Humper and RadioCopier systems

[getsuyoubi]

It would be great if Aloft (and other official dealers elsewhere) offered a free service to flash FrSky TX and RX to the latest (stable) firmware before shipping, as an option when the customer puts the product in the cart. That would also take care of much of the anxiety of customers new to FrSky, and would distinguish the official dealers from others like BG that do not offer any service whatsoever. I read it several times on forums that customers are not happy with the fact that they have to flash brand new products as soon as they get them.

 

[Konrad]

Aloft does offer this service. The catch is that you have to know about the FW issues to ask. If you know about the issue, it is likely you know how to maintain your own Firmware. Stable may not be the best term.

FW offer changes (options) that the end user my or may not want. It is always a good idea to review the software package for any software driven product for features you might want or want to avoid. This would be for lower level revisions numbers. But for major changes like v1.x.xx and v2.x.xx there should be a way for FrSky to implement the change at point of manufacture so that the new out of box products actually talk with each other.

To have to perform a maintenance action on newly purchased products just to get them to work at a basic level is not conducive to a good customer experience, or repeat purchase!

On the software front FrSky is their own worst enemy. This leave the door wide open for the second tier supplier to take market share. (FrSky read; slaughter you in the market place)!

 

[Nigel]

Offering soley ACCST V2 receivers would be... a poor decision for us, to say the least. 90% of the FrSky radios out there are still on V1. Out of the 60-70 receivers we ship out daily, we usually get a request one per week to update to V2.

I'll talk with Wayne regarding @getsuyoubi's suggestion, I actually quite like that idea. The only issue is - we cannot spend our entire day flashing receivers, so we need to find a happy medium to balance our work time with static (eg flashing receivers) and fluid (eg creating new product) progress.

 

[Konrad]

Offering solely ACCST V2 receivers would be... a poor decision for us, to say the least. 90% of the FrSky radios out there are still on V1. Out of the 60-70 receivers we ship out daily, we usually get a request one per week to update to V2.
...

I hope that isn't true!

But despite the urgent call (in the firmware download section) FrSky hasn't seen fit to upgrade their own production release and upgraded to v2.1.xx. This alone undermines the urgency for the customer base to upgrade to this safety driven update.

I assume most FrSky customer are like me, in that we are aware of the ACCST v1/v2 issue and have upgraded our own TX to v2. I know that when I buy a ACCST RX it will come with the obsolete and dangerous v1 firmware. I do this safety upgrade to v2 on my own.

What surprised me was that ACCeSS (FrSky's premier software and hardware) TX is shipped with ACCeSS v.1, while the RX is shipped with the modern and much safer v2.

 

[Nigel]

I think most people don't have your... enthusiasm (yes, I know that's a poor choice of words) or commitment to firmware releases and keeping up to date. Heck, I'm forced to keep up to date with it, and at the end of the day, I want to go out and fly. V1 or V2, I don't feel any risk and if my stuff works reliably (as it has been) I'll be hard pushed to change anything.

Can't speak for everyone, but I think a lot of people are in the same boat. I know everybody at the shop still runs ACCST V1, just because it's the easiest solution, never mind the best.

Don't forget, a large part of FrSky's market lies in far less niche and expensive areas of the hobbies (like gliders). I think the best metric of severity when it comes to the ACCST V1 issues is the fact that we only flash 1 outgoing receiver a week to V2 - don't fix what isn't broken (at least most of the time).

Yes, their firmware mismatches are far from ideal. We try to mitigate it's impact as much as possible, hopefully this will not be the case in the future. I know Wayne has pushed strongly for this in Ethos.

 

[Wayne]

Due to Covid we are still short of labor at Aloft otherwise we would probably make the firmware upgrade announcements.

I suspect we may see FrSky jump over to V2 in the future. Dealers have asked them to stay with V1 as so many people seem to be staying. We may well start listing some receivers as V2 and see how that goes. It is not too bad to do a handful of the same unit at a time. One at a time is a bit more painful.

 

[Konrad]

I think most people don't have your... enthusiasm (yes, I know that's a poor choice of words) or commitment to firmware releases and keeping up to date. Heck, I'm forced to keep up to date with it, and at the end of the day, I want to go out and fly. V1 or V2, I don't feel any risk and if my stuff works reliably (as it has been) I'll be hard pushed to change anything.

Can't speak for everyone, but I think a lot of people are in the same boat. I know everybody at the shop still runs ACCST V1, just because it's the easiest solution, never mind the best.

Don't forget, a large part of FrSky's market lies in far less niche and expensive areas of the hobbies (like gliders). I think the best metric of severity when it comes to the ACCST V1 issues is the fact that we only flash 1 outgoing receiver a week to V2 - don't fix what isn't broken (at least most of the time).

Yes, their firmware mismatches are far from ideal. We try to mitigate it's impact as much as possible, hopefully this will not be the case in the future. I know Wayne has pushed strongly for this in Ethos.

