selling it. I cannot speak on their behalf, but I'm pretty sure FrSky is more than perfect with whole DIY market, as long it stays DIY.

You don't know why people bought their radios. I also don't know 100% but it is at least possible that people bought their radios because it is the best platform to run OpenTX and - probably even more importantly - because it comes with a whole variety of ACCST receivers and sensors developed and produced by FrSky - V, D and X series (including XM and stabilized S series). Plus whole variety of other products.

What goes around comes around. You can't play the game when it's to your advantage then complain when the same is done about you. To people who bought FrSky equipment and can't do what they were doing with it anymore because they decided to lock things down "becasue of clones/compatibles" yet sell compatibles for other brands themselves it's a freaking joke and there are all the reasons in the world to be upset about it.

People who bought genuine FrSky products are perfectly fine. Clone makers will be not, which we even don't even know at the moment.

Re compatible receivers: Futaba have T-FHSS, FASST, FASSTest and SBUS2, also not back-compatible and with new features. Yet nobody is complaining about it. But FrSky cannot have ACCESS or D16v2. FrSky should sit quiet and do nothing because they produced Futaba compatible receivers. How naive is that? Also - and more importantly - FrSky did change and contribute to the hobby with their ACCST products, not with Futaba compatible receivers. Jumper / Hobby Porter is not changing nor contributing anything. They are just making money on selling work of others, including MPM project, not developing anything own at all. It makes a difference. So maybe let's talk their rights to make dumb clones of FrSky products, instead of finding reasons why FrSky is not allowed to respond to their actions.

[jhsa]

It is their own right to lock their stuff, and it seems they did it well...
And that hurts doesn't it??
I don't care, I am fine even with D8. In my opinion it is much better that the D16, and it always has been.

About selling equipment that is not backwards compatible.. Everybody does it. Futaba for example..
So why can't Frsky?

Probably they were fine with the DIY receivers because:
They weren't cloned. They were developed based on reverse engineered protocol, and the hardware is completely different.
The ones that were sold weren't as good as any Frsky receiver. No Antenna diversity for example. Range was also less.
Only the people that built their receivers, like myself, would have antenna diversity, which makes the DiY receiver really good. But no one produced it until recently.
Even the new DIY D16 compatible receiver has a bind lock to try preventing the Chinese from producing it.

João

[Carbo]

FWIW I want to share some LBT bind frequency measurements. First my trusted 2013 X9D, that never had any issue:

Tuned MPM:

Xlite pro with lockout issues causing at least 2 heli crashes:

Cursor always placed in a way, that the "mouse position" field shows the bind frequency. Source for the last two measurements: https://fpv-community.de/threads/vorsic ... st-1044238

[jhsa]

@mak, yes jumper seems to have developed a receiver, yay..
But it is atroucious [emoji14]
They don't even know how a voltage divider works ha ha..
Now, people want to make me believe that they really developed their radio?? No way.. It is an exact copy.. and it has been proved..

João

[mak]

@mak, yes jumper seems to have developed a receiver, yay..
But it is atroucious [emoji14]
They don't even know how a voltage divider works ha ha..
Now, people want to make me believe that they really developed their radio?? No way.. It is an exact copy.. and it has been proved..

Did they? I'm not up to date with their clones [emoji6].

Of course their radio is a 1:1 clone. It can probably run FrOS, as it has all memory needed to do so and which they were not able to take out from the design [emoji1787].

[mak]

BTW: is MPM module FCC or EU certified? or they sell it with no certification whatsoever?

[Kilrah]

It is their own right to lock their stuff, and it seems they did it well...

Not really, no, at least not enough to show that they are again lying to people, with their shills stating publicly that D16V2 was done to fix a problem and not add protection, while the fix is trivial and everything else is just protection.

Again the gripe isn't that much about protecting the stuff in itself, it's about all the lies and shenanigans around it, and the fact that they seemingly considered it more important to add protection than to put care into releasing complete and working updates.

Jumper / Hobby Porter

Note that Hobby Porter is no longer affiliated with Jumper and have removed all Jumper stuff from sale several months ago.

[mak]

Note that Hobby Porter is no longer affiliated with Jumper and have removed all Jumper stuff from sale several months ago.

To be honest I couldn't care less. But must be great to their users having such a stable company standing behind their products.

[Carbo]

Note that Hobby Porter is no longer affiliated with Jumper and have removed all Jumper stuff from sale several months ago.

To be honest I couldn't care less. But must be great to their users having such a stable company standing behind their products.

Presumably you have a huge financial interest in FrSky, Michał Andrzej. People should know this to be able to interpret your posts the right way. Btw. I have no financial interests at all. Fortunately, I have already arrived in the post-material phase of life

[mak]

Presumably you have a huge financial interest in FrSky, Michał Andrzej. People should know this to be able to interpret your posts the right way. Btw. I have no financial interests at all. Fortunately, I have already arrived in the post-material phase of life

Lucky you re post-material phase of life .

