Вечный спор с адептами Футабы ...

[AlexSr]

Читаю тут РСгруп, и что вижу:

I have gone with the FASST also for the same reasons Gandolf Sr gave. I am also an electonic engineer and do believe the Futaba system is technically superior to Spectrum. I just wish Futaba did as good a job on the physical parts as Futaba has done electically.

- Типа, "Я верю в Футабу, она божественна" 

Ну, как? Аргументация на уровне?

А вот, другая аргументация:

Gandalf, I could read your post all day long and not make one good argument for or against. All I care about is does the system work. At the national heli fly-in at Mincie this year they had 720 pilots. Only 120 were on 72 and had their radios inpounded all the others used 2.4 most were using Spektrum. They had 15 flight stations and stayed busy until dark. Each of us picks one we like and trust. We did it with wide band and then again with narrow band and now 2.4. O yes don't forget the JoNall 500+ pilots.
At our jet show this year I sold 8 JR modules in less then 1 hour. All they did was install the receiver and range check them. Those guys flew for three days without one problem. The jets have moved as fast as the heli guys have. The GS are right behind. Everybody is flying together with no problems. We can what if's all day, but the fact remains the systems work together and the numbers prove it. Dennis

Как Вам? Хели-шоу где 720 пилотов тусуются? Из них - 120 на ФМ диапазоне, а остальные - 2.4 , и Спектрума большинство ... И никаких проблем ...

[AlexSr]

А вот грамотно рассказанно, как работают системы DSM и FASST.

This thread was started by a question concerning spread spectrum (SS) technology, so I thought I would take a stab at answering the original post. Disclaimer: I’m not a spread spectrum expert but I am an engineer with an RF, networking and embedded system design background, and I’ve done some research on the entire SS thing. What follows is my own opinion and interpretation of the marketing information from the different companies and some info I’ve gleaned from various SS-dedicated sites and whitepapers. Also, I own a Futaba transmitter, but I'm not a Futaba bigot; JR, Hitec, etc. are all great transmitters.

As I understand it, Futaba’s FASST is a pure frequency hopping spread spectrum system (FHSS) with no feedback from the receiver to the transmitter. Spektrum’s DSM is a direct sequence spread spectrum system (DSSS) that uses receiver feedback at power up to select a pair of clean channels. I believe that DSSS is technically a better approach then FHSS because it has lower latencies and supports higher bandwidths, but it’s a lot more complicated and more prone to multipath problems. FHSS is easier and cheaper and usually transmits at higher power levels; it works well enough for RC requirements. FYI, I think XPS is a hybrid frequency agile DSSS system that uses one frequency until the receiver’s bit error rate hits a limit, at which point they both hop to another pre-determined frequency.

FHSS works more or less like this: The transmitter and receiver use the transmitter’s unique ID code to build a table of frequencies, sort of a hop order list. The transmitter and receiver build the same table, since the receiver uses the transmitter’s ID code once its bound. When it powers up, the receiver syncs with the transmitter by just monitoring one frequency in the table and waiting until the transmitter hops onto that frequency. The receiver knows that it’s the correct transmitter because every frame contains that unique ID code. This is important because over about a 200mS period every FASST transmitter will hop through all frequencies, and the receiver has got to pick the right transmitter; the hop order is a lot different from transmitter to transmitter due to a low cross-correlation between the ID codes and the hop-order algorithm, so there’s no long-term interference between different systems. When the receiver is looking for sync, if that first channel is noisy, the receiver will wait a little and if it can’t find sync it will go sit on another frequency. It will eventually find the right transmitter, and then they will hop together across the entire 2.4GHz range. An alternative to the pre-calculated stored table of hops is to use the ID code to generate the hop sequence on the fly; everything else works the same way. FHSS systems broadcast each hop at the same power. If FASST supports about 100 separate channels and assuming an 80MHz total frequency range and allowing for guardbands, their channel bandwidth may be around 500KHz and their data rate will be in the order of 100-250Kbps. That’s much lower then a DSSS system can potentially have, but certainly adequate for RC usage.

FHSS doesn’t know or care if it steps on someone else’s frequency (another hopper or a DSSS system); if it loses a frame, it will get another one in a couple of milliseconds. BTW, I’ve seen some posts about FASST’s pre-vision technology alluding to pre-vision changing the hop sequence. Its hard to get any real info from all of the marketing stuff, but I don’t believe that’s what it does because of the required complexity and because that’s just not what hoppers do; I think pre-vision is some form of forward error correction coding which will allow the protocol to correct a certain number of bit errors and also detect and discard badly errored frames. There are a ton of error checking/correcting codes out there that are easy to implement and inexpensive from a bitrate overhead perspective. BTW, my understanding is that most military battleground systems use FHSS.