That is the rub, ACCST v1 is broken, as shown by the amateur German team! Saying that something hasn't killed me, isn't the same as saying it is safe! This is not how one should manage risk. It would be much like playing Russian roulette you know statistically you are going to loose.

You are correct I don't understand folks not wanting to minimize the risk even with their small throwaway drones. ACCST v1 should not be offered for sale. Do keep it on the FrSky site, so that those that are aware of its limitation can go backwards and use it if it is the best for their situation. But FrSky should be driving the customer base forward to ACCST v2 or ACCeSS v2 by default. It is the safest and right thing to do!

 

[Kilrah]

People have been flying ACCST v1 for 6 years before the issue was discovered. Many consider it safer to stay with what has worked for them than change and deal with whatever other issues may or may not have been introduced in v2, especially given the hassle to reflash everything and that there actually have been issues on v2 for the first few months after its introduction.

Also seeing the thread title... having seen the posted ethos simulator frsky seem to have taken back the copycat crown, and wear it better than anyone else had before making it very ironic.

 

[Konrad]

My understanding is ACCST v1 has been an issue since day one. Even before the amateur German team found and isolated it.

So true with FrSky's software validation process. I recall there were over 4 iteration published of the fix for ACCST v1, disgraceful.

This is why we old timers say never be the first upon which FrSky tries any new product. But with ACCST v2. it has now passed the test of time and should be fully implemented into ones fleet!

Are you suggesting that Ethos is based on OpenTX tech? Yes, it is based on bit and bites, but the user interface is vastly different. With the Simulator what would one define as unique to OpenTX that FrSky has cloned? Conceptually all simulators are to predictively mimic the primary system (software or physical world).

All the best,
Konrad

 

[Kilrah]

My understanding is ACCST v1 has been an issue since day one. Even before the amateur German team found and isolated it.

It has been, but the point is it was minor enough not to be discovered for 6 years. In the same vein v2 might have issues that won't be discovered before years so you can't consider it safer.

Are you suggesting that Ethos is based on OpenTX tech?

It may be a complete code rewrite, but apart from the added canned mixes it is literally OpenTX with a different skin. Every concept is identical, down to the available choices for the various settings. And the additions and reskin are basically what we had planned for the next opentx versions.

I guess I understand why Wayne's been saying it would be good... of course if you just recreate the same thing it will be.

 

[Konrad]

We had assumed that most deviations from controlled flight where attributed to other factors. Nothing is totally safe. This is why we deal with risk management. But once the issues are known and the cause identified by an amateur group of enthusiast ACCST v1 can no longer be though of as safe code.

If a program has been subjected to a full and proper validation process then yes new code can be thought of as safe. Operative term here is, full and proper validation process. With FrSky your point is well taken.

Not seeing the source code, from here OpenTX isn't fundamentally that different from the mixer philosophy we first saw Multiplex PROFI mc 4000 v2 (PROFI mc 3000) in the late 80's. Where does one draw the line from where we build upon the tech of the past and that of copying (cloning). I like the trick Bill Gates used in his software where he had code that had no value and would only be there if someone copied the code. That was pretty obvious to the court that the software in question was a copy or use Gates code as a basis.

Jumper, RadioMaster and FrSky and any other OEM needs to put ACCST v1 to bed! If for no other reason than it is a product with a known flaw and that there is a proven solution to this flaw.

 

[Wayne]

@Kilrah - Wow, I am surprised, by your statements on Ethos. Correct me if I am wrong, OpenTX came from ER9X and added flight modes. That was the original goal, wasn't it? And ER9X was based on Multiplex and refined a bit. So really the credit for this should go to Multiplex, or whoever they were inspired by.

In my working with Ethos I would say there is a lot different, and I feel there is MAJOR progress in making Ethos far easier, something we have been after the OpenTX team to do for years. I think you are complimenting Ethos that is has parts that look familiar, but the method of programming is very different. There is no inputs page, there is no outputs page, etc. Let's not forget that it can take advantage of a touch screen. Something OpenTX team did not want to tackle at the launch of the X12S that was going to have a touch screen. You know as well as I do that these are not small changes that could easily be adapted to OpenTX.

This is not an attack on OpenTX, you know I love it.

 

[2MUCH2DO]

As a software engineer, I can tell you that when asked to perform a task we have already done, it tends to come out the same way twice. In fact there have been several intellectual property suits over the years involving developers who were former employees of the competition. The rulings in those cases have been that similarity, right down to algorithm logic and even names only indicates that the same developer did the work, not that anything was copied or stolen.

Now those that are good will take what they have learned and leap-frog it the next time with better, especially when they are forced to start over, and not allowed to borrow.

I would agree with Kilrah that if I didn't know that openTX was not involved in this development I would assume that this was a skin on a fork of openTX. I do see some things that are different and the UI would lead me to believe that they are under the hood as well. I'm excited, and I do understand FrSky's desire to own their own destiny as a company.