I wouldn't call it huge financial interest, rather a hobby extension as it often is. But also I was never hiding my connections with them. In fact from the very first day of the recently discovered D16 flaw I wrote and maintain a summary article about it, posting a link to it on various forums and FB groups, under my name or the same nickname as here (or very similar, as often the same was taken), stating that I wrote it for my customers. Especially at the beginning it was important as the information was very little and scattered. This whole D16 thing is not convenient for FrSky (in fact I cannot imagine how some may say that FrSky made it all up just to take opportunity to brake backward compatibility - it is like shoot the leg, to cover other pain), but I believe that FrSky customers deserve to be well informed. Better than FrSky is usually doing it, I guess I wrote it several times. Here is the link:

https://77hobby.pl/important-firmware-u ... -n-51.html (change language to EN on the top of the page)

My connection with FrSky doesn't change anything in my argumentation, which I always try to keep objective and fact based. If I would like to hide the fact I have connection with FrSky it I would create some fake account and write from there. It wasn't difficult to track me though, wasn't it?

[jhsa]

Well, I have no financial connection with Frsky or anyone else. Hell, I don't even buy their stuff anymore And I still think that is not right what Jumper, and even worse, the openTX team is doing, as far as I understand. I haven't seen Bertrand around here for quite a while. As the main developer of OpenTX, I would be interested to read his opinion on all this.

I don't like people or groups of people that spread hate and encourage others to do so. I have been reading posts of people that have no idea of what they are talking about but just throw their hate out.. Sad..
Whatever Frsky is doing, as long it is not illegal, they are entitled to do so. It is their company. Don't like it? Don't buy it. But just leave it alone. That is what I did. I fell in love with their first Horus prototype. Was waiting for years for it. The final product was nothing like the one I fell in love with. Didn't buy it, but I dont keep on bashing them because of it..

João

[Carbo]

This whole D16 thing is not convenient for FrSky (in fact I cannot imagine how some may say that FrSky made it all up just to take opportunity to brake backward compatibility - it is like shoot the leg, to cover other pain), but I believe that FrSky customers deserve to be well informed. Better than FrSky is usually doing it, I guess I wrote it several times. Here is the link:

https://77hobby.pl/important-firmware-u ... -n-51.html (change language to EN on the top of the page)

My connection with FrSky doesn't change anything in my argumentation, which I always try to keep objective and fact based. If I would like to hide the fact I have connection with FrSky it I would create some fake account and write from there. It wasn't difficult to track me though, wasn't it?

Well, I did not know you. But your involvement was suspicious It took me about 30s to find a matching name to your account and country. I like your writeup about the issue, it is indeed objective.
I am a little bit bored of watching FrSky's attempts to eliminate the competition. Also the cheating with SBus lost frames now is unlovely. I hope, they have time to think it over and return to a better behaviour again. If not, an open RF firmware is the next logic step. The contrast between the OpenTX quaility management and transparency and FrSky's QM and transparency is maximum. That doesn't work in the long run and it is annoying.

[RCJohn]

BTW: is MPM module FCC or EU certified? or they sell it with no certification whatsoever?

MPM is not certified. Basically open SW cannot be certified in the EU.
If you use it, you can make a self-decleared conformity and make sure that the code your are using makes the module work within the regulations.

I cannot imagine there will ever be an open RF-SW, which is certified.
There is a basic conflict between Open-SW and Legal Responsibilty, when regulations exist.

[Carbo]

Do we know if this only applies to LBT mode or does it apply to FCC as well?

It seems the answer is FCC as well. First log with V1 FCC (170317)

And with V2.0.1FCC

[Kilrah]

MPM is not certified. Basically open SW cannot be certified in the EU.
I cannot imagine there will ever be an open RF-SW, which is certified.

There is nothing about being open that defacto prevents certification, but the device must be sold being compliant.
Since anyone can do modifications there just needs to be a check in place that ensures the version that is on the device is the one that has been certified. Not much of a problem to develop such a solution.

Regs are pretty loose too. FrSky for example did not recertify their modules and receivers with the ACCESS or D16V2 firmwares, even though those do very likely affect the RF characteristics.

[RCJohn]

When you quote, please quote all sentences related to the topic.

Don't misunderstand, I would be a big fan of an open RF SW, where everbody follow the same protocoll.
No more frame-losses by channel crashes could be realized.

The Regs are not loose, but the authorities who observe the fulfillment cant be everywhere, anytime.

