THANK YOU for jumper T16 support - can I help test

[doughadfield]

Hi wonderful OpenTX folks, I wanted to post a big THANK YOU for including the Jumper T16 in your latest version (I'm now testing the 2.3.2 nightlies). With the EVIL uncompetitive practices by FrSky in trying to stifle competition and reduce our choice, I think this community needs to strongly resist this immoral behaviour by actively promoting the competitive product. I've been using a T16 as my main radio now since June, and would be happy to assist with testing the new T16 support if you need me to. I have several fixed-wing models including some small cheap ones to experiment on! plus some quads, again including small cheap indoor models that can be used for testing (in all weathers).
thanks again
Doug

[MikeB]

To provide a "balanced" view, note that FrSky have made a significant investment in development of hardware and software, for Tx modules, receivers and radios. They have provided much technical information to the open source community, under a non-disclosure agreement, to enable open source firmware to run well on their radios.
Jumper have made very little investment in development and have provided almost no technical information to the open source community.
The T12 is almost a direct copy of the FrSky QX7 and the T16 is almost a direct copy of the FrSky X10. The module provided by Jumper (multi-protocol) is a copy of the DIY multi-protocol project and uses firmware entirely developed by the open source community.
Note that the implementation of the FrSky 'X' protocol in the multi-protocol module is not legal in Europe as it doesn't do the proper "listen before talk" required by new products since 2015.

Mike

[jhsa]

So Frsky is the bad one here? When Jumper is even using their Protocol without being authorized to do so?
The multi MultiProtocol module should not even be on that radio, or on any other commercial radio. It is supposed to be a DIY project only.
But unfortunately money changes people's minds most of the times.

Frsky always trusted the DIY community and shared their projects and their products. I think that is over now. And I would do the same.

And now they are bad for trying to protect their own property, and their own business?

Very unfair in my opinion.

João

[midelic]

Moreover it is very suspicious the fast and recent "jumping" in the JumperT16 bandwagon of the various "influencers" in the RC world.
I think they were payed to promote Jumper T16.

[Kilrah]

Most likely, and that unusual number of prolific "thank you" messages is likely part of it...
That said the T16 support comes as a direct result of the "FU" to the DIY community that FrSky did earlier this year, subsequent attempts to hide it once they decided that maybe wasn't smart although the damage was already done, and overall nightmare that their latest product releases are for their users.

[jhsa]

So, others copy their stuff, and worse, even use their protocol, and they are the bad ones?
Why shouldn't they hide it? Isn't that what all other companies do?
As far as I know, Frsky shared their protocols to the DIY community ONLY. For people to built their own stuff using their protocols. NOT for people to get all the information AND GO SELL PRODUCTS using their protocols, and probably other info.
There is stuff that must be kept secret.
Imagine you owned frsky. Would you really like other to copy your hardware, and even use your software on them? I don't think so. And then you guys even blame Frsky, and want to turn people against them as if they were the bad guys here?

To be honest, there are a couple things i find a bit fishy. A few months ago, i remember reading the the Jumper guys forked OpenTX, and the OpenTX team didn't show great interest in supporting their radios. Now suddenly everything changed? Just like that? even the multiProtocol thread also completely changed?
Sorry, i find all this veeeery strange.
I find it very sad to see this happening to the DIY community. Frsky always listened to us from the beginning, and somehow, if we could build excellent radios and excellent firmware for them, we also owe it a little bit to Frsky.
How dare people, specially the ones that just jumped onboard of the open source, bash Frsky like that? They have no idea of what is behind. I have been following this story for nearly 10 years. I have seen Er9x and Ersky9x, and OpenTX being born, and I KNOW the influence Frsky had on the open source firmware. HOW DARE you bash them like that now?
Not very nice nor very correct, is it?

I also DIY frsky stuff, but I don't sell it, build it for myself because I have fun doing it.
And yes, there is a DIY X compatible receiver being developed. It is not a copy, It is being developed from ground zero, with more features than the original. But all is being take care of that this one will not be produced by anyone else. Only for people to build. There are limitations that make it not attractive for people or companies to sell it. Would you buy (or sell) a receiver that can only be bound once or twice, and needs re-flashing? You wouldn't, right? This will only be for DIY, and it is not easy to build anyway. And this is how the MultiProtocol module should have developed.. DIY only.

João

EDIT: When I say "You Bash" I mean to say people in general..

