Indeed! This is the most important info that I needed. This looks like a really great radio but until it gets receives with up to 10 channels…I have to pass. I’m not sure if you mentioned this or not but can it work with Dumbo Rc receivers? Dumbo and the FMS (flysky) are my main brands.
@@DanPRC thanks Dan! Dumbo is a sub protocol under Radiolink and it is listed as supported, BUT there is at least 1 reported issue with binding over on the RC Groups page. I don't have any to test with.
@@JacobScherer Ok. Thanks for the quick response. I think I’ll wait and hopefully they’ll get a FMS update…if that even happens. Thanks for all the info.
@@DanPRC I don't know if we'll be able to support Flysky ANT (which FMS and Axial are using) since that uses a chip that isn't one of the 4 in the 4in1. They are looking into it...
Very good video. It's really good to see the differences between the protocols and their response times. Seeing someone take the time to test things in this manner is refreshing and very appreciated. If you had a copy of your spreadsheet that you could share, that would be very handy to have. Thanks for the effort and information!
I got the exact same thing when trying to bind a new TQ receiver (6533). I was pretty sure that it wouldn't work, but was at my LHS and it was there. :) It did the exact same thing...slow red flash for bind, light out for a long period of time, quick green light and then quick red flashing. Hoping that the Devs with EdgeTX can start working through some of the OE and aftermarket surface receivers that are supported by the 4-in-1 module.
Thanks for the additional report! I've opened an issue with the Multiprotocol team regarding the Traxxas not binding so hopefully we can get that one figured out.
Nice testing setup! You did a great job explaining and demonstrating a difficult topic for a lot of guys to grasp. 😎 I'm working through the setup process for my MT12 right now. Being a long-time TX-16S user makes it a lot easier to navigate this radio, but it definately has a few "quirks". I have a lot of Traxxas vehicles, but I switched to FlySky 2A Rx's years ago to get inexpensive voltage telemetry on the radio. I'm pretty surprised that the Traxxas and DSM protocols wouldn't bind properly, though. I noticed you didn't change your Rx number (next to the "bind" option) between bindings. I know this can cause problems with some radio protocols if you have multiple models stored in the radio. I've just gotten into the habit of incrementing that number whenever I add a new model. This might also be the reason why the WLToys came up with weird settings. It might be worth trying again with a new Rx number. I've been using the TX-16S with Spektrum Air Rx's for years with no issues. Do you think the surface radios use different protocols? Again, it might be worth trying again with a new Rx number just to see what happens. Even if it doesn't work, some guys may be willing to live with this... at least until the Open Source community finds a fix. I have a Volantex F-22 micro that needs to be re-bound before each flight session. It's annoying, but I think it's worth it to be able to use my TX-16S. I'll have to get my hands on Traxxas TQ Rx and see if have the same (bad) luck.
Thanks for the comment! Which AFHDS2A RXes are you using? Yeah, it is a big bummer that the Traxxas RXes aren't working right now, looks like they actually have pretty decent latency and I've got a bunch of them... I think the 'simple' Spektrum RXes should work fine, but the ones that have gyros seem to have some level of communication/binding that isn't fully supported yet. Thanks for the heads up on the RX number. On my TX16S I do change that for each model that I have per-model settings (and then I put that number at the beginning of the model name so I can keep track of it). For Spektrum at least the protocol is different for air vs surface with DSMR vs DSMX. They called the previous protocols both DSM2 for air and surface. I have no idea how different all of these are under the hood.
