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