[Kilrah]

I am not talking at all about the protocols, totally agree on that.

You're a lot about DIY, right? The one line summary is that if "we" (the community) had not challenged FrSky on what they did when they released their new radios this spring it would no more be possible to use DIY modules with their radios.

[jtaylor]

Joao, Those of us that have followed you posts for a few years are well aware pf your position that only those that can build a DIY project themselves should be able to use it. I find that a very selfish and misguided position. While I do not believe anyone's design should be used without their permission and them receiving credit, I see nothing wrong with it being produced and sold commercially. Isn't part of the spirit of opensource and open hardware sharing with the community and allowing others to benefit? If I applied your DIY attitude (as I understand it) to software, only those that can write a compiler and compile the code should be able to use opensource software. I build my OpenXsensors on cheap Chinese pro mini boards and I'm very grateful to Arduino for making the hardware and software open-source (as well as grateful to the OpenXsensor software developer). Perhaps you build your sensors on boards you made yourself or bought direct from Arduino, and if so I solute you, but I no longer have the ability (or desire) to do that. I worked in the hardware and software industry starting in the 1960's for over 50 years, and while I have the knowledge to build a multiprotocol adapter or receiver, I no longer have the eyesight or manual dexterity to do fine soldering. So I am not only grateful to Midelic, Pascal, and all the others that helped with the project, but also that it has been produced commercially so that I could have one.

Now about Frsky. First off I began using Frsky's products when I put a DFT module in my Futaba 9C somewhere around 2009. I bought a Taranus X9D shortly after it came out about 2013 (and I'm still using it) so I have hardly just jumped aboard. It is not my understanding that Frsky only shared their protocol to the DIY community so people could build their on "stuff" . First off, as far as I know, they only shared their two-way protocol, and at that time they had few products of their own. They did not release their s-port protocol or D16 protocol and only provided them under NDA. As far as I know the Multiprotocol modules and clone receivers are all using reverse engineered protocols. And i'm fairly sure Futaba and Hitec didn't release or license their protocols to Frsky to make their compatible receivers.

As far as I'm concerned Frsky has made a total mess of their Access release and their new products. Whether they have made enough mess of it to send me to other products remains to be seen. Since I have 20 or more D6, D4, and V-II receivers, and only 4 X and S receivers I am disappointed that they are not supporting them on the new transmitters, but I can deal with that in several ways (although I would rather not have to). And the argument that they are not supporting it is because D8 is not legal in the EU has little bearing as nether is FCC and they supply it to the rest of the world and D8 would be legal there. And I'm not sure flex is legal in the EU but I think they make it available there. They have made so many different statements about what products will be supported and which products will be upgraded that nobody knows what will happen. But the thing that concerns me most is what I see as their attempt to build a "walled garden" around their products. The original intent of the unnecessary PCM chip and the possibility of encrypted authentication for example. They seem to have backed off a little after the hue and cry of their users, but the hardware is still there and their intentions were clear. How would you feel if after you built your DIY multiprotocol or other module the transmitter would't power it up because Frsky didn't approve of it? I had planned on getting a new Frsky transmitter after this flying season. I still plan on getting a new one before next years season but will now hold off deciding what to get until I see how things go. When I buy something I want to be in control of it and not worry that the manufacture has build in ways to disable things it doesn't like on a firmware upgrade.

Jim

[MikeB]

D8 not being legal in the UK is part of the reason it is being phased out. The V1 protocol has already been phased out. The D8 protocol is now quite old, and basically, I understand, it won't fit in Tx modules along with ACCESS and ACCST-D16.

You may be interested in the firmware I've written that runs on D8 and D4 receivers, and uses the D16 protocol. See here: https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthr ... -receivers.
I don't think I will be able to get this running on V8-II receivers as they use a different processor that is too small.

Technically the use of the D16 protocol on the multi-protocol module is not legal in Europe. As currently implemented, it doesn't do the listen before talk required for new commercial products since 2015, it just talks the, slightly different, protocol. This is OK for a DIY module, but not a commercial product.

Mike

[jhsa]

Joao, Those of us that have followed you posts for a few years are well aware pf your position that only those that can build a DIY project themselves should be able to use it. I find that a very selfish and misguided position.

Not selfish at all. That was the way it started, and the way it should have remained. We wouldn't be in this mess we are today.

While I do not believe anyone's design should be used without their permission and them receiving credit, I see nothing wrong with it being produced and sold commercially.