@@JacobScherer I use the Flysky FS-iA4B 4-channel, FS-iA6B 6-channel, and FS-iA10B 10-channel Rx's in a large fraction of my cars and airplanes. Most of them are paired with the voltage and temp sensors via iBus. They are great budget-friendly Rx's. I've also got a few airplanes that came with Spektrum radios that I fly perfectly with the TX-16S 4-in01 module. The recent UMX models have full telemetry including motor current which I have displayed on custom telemetry screens. I'm planning on upgrading the Rx in my Viper 70mm to a Spektrum 8-channel to get telemetry on that too, but that Rx is >$130 now. I have it on hand, but I could switch to ELRS and run INAV on a full flight controller for less money and have waaaaay more functionality. 😡 I'm tempted to sell the Rx and go with the FC just to be different. Traxxas radios seem to have a lot of good engineering under the hood, but I decided to go FlySky because I could get decent telemetry for a much better price. I didn't like the idea of having to buy a Bluetooth module and hang my cell phone off the radio just to check my battery voltage. 🙄
I have also not had any luck binding to my Traxxas truck. It's a TRX-4 though, so it's TQi, vs. TQ like yours. Nice to see that DSMR got added at some point and (kind of) works. Maybe the influx of new ground RC users now that this radio is out will motivate Pascal or whoever else works on the multi-module project to add more car protocols in the future. Side note, the only TH-camr I saw running a Traxxas car with the MT12 definitely put an ELRS receiver in it and showed the installation process.
@@JacobScherer it’s a shame, too because you have to figure this along with DSMR would be prime territory for everyone to switch their RTRs over. That and all the stuff in the borderline “toy” grade like IMEX or the Mini-B RTR (that one might work I haven’t tried it) where the protocols are impossible to figure out so you end up just pulling the receiver. On the plus side, ELRS receivers are cheap.
@@swissfreek The issue with having to pull the RX is that a ton of stuff has gone to 2in1 units, so not only do you need to buy a new RX, but you need to buy a new ESC, and at that point you may as well upgrade the motor too, so it turns into a $150 thing, lol.
Thanks for the test. I knew about the signal blast issue that will get programmable servo into programming mode but never get to see how and when the pulse is being blasted out. Seeing it on oscilloscope is quite alarming. This is a design issue and I guess it's an oversight. It doesn't seem to affect the receivers with dedicated tx, rx terminals or port for flashing though. Edit: I forgot to mention D8 protocol is really, really slow. I had the FrSky module in my 3PK and it was almost undriveable. I don't know if S-FHSS will make any difference since it's on the same unit but I'm quite curious to see.
@@ukmitch86 It does not impact the performance. However if you plug something like a programmable servo or a gyro that can be programmed via SBUS then it will not work. There's a video from Roadside RC where he experienced this problem. I have tested with all my servos and gyros and all of them work fine because mine don't have that remote programming via transmitter capability. Basically, you can't use this transmitter with Futaba Acuvance and GY550 gyro. I use AGF servo + micro drift gyro with Hobbywing ESC so I'm fine with it. If you want to use it for racing then don't forget to change the packet rate on the transmitter to F1000. Then you will need to config the receiver PWM output to match your servo frequency, eg. 333Hz for digital servo. Then you will have the full ELRS rapid response experience.
Which receivers compensate that, what protocol and how to find them on the MT12 as it shows on its dashboard only 8, I don't want to wast your time, but I find you the expert one, it's need a vedio to satisfy my curiosity, in case you have time. So appreciate
Hi Jacob. I spent some time with the promoto today, and confirmed your observations. Tried model numbers from 0 to 22 as suggested by the MPM dev, all with the same result. Interestingly, the stock radio did not need rebinding after these tests, which suggests the SR6300PM is not willing/able to save the TX ID of the MPM for some reason. Perhaps there is a change to the bind sequence for the newer RX, or we just need to spoof the stock TX ID.
I'm assuming my gyro issue is what you were describing. DP-302 occasionally loses signal and locks my steering. Hopefully Radiomaster sorts this out, this is a great radio coming from the drone world!
Great video. Typically I find gyro sensitivity adjustment & on/off on receivers like the FS-BS6 is controlled on a channel/s not via receiver binding. Usually just a matter of finding which one & what values required.(Easier said than done.) In regard to failsafe, you don't compare to the original, so it may be a multi-module issue or simply an issue with the receiver no matter what TX is used.