[mak]

Well, I did not know you. But your involvement was suspicious It took me about 30s to find a matching name to your account and country. I like your writeup about the issue, it is indeed objective.

I'm glad you liked it.

Positive post from Joao must have somehow triggered me . It was a nice contrast. I guess I got tired of reading and watching all these rants on FrSky, and no single voice about really unethical behavior of Jumper / Hobby Porter. No company is saint, some things could be improved, but amount of hate FrSky is lately receiving is as unjustified as it is enormous. Anyways, I stated my points. I can relax now .

[jhsa]

Positive post from Joao must have somehow triggered me .

Oh, now it is my fault, is it??

João

[Carbo]

Anyways, I stated my points. I can relax now .

What do you think about the fact, that FrSky users who suffer from lockouts and unwanted servo movements are forced to install new firmwares with encryption between CPU and RF chip (not bug related) and manipulated LostFrame bit in SBus (also not bug related)? Imo they should have the chance, to get a firmware with the bugfixes only and without additional goodies. Installation of the goodies should be optional

[mak]

Oh, now it is my fault, is it??

Must be someone's fault!

[mak]

What do you think about the fact, that FrSky users who suffer from lockouts and unwanted servo movements are forced to install new firmwares with encryption between CPU and RF chip (not bug related) and manipulated LostFrame bit in SBus (also not bug related)? Imo they should have the chance, to get a firmware with the bugfixes only and without additional goodies. Installation of the goodies should be optional

I'm not sure if it matters that much what I think. But do you think that majority of the users even know what is it about or care? Not too many people are sniffing RF transmissions on daily basics . User of genuine FrSky products will receive the upgrade, hopefully solving the problem and not introducing too many others (like some already reported telemetry issues, etc.). It will be a bit inconvenient to upgrade, but no drama. You want to update your gear from time to time anyways.

I had no time yet to follow manipulated SBUS LostFrame bit topic. What exactly is this about?

[Carbo]

I'm not sure if it matters that much what I think. But do you think that majority of the users even know what is it about or care? Not too many people are sniffing RF transmissions on daily basics . User of genuine FrSky products will receive the upgrade, hopefully solving the problem and not introducing too many others (like some already reported telemetry issues, etc.). It will be a bit inconvenient to upgrade, but no drama. You want to update your gear from time to time anyways.

Users of genuine FrSky products get additional code, that is only used to protect IP, not to ensure a safe data transmission. Nobody asks them. They only can hope, it is bug free. And we know the probability of a bug free firmware rollout with FrSky.

I had no time yet to follow manipulated SBUS LostFrame bit topic. What exactly is this about?

For example Betaflight users rely on OSD linkquality index, which is based on lost frames. With V2.0.1 they get a much better linkquality in OSD and are happy about it. Until someone tells them, FrSky fakes lost frames now. Until 75% lost frames (worst case) go unnoticed.
Both points are ethically questionable. Eventually it helps you to understand, why cloners are becoming more and more acceptable to a lot of users. They hope for honest information and an open approach. And hope dies last

[mak]

Users of genuine FrSky products get additional code, that is only used to protect IP, not to ensure a safe data transmission. Nobody asks them. They only can hope, it is bug free. And we know the probability of a bug free firmware rollout with FrSky.

Well, agreed. But in what world users can have a choice if to have or not IP protection mechanisms? If a company is deciding to introduce one, for sure will not put it for users to vote. No company ever did that.

For example Betaflight users rely on OSD linkquality index, which is based on lost frames. With V2.0.1 they get a much better linkquality in OSD and are happy about it. Until someone tells them, FrSky fakes lost frames now. Until 75% lost frames (worst case) go unnoticed.

I thought that LQ is a Crossfire thing. But may not be up to date, not flying drones since few years now.

Both points are ethically questionable. Eventually it helps you to understand, why cloners are becoming more and more acceptable to a lot of users. They hope for honest information and an open approach. And hope dies last

What I understand is that we have a loop. We have dumb cloners, cloning 1:1 products and selling work of others with no value added. So others have to introduce IP protection mechanisms, even if they could be much more open and transparent before. I'm afraid this is how it works and I hope it will not escalate more. As you said... hope dies last.

[Carbo]

Well, agreed. But in what world users can have a choice if to have or not IP protection mechanisms? If a company is deciding to introduce one, for sure will not put it for users to vote. No company ever did that.

I appreciate your balanced and open answer. One last remark: the IP protection comes in a trojan horse, that only FrSky's own bug made possible. Ethic?

[mak]

I appreciate your balanced and open answer. One last remark: the IP protection comes in a trojan horse, that only FrSky's own bug made possible. Ethic?

I do not see it as a trojan horse. I probably will not convince you, so we must agree to disagree here. As any company FrSky have every right to protect their IP and it is up to them how and when to do so.