Contradicting yourself here.
If they have used someone's design without permission, I see everything wrong here. And specially when they send their clients to the developer's RCG thread for costumer service..

Isn't part of the spirit of opensource and open hardware sharing with the community and allowing others to benefit? If I applied your DIY attitude (as I understand it) to software, only those that can write a compiler and compile the code should be able to use opensource software.

It is for others to benefit alright, but the others should be able to build the hardware, and be able to flash the firmware.
But people wait until someone copies the project, produce it, and sell it ready, so they can buy it.
I am sure this IS NOT the kind of benefit the developer thought of when shared is project.
And I tell you more, I know several really good projects that will never be shared exactly because of this behavior.
If you can't build it, ask some friend to build it for you. Or learn how to do it.. or even pay someone to build it for you.
But no, people are always waiting for the Chinese to copy it and sell it ready. and then go to the developers's internet site asking advice.
Sorry, I don't think that is correct.
when I started with the 9x radio, my first telemetry mod was done by a a member of my club. The next one, i had to learn how to do it myself. Never had soldered an SMD component before. Then the time came to replace my 9x radio's processor. Again, I had to learn how to do it.. This was the spirit when all this started.

I build my OpenXsensors on cheap Chinese pro mini boards and I'm very grateful to Arduino for making the hardware and software open-source (as well as grateful to the OpenXsensor software developer). Perhaps you build your sensors on boards you made yourself or bought direct from Arduino, and if so I solute you, but I no longer have the ability (or desire) to do that.

Sorry Jim, but if you do not have the desire to build stuff, then you need to buy your stuff. probably then original frsky sensors, instead of waiting for someone to copy someone's project and produce it and sell it without asking permission for it. now, if they ask the developer's permission, and he/she accepts it, then all good.

I worked in the hardware and software industry starting in the 1960's for over 50 years, and while I have the knowledge to build a multiprotocol adapter or receiver, I no longer have the eyesight or manual dexterity to do fine soldering. So I am not only grateful to Midelic, Pascal, and all the others that helped with the project, but also that it has been produced commercially so that I could have one.

So am I, but those you mentioned are the ones that developed the projects.. I tell you what, ask midelic for example, if he is happy to see his receiver project copied and sold everywhere without his permission. Midelic, if you are reading this, please share your opinion.

Jim, reading what you have wrote above, i get the idea that you are grateful to the people that produce those projects without asking permission from Midelic, Pascal, and all the others that helped with the projects.

Now about Frsky. First off I began using Frsky's products when I put a DFT module in my Futaba 9C somewhere around 2009. I bought a Taranus X9D shortly after it came out about 2013 (and I'm still using it) so I have hardly just jumped aboard. It is not my understanding that Frsky only shared their protocol to the DIY community so people could build their on "stuff" . First off, as far as I know, they only shared their two-way protocol, and at that time they had few products of their own. They did not release their s-port protocol or D16 protocol and only provided them under NDA. As far as I know the Multiprotocol modules and clone receivers are all using reverse engineered protocols. And i'm fairly sure Futaba and Hitec didn't release or license their protocols to Frsky to make their compatible receivers.

Correct, but you forgot to say that they shared their protocol for the DIY community to have telemetry support on their DIYed 9x radios, and upgrade boards for that same radio. Not for other companies to produce radios, and use Frsky's protocol without permission. I was one of the beta testers from the 9XR-PRO radio, and the Frsky protocol was only supported by Ersky9x on that radio when Hextronic reached an agreement with Frsky. And THIS WAS THE CORRECT WAY TO HANDLE IT.

This is completely different of what Jumper is doing now. They are selling a radio that uses proprietary protocols, independently of being a multiprotocol module or not. From the moment that module is being sold in a product, it is part of that product, and not DIY anymore. In my opinion this is a violation and if I was frsky would take them to court.
As far as I know, neither they ask permission to frsky, nor they got any permission from Frsky in order to use a proprietary protocol (that frsky made very clear it was not public), on their product.