It looks like trying to get the BS6 configured with upper channels has been tried and it was unsuccessful. And good point about failsafe, that is almost always a receiver thing, not a transmitter thing, sorry if I didn't make that clear enough! github.com/pascallanger/DIY-Multiprotocol-TX-Module/issues/807
Yep! Unfortunately it is becoming fairly common and I've seen people have issues with servos, gyros, and ESCs. I got told on the ELRS Facebook page that it isn't an issue.... I feel like Radiomaster should at least add a warning in the manual.
A very informative video, wish I had viewed it earlier. I have bought the radio thinking it would be work with Kyosho KR331 receiver but i am not finding any video that says it did, If you have a a vehicle with that receiver do test and let me know... Or which other receiver i could use for quick response timing. Thanks in advance.
I believe the KR331 uses Kyosho Syncro protocol, which is not currently supported by the Multiprotocol Module. Radiolink may be a good option, but I haven't tested the MT12 with them.
@@JacobScherer Thank you for getting back, Well i have already have the radio. Well which would be the best receiver to use with this radio.. funny thing is the Chip used in the Kysho sycnro is same as Flysky A7105, wonder what is FSK and GFSK with respect to the terms like FSHH and SFHSS
Thank you for doing this. I am really disappointed by the performance of the r85c as I had bought a bunch for my cars. The failsafe is also a concern but hopefully it can be adjusted on the receiver like the flyskys?
Yes, you can set failsafe. I should have made it more clear that I was testing default fail safe behavior. IMO every surface RX should ship with default neutral fail safe.
Excellent testing and video! Would you be willing to do the same latency testing to the NB4? It would be interesting to see how the MT12 compares to another "high end" performance oriented radio.
Honestly I started taking it apart to do just that and stopped, lol. The NB4 assembly is very optimized and I was worried about messing up a ribbon cable or control board. They advertise 3ms link latency, but it would be nice to actually test that.
@@superfer93 if you find beavers speed test it about the same as the nb4. i find it hard to believe that someone can tell 30ms from 5ms especially racing on dirt.
At the beginning, you’re measuring the time from trigger to first changed pulse, but isn’t the pulse interval constant? So the measured value depends on when in the cycle you happened to trigger?
The PWM pulse interval is constant, but there are many steps in the chain that will cause delays in the signal propagation from user input to PWM change. You can see how some protocols are better with missing no or only 1 PWM packets after the switch change, but some are worse missing 2 or 3 packets after the switch change. If the signal processing and transmission was instantaneous, the average system latency would simply be 1/2 the PWM cycle. In the real world though, every system does signal processing and transmission different, and that is where the additional latency comes from.
@@arnoldtm31 it would be nice if they added the ANT chip to the multiprotocol module! It doesn't seem like the aircraft guys are too keen on doing anything for the surface guys though, so I don't see it happening unfortunately.
@@JacobScherer if you would do a crowdfund for the greater good i would participate :) i would send you mine for testing but the shipping would probably bee more expensive from eastern europe than to buy a new one in the US :)
@@stepnyvlk9695 I don't see any Sanwa protocols on the Multiprotocol Module sorted list currently. github.com/pascallanger/DIY-Multiprotocol-TX-Module/blob/master/Protocols_Details.md
It shouldn't add any. The 4-in-1 is the same chip and the same configuration as the manufacturer transmitter so the RF portion of the system is identical.
I did latency testing back in the late 80's on the futaba 1024pcm, why, because I could not get close to my track record with my kraft control3 Tx. But I think I did quite a it easier and better by just connecting a square wave generator to the switch and sweeping a small range of freq and trigger on this signal (and put your scope in normal trigger, not auto and constantly hitting single trigger) and its easy to see the exact latency range quicker and more accurately. I posted the results to futaba and repeatedly they would not answer, I let all the locale races know to stay away from this radio, futaba was not happy, lol.
Lol, nice! Some companies don't like to get called out... I'm not following you on the setup though? Every time the switch flips the time from the rising edge to the PWM width changing is going to be different and I couldn't think of any way to automatically measure and display that value (at least not with this budget scope). On a fancier scope with multi trigger I think I could set it up, but this $300 Rigol doesn't have that.