DSSS (Spektrum’s DSM) is a lot different from FHSS. The real baseband data (servo data) is XOR’d with a long, high speed pseudorandom sequence (PRS) which effectively raises (spreads) its bandwidth to maybe a megahertz or two. A DSSS system’s data rate can be very high if it uses a long PRS and a very high speed xor’ing function, since this will increase the overall channel bandwidth. The transmitter and receiver use the same sequence, which is derived from the transmitter’s unique ID code which the receiver gets when its bound to the transmitter. The receiver knows the channel(s) its using (agreed upon during the power up sequencing) but it has to get in sync with the transmitter and then autocorrelate the real data from the high speed data (using the same sequence), which de-correlates any narrowband jamming signal such as a FASST system that hops through their channel. This correlation process introduces something called processing gain which allows a DSSS system to operate at lower power or to get better range at the same average power as compared to an FHSS system. Because of the different pseudorandom sequences in different transmitters, two or more DSSS systems can actually use the same channel at the same time with no interference (this is how CDMA cell phones work) but I don’t think Spektrum makes an attempt to do this because they seem to have a limit of 40 systems at a time. Spektrum uses two channels per link; if one is hit or goes down, its got another one running in parallel and it probably selects the “best” data from either receiver for each frame. If a DSSS system uses a long enough sequence, it is effectively unjamable and if the transmitted power is below the ambient noise its also totally undetectable with any kind of receiver (I bet the spook/delta force type guys love that one!). Speaking as an engineer this is all much cooler then frequency hopping, which is sort of a brute force solution.

DSM may be technically better then FASST (depending on your definition of better), but I think Futaba did a nicer job on the entire system by making their receiver work down to a lower voltage level and reboot/resync faster. Things like that are really important to me, much more important then how cool the approach is. Also, it’s a lot easier to deal with one receiver then several, and FHSS handles the multipath issues that are inherent with 2.4GHz systems better then DSSS. I believe this multipath business is why Futaba can get away with only using a two-antenna diversity system while Spektrum had to use two separate receivers and two different channels. DSSS’s (potentially) better range and higher speed (lower latency) data capability are not that important to me because you can’t fly out of sight anyway, and when you get down to it, we’re just flying little planes around with relatively low resolution servos and we really don’t need to send that much data.

I’m personally waiting for the TM-8 modules from Futaba for a couple of reasons: I think FHSS is good enough and I like their overall system design better then Spektrum’s. The main reason, however, is that I own a Futaba 9c super transmitter and if something goes wrong with the thing I don’t want to get into a pissing contest with two different companies to get it fixed; I’ll just pack the entire thing up and send it off to Futaba and let them worry about what broke. Also, I’m hoping that Futaba offers a software upgrade in the future to my transmitter and module to add features or maybe that ninth channel; this is something that Spektrum can never do in a mixed Futaba/Spektrum system. Notwithstanding the above, I think Spektrum has built some terrific stuff and that they’re a great choice if you like the technology or if you finally get tired of waiting for Futaba to ship their gear. A Spektrum module in a JR transmitter might also someday give you the software upgrade I hope to get from Futaba.

In my mind, a bigger issue concerning the Futaba stuff isn’t FASST vs. DSM2, its Futaba’s apparent lack of compatibility within its own system. You may know that the 6EX/2.4, 7C/2.4 and TM-14 module works with all of their old and new receivers while the TM-7 does not work with the original 6-channel receiver, the R606FS. This clearly indicates that in some sense there is a FASST-1 and FASST-2 system out there, and I would really like to find out what they changed (or fixed) when they came out with the newer stuff. The TM-8 module is listed on their webpage as NOT compatible with the R606FS, but its late shipment is hopefully caused by a redesign to fix this. At least I’m hoping that’s what’s causing it.

Ссылка на ИСТОЧНИК .

[a-korenev]

Интересная информация. Спасибо! Многие аспекты прояснились.
Преимущества систем , как я понял такие:
DSM - лучшая помехозащищённость и latensy.
FASST - проще, дешевле и больше мощность.
XPS - комбинированная система.
Впрочем и недостатки есть у всех.
Будем ждать появления систем с использованием протокола WirelessUSB

[AlexSr]

  - а чего ждать? Спектрум то как раз и использует чипы Цупресса с WirelessUSB.
Как я понимаю, Цупресс именно и отошел от консорциума ЗигБи, из за расхождений в подходах.
ЗигБи - это очень похоже на WirelessUSB (тот же DSSS) , за одним принципиальным отличием:
WirelessUSB - заточ на более высокую скорость передачи информации, в то время как ЗигБи - под минимальное потребление и соответственно автономность.
ЗигБи в основном предполагает применение в системах близких к телеметрии: автономные дистанционные датчики. Но скорость передачи информации не высока.
ЗигБи так же позволяет организовывать сложные сетевые структуры с множеством промежуточных рутеров/репитеров. При этом упор на доставку информации, а не на скорость её прохождения.