As far as I'm concerned Frsky has made a total mess of their Access release and their new products. Whether they have made enough mess of it to send me to other products remains to be seen. Since I have 20 or more D6, D4, and V-II receivers, and only 4 X and S receivers I am disappointed that they are not supporting them on the new transmitters, but I can deal with that in several ways (although I would rather not have to). And the argument that they are not supporting it is because D8 is not legal in the EU has little bearing as nether is FCC and they supply it to the rest of the world and D8 would be legal there. And I'm not sure flex is legal in the EU but I think they make it available there. They have made so many different statements about what products will be supported and which products will be upgraded that nobody knows what will happen. But the thing that concerns me most is what I see as their attempt to build a "walled garden" around their products. The original intent of the unnecessary PCM chip and the possibility of encrypted authentication for example. They seem to have backed off a little after the hue and cry of their users, but the hardware is still there and their intentions were clear.

Ok, and now because they messed up by wanting to do what most of the RC companies do, which is to close their equipment's design, probably because they do not like the fact that some other companies are selling products that use their protocols, and are also nearly exact copies of their own products, let's bash them, and say that they are the worst company in the world, and that their products are c**p, and that they messed up again, and worst of all, support exactly the same other company that is using Frsky's proprietary stuff without authorization from frsky.
No sorry not me, Frsky might have messed up with their last products (Like many other companies already did), and they will have to get themselves together, but no one, and I mean NO ONE can cay that Frsky never supported the DIY community because that would be a lie. Ok, they did get benefits from it, they listened to their costumers and the open source community. What other company before Frsky would risk to let the open source community write the firmware for their radios? None, right? it was a risky move.
As I said, if it was with me, and I had money for it, I would get some good lawyers and take action, because what is happening is total violation of copyright.

How would you feel if after you built your DIY multiprotocol or other module the transmitter would't power it up because Frsky didn't approve of it?

well, I wouldn't feel good, but I had a few options.
Most likely I would hack it, probably together with other guys. It would be fun doing it and then sharing it
Buy a new transmitter.. Build my own. Move to another company that doesn't pirate other company's protocol
Come on, which other known company let's you use the MultiProtocol module with all its bells and whistles? Futaba? Spektrum? Graupner? Multiplex? Really? NONE. So, why is frsky so bad for wanting to do the same?

I had planned on getting a new Frsky transmitter after this flying season. I still plan on getting a new one before next years season but will now hold off deciding what to get until I see how things go. When I buy something I want to be in control of it and not worry that the manufacture has build in ways to disable things it doesn't like on a firmware upgrade.

Jim, if i was you, as you already seem to have gotten yourself in the "Let's lynch Frsky" bandwagon, I would go for Futaba, Spekrum, or something like that.. or perhaps... a Jumper T16??

No really, without joking, I obviously have a complete different point of view. I am no saying that i like what frsky has done with their recent products, because I don't. but, I don't go bashing them, i just do not buy them. I fell in love with the first prototype of what is now the horus radio. I still keep a picture of it somewhere. it looked amazing. when i saw the horus I got really disappointed and I decided to keep making the most of my 9X radios, that can do practically everything the Frsky radios do, specially by using ErsyTX on them. I only don't have big color LCDs, but apart from that, my radios do all, and perhaps more than any of the frsky radios. Oh, and they fly models as well
But because I don't buy their stuff, I am not going to bash them. i have seen dreadful posts which i don't identify myself with. terrible. i think and feel that it is absolutely unfair after all frsky did for the open source community

but , oh well..

João

[mak]

I have noticed that is is being "trendy" lately to rant on FrSky.

Totally agree that they need to protect their technology, not from DIY users, but from companies making exact copies, not changing anything, not bringing any value other than trying to make quick money on others work. People tend to forget that if not FrSky, they would still be buying Futaba, Spektrum or JR receivers and sensors for $100 bucks a piece and radios for $1500+, often providing half of functionality and developing new things over decades.

Some YT influencers are trying to argue thet T16 is not a copy of X10. As a proof they compare PCB layout. Fact is that T16 is so much a copy, that it can run X10 operating system (sorry, I do not like the word "firmware" for OpenTX ), without slightest change / variation. Just because Jumper placed the same components in different places on PCB doesn't mean that it is not a copy. Yes, you can move resistor here, capacitor there and MCU 2cm left. Still a 100% copy.

Other argue that FrSky copied JR case to make a case for X9D. Thing is that in the same time FrSky provided all new technology inside. They did invest lots of efforts and money into development of new technologies, made is non expensive, reliable and open. Still kind of valid point with JR case, but is it really comparable?

Usage of DIY Multiprotocol tx module as their module is another example of great value Jumper provides. It may end up harming a hobby heavily when authorities in EU or US will start to question all that not certified tx modules. BTW: they will come after sellers, not Jumper in China.