@@JacobScherer Change your switch input to using a square wave generator, then sweep the freq higher and higher till you find the lowest latency, and then lower and lower to see the highest latency, (have your scope on normal trigger mode and on the square wave generator signal (not the Rx output), no manual single button pushing to read one reading). Once you see each limit, move the cursor to measure that limit. This will save a lot of time and give you the best and worse case latencies and in a shorter time.
Thanks for this very good comparison. Much appreciated! May i ask what the Frame Rate on the Radio Link was with ELRS and why you did not test 400hz pwm? Any way, i think 5,3ms is very good for ELRS.
@@JacobScherer thanks for the info- Any chance that you can do a similar test for Graupner or SANWA surface radio that are nowadays the thought leaders in latency?
@@AlexanderRoehlich I don't own any of those radios unfortunately. I'm trying to develop a non intrusive test so I can borrow radios from my friends at the track, but getting repeatable results is tough.
Thank you for an awesome latency video 💯👍🙂 Do you know if there are any other ELRS receivers that can be used, that does not have the issue on channel 1 and 2?🙂
@@kenneth_jensen Bardwell said that he has been told the next batch of Radiomaster PWM receivers will not have this issue, but I haven't seen that confirmed anywhere. And yep, any 2.5GHz ELRS receiver will work, that is one of the beauties about the system!
@@JacobSchererthanks, I saw the video while being focused elsewhere. So didn't heard about the batch 🙈 But sounds promising 👍 We have to investigate about that next batch 🙂 BTW: That Spectrum was interesting as they are shipped with Axial crawlers. But only with a 2 channel sender. Så if you want to fully use the receiver you have to minimum buy their 5 channel sender. I would then rather buy this Radiomaster 🙂
Is your base controller the 4in1 version or the ELRS version? I'm trying to figure out what version of the radio I need for approximately 30 RC cars with varying receivers but also want long range with telemetry. I was looking at the ELRS version but not sure it does other receivers than RadioMaster. Thanks!
For the Flysky GR3E (AFHDS1) receivers you need to press the button once to save the current channel values as failsafe values. At least that's how it is supposed to work.
I don't think there is any legal issues. The Multiprotocol project is mainly done by a guy named Pascal out of France and he has stated that he might be able to add AFHDS3 compatibility, but needs access to the hardware, and no one has provided it to him yet. I do worry if it will be able to be supported though, because Flysky states "In combination with our new 2.4GHz RF chip AFHDS 3 allows for a level of flexibility and adaptability" so it is possible the chip they are using is not one of the four in the 4in1.
@@JacobScherer Problem in that case is with a buggy module pin hardware implementation on the TX16s, so whether it works will depend on whether the MT12 has the same problem. Possibly, being from the same vendor. So it's in the 'maybe' category until we hear from someone who has both pieces of hardware.
About the ELRS PWM issue: I am using an EcoPower WP110T from AMain on a ER3C-i and it won't work at all on channels 1 or 2, and I am wondering if the problem stems from this issue.
@@JacobScherer Yes it does. I think I saw the video you were discussing with the guy trying to use the gyro, and there was one of the ELRS devs in the comments talking about a possible fix for it; I am unable to find the video again though.
ok so first of all GREAT video thank you for that, no on to my question. i have an axial ax24 xc1 crawler with the dsmr 2in1 receiver and it wont bind with the radiomaster mt12 using the R1F prootcol. the number on it is spmxse2425rx any help on thisa issue would be greatly appreciated. i have searcged this issue for about a week and this video has been the closest i have found to an answer. thanks
I don't believe that is a DSM-R receiver, I believe that uses the newer low cost protocol "Spektrum SLT". As of right now, I don't believe it is supported and no one has checked to see if the RF chip is one of the 4 in the 4in1, so we don't know if it even could be supported.
