What's new
Aloft Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

X8R Update

Delta

New User
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
13
Reaction score
5
I just now updated an X8R that I bought probably more than 3 years ago. This was the first time I did an update on it because I also updated my Taranis to 2.2.2 OpenTX at the same time.

Looking at the brief description of the update for the X8R, it says that one of the things that are improved is that the update will "Enhance anti-interference capability."
So I'm seeing that one of the main features of the newer RX8R is that it is better for use with gas engines (assuming electronic ignition?).

Well with the X8R update "Enhancing anti-interference capability", doesn't that mean that the X8R with the newest update should perform as well in an "interference" environment as the RX8R is supposed to?
 
Joined
May 31, 2018
Messages
92
Reaction score
13
I just now updated an X8R that I bought probably more than 3 years ago. This was the first time I did an update on it because I also updated my Taranis to 2.2.2 OpenTX at the same time.

Looking at the brief description of the update for the X8R, it says that one of the things that are improved is that the update will "Enhance anti-interference capability."
So I'm seeing that one of the main features of the newer RX8R is that it is better for use with gas engines (assuming electronic ignition?).

Well with the X8R update "Enhancing anti-interference capability", doesn't that mean that the X8R with the newest update should perform as well in an "interference" environment as the RX8R is supposed to?

No. The "Enhancing anti-interference capability" fix is (probably) a fix to a "reset" bug that would cause X series receivers to reset but not restart properly. I believe this fix is available for all the standard X RXs. With the fix the RX may still reset in the presence of a noisy ignition/ ESC but it should now restart and recover.

The RX8R Pro is designed specifically to resist interference from noisy ignitions so that it is less likely to reset in the first place.
 

Wayne

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Messages
7,704
Solutions
2
Reaction score
4,374
Location
Novato, CA USA
@PressAllTheKnobs is correct.

The X8R with old fimrware is susceptible to very high ignition noise levels. It will literally turn off the receiver. This new firmware fixes that, but you would still be better off with an RX8R-Pro if you are running a plane with ignition. It has additional features to deal with RF noise from ignition systems.
 

ululi1970

User
Joined
Jun 17, 2019
Messages
122
Reaction score
17
I had a X8R flashed with the latest "Enhanced anti-interference capability" going into hard lock and staying there until power was cycled back. This even after failsafe killed the engine.
So, bottom line, stay away from X8Rs especially in models where you can't separate CDI and Rx by at least a foot or more.
D series Rx do not seem to have the same problem, or go with a Pro and XM+ combo.
 

Fireflite88

New User
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
92
Reaction score
6
Location
Lemoore, CA
I just bought the X8R for a gas model I'm not even close to having this thing in the air. Reading the comments I'm not sure if this will work for me. Will someone kindly help me out?
 

Konrad

Very Strong User
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
7,822
Reaction score
1,488
Location
San Francisco
The X8R is good RX but does not have the filters that are found in the X8R pro. You and your model deserve to start with the X8R pro. I honestly don't know why the "X8R" is still on the market when the "X8R pro" is the direct replacement and it has so many advantges.

All the best,
Konrad
 

Konrad

Very Strong User
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
7,822
Reaction score
1,488
Location
San Francisco
No, they are also great with glow and gliders. I would not use them with the RF noise we get with spark ignition engines. The X8Rpro is designed for that RF enviroment. I think the pro has been out for more than a year.

Like I said I wish FrSky would retire the X8R. I see no reason to keep it in the mix. The X8R pro isn't that expencive as to hurt sales. I think it would be best for all, if Fr Sky stopped making the X8R. Not that the X8R is bad,(I have 1/2 a dozen) it is just that the X8Rpro is so much better (I have almost 1/2 a dozen) for only a few dollars more.

All the best,
Konrad
 

Hank

Active User
Joined
Feb 26, 2018
Messages
339
Reaction score
42
Location
Dearborn, MI
Not sure if the S8R is the same as X8R but with the added gyro, but I flew it in a gasser for a couple of years without a single glitch. But I did recently replace it with the "PRO" and a backup XM+ receiver only because I needed the gyro in another plane.
So like Konrad said the X8R is not a bad receiver, it's that X8R PRO is better.
 

Jim0000

New User
Joined
Feb 14, 2020
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
I just bought the X8R for a gas model I'm not even close to having this thing in the air. Reading the comments I'm not sure if this will work for me. Will someone kindly help me out?