[jhsa]

Technically the use of the D16 protocol on the multi-protocol module is not legal in Europe. As currently implemented, it doesn't do the listen before talk required for new commercial products since 2015, it just talks the, slightly different, protocol. This is OK for a DIY module, but not a commercial product.

Mike

Well, I asked about it on the MultiProtocol thread, and the answer I got was that all is working as it should
Obviously it is not, and when Mike says it isn't, I do believe him..

João

[jhsa]

Other argue that FrSky copied JR case to make a case for X9D. Thing is that in the same time FrSky provided all new technology inside. They did invest lots of efforts and money into development of new technologies, made is non expensive, reliable and open. Still kind of valid point with JR case, but is it really comparable?

as far as I remember Frsky might have bought the rights for using the case of another radio that was some copy of the JR 9x radio.. Something like that. They didn't copy anything, just bought the other one as it was cheaper than developing their own, which was what they wanted to do from day one. But that helped them release their first radio.... cheap(er).

Usage of DIY Multiprotocol tx module as their module is another example of great value Jumper provides. It may end up harming a hobby heavily when authorities in EU or US will start to question all that not certified tx modules. BTW: they will come after sellers, not Jumper in China.

Yep, and then probably not even DIY multi module anymore
If I well remember, radio control was, and still is about DIYing. Build models, etc.
When "Radio Control" started, people were even building their own radios and receivers. This was the real model flying..

João

[mak]

as far as I remember Frsky might have bought the rights for using the case of another radio that was some copy of the JR 9x radio.. Something like that. They didn't copy anything, just bought the other one as it was cheaper than developing their own, which was what they wanted to do from day one. But that helped them release their first radio.... cheap(er).

Thanks for clarification Joao and apologise for repeating the rumours. In that case it is even stronger argument supporting FrSky here.

Yep, and then probably not even DIY multi module anymore
If I well remember, radio control was, and still is about DIYing. Build models, etc.
When "Radio Control" started, people were even building their own radios and receivers. This was the real model flying..

Again - it is amazing how shortsighted are some people when they can buy cheaper, no matter how damaging it is to the hobby and themselves long term (no new development, existing projects to be shut down, the end prices coming back to high level at the end of the day).

On your note above (to fe fair) - modern RC equipment is beyond DIY capabilities of many. Which is not a justifications for one company taking advantage of development work and openness of the other one, without permission and giving NOTHING in return.

[Carbo]

Sorry for off topic but if one is looking for a light weight ergonomic radio with small form factor and colour display to be able to use the amazing iNav Lua telemetry or yaapu Lua scrpts --> there is exactly one matching radio. Unfortunately it is labeled Jumper.

[Kilrah]

Ok, and now because they messed up by wanting to do what most of the RC companies do, which is to close their equipment's design, [...], let's bash them

Well yes becasue the fact they were NOT like other RC companies was the very reason most people bought FrSky. If they change direction and become just another Futaba they're naturally going to piss off all their users who bought their stuff precisely to avoid that. They'll go to the next manufacturer who isn't doing that, and unfortunately right now it's Jumper.

FrSky are the ones making Jumper products attractive with their decisions. They should distinguish themselves with quality and features, not crippling their own products, giving something inferior to their users that only encourages them to go elsewhere...

FrSky did build its reputation by being open, if they give that up it's not going to go well for them.

[Carbo]

Well yes becasue the fact they were NOT like other RC companies was the very reason most people bought FrSky.

Don't forget OpenTX (Using a open OS is of course part of beeing NOT like other RC companies)

[jhsa]

No, Kilrah, you know very well that selling frsky's protocol without permission is a crime. I hope frsky take actions against them.
They didn't even design anything new, they copied everything..
And before, you were all against Jumper. Now you are defending them with teeth and nails? And all in a very short time? Hmm very strange indeed.

João

[Kilrah]

Not with teeth and nails, but more tempered.

And yes as I explained in the post I wrote yesterday FrSky have severly damaged the relation they had with most of the devs with what they did this spring, adding stuff behind their back without informing anyone that turned out to be dangerous for model control, to break one of the main features of FrSky radios by attempting to remove DIY module support, etc. So people also look elsewhere now and are no more just supporting FrSky.

I don't say that doing what Jumper does is good, I just point out that it's not one good vs one evil. The good one has done quite some evil stuff lately as well.
Also don't forget that FrSky have made compatible receivers themselves. And that while on one side "the multiprotocol module is evil because it allowed Jumper to come in the market" on the other they manufacture and sell multiprotocol modules...