А вот WirelessUSB - наоборот, проектировался именно как замена проводного USB. Предполагает топологию с одним хабом (звезда) и максимально возможной скоростью передачи информации.
При этом, в зависимости от условий приёма/передачи может динамически изменять скорость обмена. Но, это врядли реализованно в RC приложении. Так как там отсутствует обратный канал квитирования приёма (подтверждения).
А вот с XPS - эээ, не совсем понятно. Я писал в теме Устройство управления модельным двигателем про интересное ЗигБи решение на одном кристалле. Там в линейке есть модули с 100мW выходом (с усилительным каскадом) - производитель заявляет дальность в пределе до 4км !
Но! Такая дальность возможна в "тепличных" условиях. Приёмник и передатчик неподвижны, находятся в прямой видимости, поляризация антенн совпадает ... и скорость минимальна. При этом - вполне допустимым может быть наличие до 90% ошибок   Для задач ЗигБи - это не принципиально. Главное - что бы пакет дошел, а когда - неважно!

А вот в RC применении - как раз самое важное, это КОГДА дойдёт пакет. Если дойдёт  

От сюда и решение, принятое в Спектруме: для "взрослого" устройства необходимо минимум два разнесённых приёмника (поляризация- разная ориентация антенн, и замирание - расстояние между приёмниками). А поскольку передача идёт одновременно по двум частотным каналам - антенн должно бы быть четыре.
Но ... тут похоже Спектрум поступил "по проще". И входы двух независимых приёмных трактов микросхемы обьеденены на одной антенне. А два уса - это штырь и противовес.
Ну, а что уж говорить про вариант с AR9000, где можно получить ЧЕТЫРЕ независимых точки приёма с ВОСЕМЬЮ антеннами ЧЕТЫРЕ независимых точки приёма .
  На сколько повышается практически качество (точнее стабильность) приёма в такой конфигурации ? Думаю значительно.

Как я и писал уже - спектрум будет держать связь "до последнего", потом начнёт недолго "тормозить" и очень быстро "умрёт"   (это - при постоянном удалении/ухудшении связи или росте помехи). Так что учтите - если модель управляемая Спектрумовской аппаратурой начала "тупить" - надо совершать экстренную посадку или моментально возвращать модель к себе.

[AlexSr]

Ааа....ааа !  8) В свете последних событий, это выглядит просто потрясающей ЛОЖЬЮ ! 

Вот, что то дёрнуло меня глянуть на Эсприте описание на Futaba T12FG
(Да, к стати, это ИНТЕГРАЛЬНЫЙ вариант? или развод? - ни слова ...  )

Вот, маркетологи жгут по полной :

It's here...and it's everything modelers want in a full-range 2.4GHz system! Futaba has been using Spread Spectrum technology for nearly 15 years in industrial R/C applications, so they have the dedicated engineering staff with 2.4GHz expertise. Unlike other manufacturers who started offering 2.4GHz for hobby R/C models using off-the-shelf IC chips, Futaba invested in extra research and development - resulting in a system that uses a custom IC chip that's ideally suited for the unique demands of R/C modeling. When you discover all the advantages of Futaba's 2.4GHz FASST system, you'll see that it was worth the wait!

   8) 
То есть, другими словами, ЕЩЁ ДО ВСЕХ, ДО БЛЮТУСА, ДО СТАНДАРТА, футаба УЖЕ ЗАНИМАЛАСЬ РАЗРАБОТКОЙ СИСТЕМЫ фаст НА 2.4 .....  :'( 15 !!! ЛЕТ НАЗАД !!! 

Блин, а первый космонавт на луне - сотрудник Футабы ? Думаю да, как же иначе!

[AlexSr]

Вот, более точный текст. Это на Эсприте "наврали" наверно ...

Futaba gets it right the first time.

Futaba takes great pride in making sure that every new product performs flawlessly before it's offered to our customers. Others hesitate to invest so much effort in testing. Some may even consider their "first run" products a step in the process of working out bugs, using feedback from the earliest buyers. Futaba is different. When you choose a Futaba 2.4GHz FASST radio system or module/receiver set, you've selected a fully tested, well-engineered, totally reliable product – one that's absolutely ready to give demanding R/C hobbyists the performance they expect. Our hands-on experience with 2.4GHz technology stretches back 15 years, long before anyone considered its value in hobby applications. That's when engineers in Futaba's industrial R/C division – designers of radio-control tools for construction, civil engineering, and similar uses – began employing and perfecting their own 2.4GHz equipment. Those same engineers were brought in to share their knowledge as soon as we were comfortable that 2.4GHz technology had perfected for the unique demands of R/C hobby applications. No other radio manufacturer had such an instant supply of expertise.

 
 Тестили - тестили, и натестили...
Источник http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8895117&postcount=49