I have swapped all my X series receivers for the older, time proven, "D" series. Put simply, I don't want to risk using a "X" series receiver in my big CDI gas powered models any more. I crashed one already, using a X8R receiver after it failed. There is absolutely no reason to doubt the reliability of the old "D" series, or for that matter, the old "V" series.
Meanwhile, there is mounting evidence to seriously doubt some, if not all, "X" series receivers.
I don't know if thiis fits the category of "helping you out". If I was you, I would consider it to be so.

I just bought the X8R for a gas model I'm not even close to having this thing in the air. Reading the comments I'm not sure if this will work for me. Will someone kindly help me out?

See above. Put simply: Don't do it!
 

Konrad

Very Strong User
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
7,822
Reaction score
1,488
Location
San Francisco
Actually there IS reason to question the performance of the “D” & “V” series of RX or just about any product from FrSky. This is because FrSky does not have or use a robust (if any) validation process. This puts their whole product line into question. Just because the “german team” hasn’t found a problem with the “D” & “V” series of RX does not mean that they are free of short comings.

I will say that the modern “X” series of Rx has much better RF performance as the 2.4 gHz chip is much more sensitive. That is these 'X" series receivers have noticeably better range than the preceding receivers.

I would NOT recommend going backwards with the receiver technologies. I would wait for a proven (validated) firmware update to the XJT TX module and “X” series receivers.

All the best,
Konrad
 

Jim0000

New User
Joined
Feb 14, 2020
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Actually there IS reason to question the performance of the “D” & “V” series of RX or just about any product from FrSky. ..................

I am interesting in following up your claim, as you write authoritatively. Can you link me to discussion threads with similar multiple reports of RF failures using the older "D" and "V" series receivers (with or without ignition systems) as have been, and continue to be, reported on the fabled "X" series receivers?
If and when you can, I might be persuaded to adjust my conclusions.
So far, I have not read any.........but that might be a simple matter of my ignorance.........which is boundless!
I am not purposely trying to be contentious for it's own sake, merely trying to find the substantiation behind such claims.

I will say that the modern “X” series of Rx has much better RF performance as the 2.4 gHz chip is much more sensitive. That is these 'X" series receivers have noticeably better range than the preceding receivers.

As above. Where is the validating literature?

I would NOT recommend going backwards with the receiver technologies. I would wait for a proven (validated) firmware update to the XJT TX module and “X” series receivers.
....................

Thanks for that recommendation. How long should we modellers wait? Some of us are, quite literally, running out of time!
Getting old, fading eyesight etc.
We want it now!..................as the saying goes. (humour................!).

All the best to you too.

Jim.
 

Konrad

Very Strong User
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
7,822
Reaction score
1,488
Location
San Francisco
Let's back up. I'm saying that the absents of reported failure is not an indication that the firmware is without issues. As I recall one can't prove a negative.

The issue is not with the RF but rather the way FrSky is processing of the data packet with the firmware. I'm not aware that FrSky has given these dead protocols a close examination in light of the revelation from the Amateur German Team, to see just how robust those old protocols are in the new 2.4 gHz environment.

RF performance can be seen in the data sheet from the OEM 2.4 gHz chip sets (FrSky does not make these). But FrSky has been touting these performance gains in their own sales packets. Also I and other have actually done range tests and can verify that this is in fact the case. (Look up some of my posts on this forum. That might be more trouble than it is worth with the search function of this forum (Wayne that it a hint!))

Time;
Well that all depends on resources. And as there has, as of late been a global epidemic to deal with I can't say definitively. I do know that to run a proper validation from scratch would take over a month. I believe this is what FrSky would have to do, based on their history with firmware updates as I don’t think they have a validation process in their engineering structure.

Your mortality really isn't my concern.

I'm not aware that I speak any more authoritatively on the subject than you. In this forum I'm just like you and others, an enthusiastic hobbyist. If you want more we will need to write up a contract specifically calling out what is expected from all parties. Now I will say I do write more than others on this forum! :oops::rolleyes:

All the best,
Konrad

P.S.
If I was to run FrSky today I'd run the latest X series RX. But as of today I'm setting up my new models on other radios from other brands. (this might not be totaly true as some of the more advanced programing is real painful with their menue driven programing.) I have not and will not dig out my V8 & D8 systems. Their performance or lack there of, just doesn't make it worth the effort.
V8 & D8.jpg
 

Jim0000

New User
Joined
Feb 14, 2020
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Let's back up. I'm saying that the absents of reported failure is not an indication that the firmware is without issues. As I recall one can't prove a negative................