It is getting hard to understand FrSky's position(s) that often contradict each other.

I do not believe it is an actual legal crime to reproduce the protocol, disrespectful yes but not illegal. Having had unauthorized access to protected documentation would have had a case, but not pure reverse-engineering. After all that's the same grey area that Lemon uses to sell DSM receivers, that FrSky used to make and sell FASST, DSM2 and Hitec compatible receivers themselves, etc.

[jhsa]

And yes as I explained in the post I wrote yesterday FrSky have severly damaged the relation they had with most of the devs with what they did this spring, adding stuff behind their back without informing anyone that turned out to be dangerous for model control, to break one of the main features of FrSky radios by attempting to remove DIY module support, etc. So people also look elsewhere now and are no more just supporting FrSky.

What DIY module? Is there any?

Also don't forget that FrSky have made compatible receivers themselves. And that while on one side "the multiprotocol module is evil because it allowed Jumper to come in the market" on the other they manufacture and sell multiprotocol modules...

The multiprotocol module should never have been mass produced. yeah, I know, it is just my opinion....

It is getting hard to understand FrSky's position(s) that often contradict each other.

when we don't want to, everything gets hard to understand.

I do not believe it is an actual legal crime to reproduce the protocol, disrespectful yes but not illegal. Having had unauthorized access to protected documentation would have had a case, but not pure reverse-engineering.

Sorry, but this one made me laugh.. reverse engineering? really? with all information frsky provided to the open source community for the open source firmware? Please do not try to make more stupid than what I already am
as far as I know all that data should be confidential, right?
Sorry but it is hard to believe that you guys had to reverse engineer the frsky protocol

After all that's the same grey area that Lemon uses to sell DSM receivers, that FrSky used to make and sell FASST, DSM2 and Hitec compatible receivers themselves, etc.

Those were receivers. As far as I know Frsky did not copy other companies radios and protocols, even though they could. They even developed their own protocol and telemetry system, that as far as I know it is the best I have seen until now.
That hurts now, right??
And jumper can't do any better than just.. well... copying.. Not only the protocol but also the complete hardware..
I bet they also copied the flaws?

And, even they supported the open source community, they still have a business to run.
If you hate frsky so much now, then you should develop your own protocol and stop using their stuff.
When Jumper asks for permission to legally use the frsky protocol, and actually obtain it, I will stop reminding people about it. Until then, I will write my opinion as often as I consider necessary.

João

[jhsa]

Due to all I have read in this thread a question just crossed my mind.. So if the OpenTX team thinks Frsky is currently the worst thing in this (very ill) RC world, and they did so bad to the open source community, is OpenTX going to stop supporting frsky radios?

João

[Kilrah]

What DIY module? Is there any?

Well the DIY multiprotocol module for a start?
Then add OpenLRS, RavenLRS, variations/forks of those, QCzek LRS,...
All third party modules would not have worked anymore either, including those that are popular and that people get FrSky radios to use them in like Crossfire. Even worse, FrSky's own modules that you might have bought 2 months before would not have worked anymore either. Throw it all in the trash, buy new ones when they come out in 6 months.

Sorry, but this one made me laugh.. reverse engineering? really? with all information frsky provided to the open source community for the open source firmware? Please do not try to make more stupid than what I already am
as far as I know all that data should be confidential, right?
Sorry but it is hard to believe that you guys had to reverse engineer the frsky protocol

The only thing the community got from FrSky is how to talk to FrSky modules, NONE of what the module does and how it actually talks over RF was ever given to anyone.
Midelic, Pascal and co have all reverse-engineered the FrSky RF protocols (and all the others that are supported in MP) and written completely original code from scratch that was functionally equivalent.
So yep sorry, but you're not at all on the right page

Done that way there is literally nothing for FrSky to legally go against AFAIK. All they can do (and have done for ACCESS) is make sure that it is much more difficult to do in the future.

if the OpenTX team thinks Frsky is currently the worst thing in this (very ill) RC world, and they did so bad to the open source community

Where the heck has anyone said that?
FrSky radios will still be supported, but there will not be such a strong "preference" for them anymore, which arguably wasn't exactly "right" either in the first place.

[MikeB]

FrSky have never released any technical information on their protocols carried over the air. Any information on those protocols has been obtained by reverse engineering, mainly by capturing the communication between the processor and the Rf chip on a logic analyser.