 

[Kilrah]

Wow, I am surprised, by your statements on Ethos. Correct me if I am wrong, OpenTX came from ER9X and added flight modes. That was the original goal, wasn't it? And ER9X was based on Multiplex and refined a bit. So really the credit for this should go to Multiplex, or whoever they were inspired by.

There were inspirations from other systems everywhere and it's expected, but it was not 1:1. Multiplex never had special functions for example, neither does er9x. Ethos mostly has exactly the same structure and same options than OpenTX, 90% of it at least is identical to OpenTX. It's pretty astonishing people like you can't see it, since everyone that isn't tied to frsky has told us that was what they found as well...

there is no outputs page

I've seen one, and again it's mostly got the same settings.

Also, VERY importantly, both er9x and OpenTX are open source, and are thus designed to be copied and reused, but at the condition that further improvements are open sourced as well so that everyone gets to benefit from the improvements, just like whoever started from it benefited from prior work.

I'd have nothing against it if it was also open source as it should be given it's an incremental improvement to OpenTX in the same sense that OpenTX was over er9x, but this being close sourced is downright unethical.

You know as well as I do that these are not small changes that could easily be adapted to OpenTX.

That's complete BS, OpenTX 2.4 code in its current state runs on a touchscreen and that was always the goal, adding the same kind of canned mixes ethos has was also a plan. Ethos actually uses the graphics library that was written for OpenTX 2.4! The only reason there isn't a release version of 2.4 is ethos and frsky having successfully diverted Bertrand from it, against what was promised when he was hired.
He said himself that he could have done all of this in maybe 3 months on OpenTX instead of spending almost 2 years on Ethos just to achieve the same.

The most ironic is that frsky and blind followers have been crying wolf about the "Humper and RadioCopier systems" being the schematic of the X10 with another skin (PCB design, case) and a couple of things added and that this was wrong to do, and now ethos is exactly that on the software side, it's OpenTX with another skin and a couple of things added and somehow that should be OK unlike the former.

If you're going to label something as bad you're usually not gonna do the same right behind, right? The entire discussion about other systems being copies and "bad guys" is now entirely null and void since it's visibly perfectly OK when done the other way.

 

[HENNY]

Andre we understand your connection with Opentx. This is a new beginning for FRsky and Ethos will open some new doors to the way we program our radios. Frankly I am excited to see what develops, but I know I can easily go back to Opentx if all else fails.

Maybe the Opentx team may even use some of the Ethos ideas and incorporate them into the the next level of Opentx. What comes around goes around.

 

[Konrad]

After hearing FrSky cry about the MPM and then learning that Vantec is the sales arm of Frsky. FrSky's credibility is lost in the market place.

FrSky needs at address this charge about the graphic library. I'd like to learn about the influence FrSky had on an OpenTX member (Bertrand). Was OpenTX truly an open source project. Or was in manipulated by outside forces (FrSky).

Now the statement: "He (I assume Bertrand) said himself that he could have done all of this in maybe 3 months on OpenTX instead of spending almost 2 years on Ethos just to achieve the same." This leads me to think that Ethos is in fact a new program. Well as much as any program can be new.

But when dealing with FrSky I'd trust what they say with a grain of salt. From here it is Kilrah that has the credibility. It is up to FrSky to prove (show) that his statements are false or at least in error.

All the best,
Konrad

 

[gnichola]

FrSky needs at address this charge about the graphic library. I'd like to learn about the influence FrSky had on an OpenTX member (Bertrand). Was OpenTX truly an open source project. Or was in manipulated by outside forces (FrSky).

Open source does not mean corporation free. It means it is contributed to by a community and is available for anyone to use. Many companies put code they use internally into the open source community, and often it will be moved along as long as the company is using it. Once they stop needing it production on the open source project may cease.

What this really means is that the core contributors of OpenTx are free to do as they please, if FrSky gives them resources they are free to work on features or enhancements that suit FrSky. If you, or any other person out there is unhappy with the direction of OpenTx you are free to fork the repo and take it in any direction you see fit.

Regards, Guy

 

[Konrad]

I didn't mean to imply that FrSky was in the wrong or unethical to support OpenTX.

What I'm concerned with was that OpenTX appears to have hired a developer to add touch screen capacity and that this effort was circumvented by FrSky. There is also a lot of history in where FrSky tried to limit the use of OpenTX. I'm not privy to the details of this in house squabble.

But my concern is that FrSky has taken an open source developed code and incorporated it into its own closed proprietary project. This would be a violation of the license agreement, even if FrSky was a major financial corporate contributor to OpenTX.

All the best,
Konrad

 

[HENNY]

Konrad you have no idea what you are proposing. Every one of your posts is about how badly FRsky is performing to keep their product up to date. Get over it man.

 

[Konrad]

Get over what?

What am I proposing, is transparency in business?

I want FrSky to offer new products that work when first introduced. And I want this tech to be acquired and sold ethically. When dealing with FrSky these two concerns are often at the forefront of the debate.