True. However, that leaves us totally adrift in dialectic terms and renders any comparitive performance evaluation redundant!
You were doing so well up until this point, but you have now lost me totally!

................................ I have not and will not dig out my V8 & D8 systems. Their performance or lack there of, just doesn't make it worth the effort. View attachment 3317

Can you qualify or quantify this lack of performance?
If you don't want them, how about sending them to me?

Jim.
 

Konrad

Very Strong User
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
7,822
Reaction score
1,488
Location
San Francisco
Performance as in range, like 3/4 the range of the current series of "X" series RX's. This is by FrSky's own sales hype, the 2.4 gHz chip OEM and to a large extent my own field evaluations. The V8 and D8 do not deliver the range. I would not use these or any V8 and D8 rx's in my gliders! Then there is the feature side of the marketing game.

Comparative performance test does not address the corner of the envelope performance. This is why testimonial reports are of little value when performing any performance test or validation process. It why I say that because some have had good luck with the V8 & D8 does not mean that they are trouble free and not lacking in performance.

With these hobby grade toys we are not required to report failure. Nor is anybody required to find root cause. Again anecdotal evidence is not evidence of proper performance.

For many years we who ran the XJT module and "X" series of rx had no reason to think that we were being exposed to bad data packets. It wasn't until a dedicate group of amateurs evaluated the data packet correction algorithm that we were made aware of the issue.

Again I'm not aware that FrSky has made any efforts to validate the integrity of the V8 & D8 rx's. Without this data I can't nor can any consciences engineer/tester say that the V8 or D8 are free of this kind of issue. Heck, any kind of RF or data processing issues.

Not sure what your tolerance to obsolete equipment has to do with the subject at hand. Would you be interested in some old 27 mHz or 72 mHz Radio equipment?

All the best,
Konrad
Sampey analog 27 mHz.jpg
 
Last edited:

Jim0000

New User
Joined
Feb 14, 2020
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Statistical Significance.


This is what concerns us in this evaluation and comparison process. (or at least, should concern us).
Put in empirical terms; If I have a piece of equipment fail, I suspect that item. If, alternatively, I also am made aware of many of similar items from the same manufacturer failing as well as mine, this will begin to make me suspect a systemic problem, as compared to an isolated one.

The reason for the difference in my conclusion can be said to be due the statistical significance of the latter and to the lack of it in the former.

This has nothing to do with proving a negative or otherwise.

Objective analysis and conclusion compared to subjective.

Jim.
 
Last edited:

Konrad

Very Strong User
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
7,822
Reaction score
1,488
Location
San Francisco
...There is absolutely no reason to doubt the reliability of the old "D" series, or for that matter, the old "V" series.
Meanwhile, there is mounting evidence to seriously doubt some, if not all, "X" series receivers.
I don't know if thiis fits the category of "helping you out". If I was you, I would consider it to be so.

See above. Put simply: Don't do it!

Jim,
I'm not trying to discount your subjective experience with the product. My issue is with the statement; that there is no reason to doubt the reliability of the old "D" series, or for that matter, the old "V" series.

This is false. Because we (I) have no reason to believe that these old receivers have been subjected to any rigorous testing and/or validation. We (I) can't say that objectively these receivers are any better at data packet verification.

There are a lot of reasons to doubt the integrity and robustness of all FrSky's software. FrSky doesn't have any software validation process in their engineering of products. Well, they haven't demonstrated any! Their track record of issuing revised updates in rapid succession is evidence of this short coming in their process.

Without a proven validation process we have plenty of reasons to doubt the reliability of all FrSky products, especially new releases.

Not sure what you are getting at with the discussion of Statistical Significance as we don't have any objective data to work with. (There has been no requirement to collect this data).

Now as to RF performance the OEM of the 2.4 gHz chip set does provide us with this data. It is clear that the RF performance of the "X" series Receivers is far superior to that of the older receivers. And in practice, antidotal data supports these claims.

I notice that you are replacing the older X8R because of issues you've seen with CDI engines. This was a known issue with the older X8R. FrSky came out with a much improved receiver in the "X8R pro" to address this source of RF noise that often reset the receiver's microprocessor. This is a different issue than the data packet issue we are now dealing with in the XJT modules and "X" series and the validity of the data packets.

All the best,
Konrad
 
Top