All they are doing with ACCESS is using a single chip that contains both processor and RF chip, so that approach to reverse engineering is not possible.

Mike

[jhsa]

What DIY module? Is there any?

Well the DIY multiprotocol module for a start?

That was me being sarcastic
But the multiprotocol module doesn't have much of DIY anymore, does it? So, Calling it DIY is not so true anymore.
I think it is more of a open source kind of product.

Then add OpenLRS, RavenLRS, variations/forks of those, QCzek LRS,...
All third party modules would not have worked anymore either, including those that are popular and that people get FrSky radios to use them in like Crossfire. Even worse, FrSky's own modules that you might have bought 2 months before would not have worked anymore either. Throw it all in the trash, buy new ones when they come out in 6 months.

Well they shot themselves on the foot, didn't they? but instead of letting them get their stuff together, and give them time to realize they are wrong and do so, it seems you guys just jumped immediately out of the boat and paired yourselves with the guys that are copying frsky stuff, including all hardware. And the very same guys you were refusing to support a couple weeks ago.. Again veeeeery strange. What is that? Revenge? It sounds a bit like it..
I have seen some drastic mind changing in the past, and normally there is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ behind it.. I wonder if that is the case?? Hmmmm.. Just guessing of course.

The only thing the community got from FrSky is how to talk to FrSky modules, NONE of what the module does and how it actually talks over RF was ever given to anyone.
Midelic, Pascal and co have all reverse-engineered the FrSky RF protocols (and all the others that are supported in MP) and written completely original code from scratch that was functionally equivalent.
So yep sorry, but you're not at all on the right page

Well, well, it looks I wasn't well informed about this one.. still, hardware seems to be a perfect copy, and they should not be using the frsky protocols on their products whithout permission. And not a very decent thing to do as far as the open source firmware is concerned, right?
I remember ErskyTX didn't support Frsky X on the 9XR-PRO until Hextronic got permission from frsky. and I think this is the right thing to do.
As far as i remember, frsky authorized the use of their protocol for DIY radios ONLY, not on commercial products, unless authorized. I think this should be respected.

Done that way there is literally nothing for FrSky to legally go against AFAIK. All they can do (and have done for ACCESS) is make sure that it is much more difficult to do in the future.

Good on them. people will have to buy their hardware. They allowed the open source community to use their protocols, but they SHOULD USE FRSKY'S HARDWARE, right? the guys also have to make money.
we were using Frsky modules on our radio before, when frsky allowed us to use their protocol, right? That was a fair trade. Even the MultiProtocol module would have been fair if it have stayed DIY ONLY.

Where the heck has anyone said that?

That is the idea one get when reading all the bashing above, including the one you deleted, and i didn't have a chance to answer

FrSky radios will still be supported, but there will not be such a strong "preference" for them anymore, which arguably wasn't exactly "right" either in the first place.

Wow, only now you have realized that? after 4 or 5 years?? Again, veeeeerry strange

Conclusion, the only reason I could say that Frsky shot themselves on the foot, was because of breaking support with their own stuff.
That I even find funny of so stupid it is
Now, to use only one chip for everything in order to protect their own protocol, I find wonderful. Why would they spend lots of money and time in creating a new protocol if everybody can hack it later.. GOOD MOVE frsky. You want your open source stuff to run on frsky? Fine, BUT THE HARDWARE HAS TO REMAIN FRSKY.

But anyway, i think the open source community is intelligent enough to develop their own protocol. No more need for other company's protocols. and design own hardware as well. Then if the Chinese copy it and sell it, you can be happy, because no one will have to build it. Anyone will be able to buy it "Cheap"..

João

[Kilrah]

Good on them. people will have to buy their hardware. They allowed the open source community to use their protocols, but they SHOULD USE FRSKY'S HARDWARE, right? the guys also have to make money.
we were using Frsky modules on our radio before, when frsky allowed us to use their protocol, right? That was a fair trade. Even the MultiProtocol module would have been fair if it have stayed DIY ONLY.

Well that's what you would think, but now FrSky are also making it so that their new modules only work on their radios, which is one example of where their choices kind of make no sense.
So people who are attracted to FrSky's new stuff and would be willing to buy it cannot. They should be happy to sell a $80 module to the owner of a $150 Jumper radio given that they'll then sell them receivers, sensors etc as well. Shooting themselves in the foot again.

