Right, and do you have any verifiable data to show that the wand is any worse than any other NRF based transceiver? We dont actually know any measurable reference do we? Not yet at least? I mean so far all we have is the remote doesnt work from 10 meters away if I put my body in front of it or if I am significant distances and I point the top of the remote at the board. We think it performs worse than a PMW remote and it doesnt perform too well encased in RF blocking material. That is good to know but it’s not really usable without knowing do other NRF based remotes do the same thing. @DerelictRobot am I correct in thinking that your remote is based on the same technology? Would it be a fair test to pit the OSRR and wand against each other?
I really wish you would quit it with the misdirection/ deflection.
This is not a conversation about the Unity. I’d actually be interested in that conversation and your testing, but when you bring it up here it’s clearly for the purpose of misdirection.
This doesn’t help the topic at hand at all and only hurts your position.
It’s actually entirely different tech in the current beta hardware. Different radio technology entirely.
1.0 hardware design is closer to Wand in regards to radio tech/MCU for cost reduction. More powerful radio setup though.
Damn. Is there another remote on the market I can use to measure it against?
No it would not. Unless the question is: which remote OSSR or WAND has the better signal?
There seems to be a whole lot of talk and not enough data on this thread.
It seems remotes currently have to work even with the receiver inside a metal box and thrown in the ocean, otherwise they are not fit for purpose…
Edit: So far my WAND has been working just fine but I would like a better feeling potentiometer.
Ok but you see what I am trying to do here right?
We need a control, something similar we can measure the wand against. I can measure the wand and NRF dongle in a scientific manner and produce RF propagation plots but currently we have no benchmark
if they use dual receivers on model airplanes why not esk8?
Ugh… You really sound like a dickhead here Frank. Why the fuck would you work with an OPEN SOURCE project and then talk shit about projects coming out behind yours (Ben Vedders actually)? That’s the fun of open source. For example, look at Ubuntu and how many flavors there are. People love options.
But anyways. Looks like you guys made some dumb decisions with this remote.
Guys everyone remove yourselves from your entrenched positions and ask yourself this, if I could have my remote link be more impervious to external interference, would I want that? And what would it cost?
The answer is obviously YES and the cost is very little. That’s all I’m trying to say. Simple tests can demonstrate the truth behind this and the theory supports it.
It’s impossible to say what levels of interference riders will see on the streets, so if there’s a nice easy way to get a big boost in signal integrity why wouldn’t you want that?
That is not relevant to the point I made. What I’m trying to say is that the wand is a retail product, released for retail use, not a beta. And yet there are multiple accounts of disconnects, cutouts, and previously freezes.
The OSRR is a beta product, and from my personal experience has 0 cutout or disconnect issues when placed beside a focbox, within 2 in of phase wires, in a CF enclosure, on a deck with a layer of CF on the top.
It is obvious to anyone that doesn’t have an agenda or doesn’t specifically want this trampo product to succeed that there are issues. Those issues contain disconnects and cutouts which makes them dangerous. That is absolutely unacceptable In a retail released product. I have no doubt had any other manufacturer, such as FlipSky or a Enertion or Maytech, release the product with this many flaws to the retail market the same people that are screaming that “Trampa’s gear is awesome” would be grabbing their pitchforks.
I applaud your desire to gather data and create a quantifiable result, I think your labeling issues as resolved is skewed. Clipping a receiver to the outside of a board is absolutely not a fix. It’s a guarantee that the receiverw will eventually be damaged.
I will repeat what I said earlier. if you can put a mini or nano in a specific position on a specific board and it works, then replace it with another receiver in the same position on the same board and it doesn’t work, the problem is the receiver/remote. That should be obvious to everyone.
I know what you mean Lee.
However I am really disappointed in the direction this thread is going.
@mmaner I would not be so quick on the trigger on the title changing.
I didn’t make the title change, someone else made the title change, I simply put it back.
You know what I mean Mike.
The title was fair as it was, your edit was not. At least not right now.
I have no clue what you mean, I know what you said. I disagree that it was fair, it is a fact that there are issues with the remote, regardless of how many people want to cover them up. They are documented and present in this thread should you care to read them.
I’d consider a lot of it just sub-optimal design as opposed to an actual issue. The second I get a dropout that would change but still getting my new child built at the moment.
This is all well and good a but again I call for DATA mike.
Please tell me, what data do you have? Currently we know of 4 RF issues in 165. That’s not to say that’s all the reported issues, it’s what we know, ergo, it’s the data we have.
Now I am going to say this and then I am not going to post in this thread anymore until I have data to contribute with. I am not a Trampa Fanboy, I dont think you are going to believe me due to all the digs you have dropped in here about agendas and cover ups but that’s the fact. I have both praised and criticised trampa products, on video. I have argued with Frank here on the forum and when I went to see them I criticised the wand to both Frank and Ted. I couldnt give a damn what Trampa think of me, I will review things how I see and I will comment based on my experiences. I know that you will do the same too and that’s cool but so far you have zero experiance with the device personally and you are giving your opinions based on what you are reading on the internet, which is never a good thing to do.
Please stop questioning my integrity, I wont have you allude to me being in any way biased, I make great efforts to be neutral and you saying things like this is really pissing me off, I call for a civil discussion and I have tried my hardest to do that so far.
I am now leaving this thread alone until I come back with some data.
It is a fact, as posted by @Skaterboy58, that there only way he could get a reliable connection was by clipping the receiver to the phase wires. That is unacceptable as a solution.
It is also a fact that you accepted that as a solution, so every other issue that you have labeled as resolved is in question.
I don’t understand, can’t understand, regardless of attempts to see this from your viewpoint, how you could call that resolved. It’s unacceptable.
Actually Mikey I gotta fully agree with @Lee_Wright on this one. You’ve gone as far as to question my bias as well when it comes to Trampa when I’m disagreeing with you. Not a cool tactic.
The title stuff is silly too, and you know it.
You might consider recusing yourself from this topic if you aren’t actively involved in the testing. We’ve got a number of people doing testing on this, myself included, and we’ll gather some data.
Until then, it’s finger pointing and conjecture.
And I won’t either the current manufacturing ethos.
Then how could you possible call this product “good” when you are sometimes forced to externally mount the receiver when literally zero other remotes require this?
Join the club, I simple cannot fathom how anyone can not see that there are issues. Calling them resolved doesn’t make it true, obviously it criteria for resolved are very different.
I will grant you have been very civil and respectful, I applaud that. That does not mean that I have to agree with your opinion. I have asked about your criteria, you didn’t answer and continue to label this remote as reliable when it’s clear to most people it is not. That makes me question you motives.