Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mr.RC-Cam

2.4GHz R/C: How Far Have We Really Come?

Recommended Posts

Three years ago we were all giddy with excitement from the prospects of 2.4Ghz Spread Spektrum R/C entering the R/C aircraft market. Visions of zero interference, brainless installations, useful two-way telemetry, common R/C encoding standards (cross brand compatibility), and all sorts of cool things filled our thoughts.

Now, let's fast forward three years. The technology has landed. But are things really "better?"

I'm curious what R/C'ers really think about the new 2.4Ghz R/C systems. Has the 2.4Ghz R/C hype met all your expectations? So, if you have one, tell us how it has helped (or hurt) your R/C hobby activities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think it's great, the difference between land and air remotes have finally been blurred and I confidently have no issues driving my little rc boat and airplanes with my dx7. No glitches and fairly simple to setup. I do have one concern that the range seems to be less than the lower mhz systems though. That's about all I can see wrong with it.

Ivan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My boy uses it for racing at his car club and it's great for that. No car out of control, before 2.4 there was always guys complaining of interferece.

I guess it is good for aircraft too but I am happy using my 459Mhz system and it dose not clash with the 2.4Ghz video, for FPV this has to be the biggest problem.

Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh your right about it clashing with video. I have this 2.4ghz 10mw tx and rx that are awsome but would be affected if I used the radio system. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that the Spectrum and FASST systems have been around a while, what is thought to be the best ?

Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I´ve heard from my club members that FAST system is way better and rock solid than Spektrum. Even have a friend that have done multiple test on both and he came out with same conclusion. Personally I´d stick with other bands for rc rather than 2.4ghz, that I want to keep on using for video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've ignored the 2.4G R/C band, but would expect the FASST to be the most technically sophisticated. From what I understand, it's the only major player that actively frequency hops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys,

My boy uses Spektrum for his car which is ok but it dose still glitch.

I am considering it for my quad as it will be lighter than my UHF gear.

5.8Ghz video in case anyone is wondering.

Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does any one know what exact frequency range is used by the major manufactures of the 2.4ghz R/C transmitters?

I'm curious of any of the 8 widely availabe 2.4ghz video frequencies fall outside of them. My current video transmitters on 2.4 use the first 4 frequencies, and if I knew I could avoid 2.4 R/C interference, I'd probably switch to a different video TX.

Thanks guys,

My boy uses Spektrum for his car which is ok but it dose still glitch.

I am considering it for my quad as it will be lighter than my UHF gear.

5.8Ghz video in case anyone is wondering.

Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does any one know what exact frequency range is used by the major manufactures of the 2.4ghz R/C transmitters?

The whole band, potentially. Then it depends on the brand. As said above, most don't hop frequency but choose one or 2 anywhere in the band at powerup and stick to that. So you can't really know what it will choose to avoid it. Regarding FASST, it does continuously hop all across the band (2400-2483MHz). If you switch it to "France" mode, then it only uses 2400-2450MHz, leaving the room to use a camera on channel 4 without overlapping. BUT, while this solves the R/C -> video interference (no more white lines on the image), it does NOT help against the video TX severely reducing the R/C range, and nothing will. Just don't use the 2 together, end of story.

- Visions of zero interference - OK, no problems on the field. But with 2.4GHz video, out of question. So for the common RCer yes, for FPV no.

- brainless installations - I don't think one needed more brain cells to install a low freq system - maybe even fewer, as long as the right crystals are in it works, no weird binding procedures and flashing LEDs requiring the manual...

- useful two-way telemetry - Hmm, promises, promises...

- common R/C encoding standards (cross brand compatibility) - Now that's a good joke. Give me PPM any day.

For me the ONLY real advantage is not requiring frequency control on a field. Even if I wasn't FPVing and have it ruled out due to 2.4GHz video, I wouldn't find it worth a multi hundred (thousand?) $ change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if I wasn't FPVing and have it ruled out due to 2.4GHz video, I wouldn't find it worth a multi hundred (thousand?) $ change.

We think the same. Hard enough to get the video link working good without having to worry about the RC controls It's amazing how much great 72 mhz came on the market, used and new, the past year. I picked up a JR7202 NIB system for less than $100. Amazing to me because I can't help relating back to the 1950s when a 465mhz Citizenship single channel bump bump rig w/ Bonner escapement cost about the same .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×