The main gripe we have is that we try to make something that's relatively user friendly, and what they have been making lately is almost unusable to a layman person at this point, and... that they have shown clear signs of wanting out of the open/compatible/DIY market that we're working for.

You have also not lived the private discussions directly with FrSky people that have contributed to the changes in attitude. They've been sneaky, manipulative, threatening and disrespectful, and very clearly insinuating that "OpenTX was going to do what FrSky wants now". Sorry, no chance.

[jhsa]

Well that's what you would think, but now FrSky are also making it so that their new modules only work on their radios, which is one example of where their choices kind of make no sense.
So people who are attracted to FrSky's new stuff and would be willing to buy it cannot. They should be happy to sell a $80 module to the owner of a $150 Jumper radio given that they'll then sell them receivers, sensors etc as well. Shooting themselves in the foot again.

Yeah, that is what I said above. That is so stupid that it becomes very funny. if your external modules only work with your radios, that already have your own module inside, what is the point in making an external module in first place?

The main gripe we have is that we try to make something that's relatively user friendly, and what they have been making lately is almost unusable to a layman person at this point, and... that they have shown clear signs of wanting out of the open/compatible/DIY market that we're working for.

Well, if they want to get out then, they should say it.. that's fine. If you want to get out, it is also fine.
But still, I think it is not right Jumper copying frsky radio hardware, and support frsky's protocols without permission. and you as open source developers should be the first not to support that kind of thing, specially being involved with frsky before. as I said, you are smart people and can even create your own killer protocol. and let anyone else that wanted to use it sell their own hardware that would be compatible with that protocol. I think this is reasonable and avoid situations like this one. make the hardware DIYable and everybody would be happy.
Stuff would be cheaper if several Chinese companies produce it and sell it, as there will be competition. certification could be a problem though, but at least you could develop it according with the current law.

You have also not lived the private discussions directly with FrSky people that have contributed to the changes in attitude. They've been sneaky, manipulative, threatening and disrespectful, and very clearly insinuating that "OpenTX was going to do what FrSky wants now". Sorry, no chance.

No I haven't, and like me, other people that also haven't would not like what has been said here about frsky.
I already said here somewhere above that it is my choice not to buy frsky radios because I saved for nearly an year to buy the prototype of the radio I saw, and when it came out was completely different from what i wanted. therefore i decided that from that day on I will DIY all my stuff. and guess what, what I have and build has been so far waaayy better than any commercial stuff i have handled. The QX7 for example. terrible.. I have a broken one right in front of me that needs the processor replaced. Also died because of the dreadful "USB Joystick Sydrome". it is not the first, and it won't be the last. I still have my first radio, currently with the 9xtreme board and the absolutely amazing ErskyTX. 9 years on my hands, never let me down. It has a DIY multiProtocol module internally, and all my models fly self made DIY receivers, not the compatible ones from Banggood. Never had a link loss that wasn't my fault. Never crashed a model because of my radio. and any of my radios ever died on me.. Not even the 9XR-PRO

Like I said, I think Frsky, and the open source community have to put their S``t together.

João

[Carbo]

as I said, you are smart people and can even create your own killer protocol. and let anyone else that wanted to use it sell their own hardware that would be compatible with that protocol. I think this is reasonable and avoid situations like this one.

This is a very good proposal.

Stuff would be cheaper if several Chinese companies produce it and sell it, as there will be competition.

Cheaper and/or better ...each his own.

[Syldoc]

Since OpenTX was bought and handled by FrSky, I regret to have financially participated in its past development and that for an open source software, it is really shameful that the development for the competitors of FrSky (Jumper T16 for my part) is blocked.
It is certain that I stopped supporting you since this huge mistake and taking sides.
I have a Taranis X9d+ and, by the anti competitors way to do from FrSky, I let it on my left to focus on T16.

[jhsa]

I am not sure I understand your post..

João

[MikeB]

Since OpenTX was bought and handled by FrSky, I regret to have financially participated in its past development and that for an open source software, it is really shameful that the development for the competitors of FrSky (Jumper T16 for my part) is blocked.
It is certain that I stopped supporting you since this huge mistake and taking sides.
I have a Taranis X9d+ and, by the anti competitors way to do from FrSky, I let it on my left to focus on T16.

openTx has not been bought by FrSky. openTx is now available for the T16, so it hasn't been blocked.

Mike