So what you are saying is Apple should make a radio :-) "D.O. Darnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can't argue with the weight or power consumption of a STY. Those early NSC processors and EPROMS are pretty power hungry. I'm glad you like your JR. However, The point I was trying to make, albeit poorly, was that reverting to a 20-year old problem (channel to channel mixing only ) is really kind of silly (unless you're talking about 14 channels, maybe). When you think about, all sets these days, whether JR, AIR, FUT HiT, etc are programmed by simply selecting a value on a screen and pushing a button or rotating a pot. Thats OK but could be much better.
My point is that we need the simplicity using abstractions having functional viewpoints, plus decent documentation/tutorials that "average" (non programmers) can understand and implement, PLUS the ability to adjust the "desktop" as it were to suit and serve the TX's user. At the same time, we need the upgradability like that of the PC so we can load SD chips, etc with whatever programming paradigm we wish to use, and understandable software to generate and update the same. An IDE (Integrated Development Environment) for the R/C TX, as it were. Some think this impossible or improbable, but I heard the same nay-saying when, a "few" years ago, I suggested on this forum that some day we wouldn't need frequency pins and that everyone could fly at once. Model setup storage is the first step in this direction. Airtronics was among the first to implement this (along with Multiplex). Perhaps the next step is, as my friend Don suggested, a good simulator program (MAC/PC) that will let you see (emulate reality) what you new setup is capable of in a "virtual" glider, prior to dumping it into the TX and using it for real. CRRSIM is an open-source simulator that features gliders. Check it out. *** It may, in a future iteration, qualify for the job of the emulator. The long-in-the-tooth Stylus was not the first programmable TX, nor was the even longer-toothed Vision (I still own two of them as well) but they were the first really useable and soaring-friendly programmables. Those which followed stood, as they say, on tall shoulders. C Systems Labs was responsible for their programming and I mentioned the STY as it uses this firms firmware. I never meant to imply that Stys are superior to JRs or anything of the kind, although several folks have apparently taken it that way. Guys like those at C Systems can program any brand it they chose to. JR seems to get picked on more than other brands, and even they could possibly use some help, once in a while. And for those of you who had Stylus problems, did you send them in for maintenance / service every three years of so? Uhuh! d.o. *** try GOOGLE On Aug 8, 2008, at 6:52 PM, Walter H wrote: > D.O., I got rid of my battery eating, heavy as a brick, hope the > internal batteries don't cause me to lose model memory, ect, ect > Stylus and got a JR 9303. I have never missed the Stylus not even > for a minute. Now that is saying a lot coming from me because I > owned two Visions prior to getting a Stylus. I was a dyed in the > wool Airtronics guy. But never again. > > Walter RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