I haven't opened up my NB4 to get a trigger to do the actual test, but in my hand, it is pretty similar to ELRS. In my opinion, once you are under 8ms, it is hard to tell a difference. Between 15 and 20 you can notice it on the track. Get much above 20 and even driving around the yard can be annoying. I'm thinking about putting together a less scientific test with slow motion video in the near future.
ok so next question for you, i have a k969 which is the same protocol(i believe) as the 989) why when i set it up like yours does it not connect to my MT12
Hello. To be able to set up a failsafe for the Radiomaster R85C receiver, you need to rebind it with the Radiomaster MT12 in the mode: Type: FrSky X Subtype: D16 or D16 8Ch How to do this, see this video - th-cam.com/video/0oKKthoreJM/w-d-xo.html (but do not forget to select the type and subtype that I wrote about above). For binding in D16 mode, the receiver will produce double flashes. Then the Failsafe item will appear, where you can select its mode, for example, Receiver (then when you long press the Bind button on the receiver, it will remember the position of the gas trigger and steering wheel, which was at the time of the long press of the Bind button).
Thank you for the message! I know that with nearly every RX you can set the failsafe, I was testing for default setup. In my opinion, it is irresponsible to ship a product without a default failsafe of PWM value 0.
@@jleftbrane Furitek says it can bind to FMS FCX24 and SCX24v2 radios, which aren't supported by the MT12, so I don't think the Furitek will bind either.
Thanks for the suggestion! That is a pretty deep rabbit hole. For instance, with Flysky, I have at least 3 different transmitters for each protocol. Testing every single one would take very long and each time there is a possibility of messing up the transmitter.
John from RC Video Reviews encountered the PWM Garbage Issue 4 montah ago and dsescribed it very good. He said only ESP8285 based RX should be affected and eventually EPS32 based RX that use Pin 1 for PWM. Its interesting to see that regarding to you oscilloscope, pwm channel one is also affected, not only two as John thought? th-cam.com/video/C5ZSZxNzcJc/w-d-xo.html
Yep, I was expecting it on CH2 and was surprised to see similar stuff CH1. So far I've heard of some servos, escs, and gyros being effected by it. Doesn't seem like a common issue, but it isn't completely uncommon.
![☀ Аппаратура РУ с биполярочкой. [Radiomaster MT12]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gGl-9PuuMNY/mqdefault.jpg)
![ประสบการณ์ จ้าง Developer ที่ผมจะไม่มีวันลืม [ภาค2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pZbsSDRrmXA/mqdefault.jpg)
This is the video I’ve been searching for searched all night to try and find out what protocols go to what receivers . Much appreciation .
Happy it helped!!
Indeed! This is the most important info that I needed. This looks like a really great radio but until it gets receives with up to 10 channels…I have to pass. I’m not sure if you mentioned this or not but can it work with Dumbo Rc receivers? Dumbo and the FMS (flysky) are my main brands.
@@DanPRC thanks Dan! Dumbo is a sub protocol under Radiolink and it is listed as supported, BUT there is at least 1 reported issue with binding over on the RC Groups page. I don't have any to test with.
@@JacobScherer Ok. Thanks for the quick response. I think I’ll wait and hopefully they’ll get a FMS update…if that even happens. Thanks for all the info.
@@DanPRC I don't know if we'll be able to support Flysky ANT (which FMS and Axial are using) since that uses a chip that isn't one of the 4 in the 4in1. They are looking into it...
Very good video. It's really good to see the differences between the protocols and their response times. Seeing someone take the time to test things in this manner is refreshing and very appreciated. If you had a copy of your spreadsheet that you could share, that would be very handy to have. Thanks for the effort and information!
Thank you very much! I'm away from my PC right now, but I'll post the spreadsheet when I post my next latency testing video.
Right on man!! Such a good demonstration!
Thank you for all the effort you invested into this : Very useful and very thorough work! Well done!
Great study and a lot of info in there, thanks for an amazing video!
Thank you!
Excellent testing and great to see proof that ELRS is indeed amazing!
Thank you!
This is the testing I couldn't do, and it's much appreciated. Subscribed 🤙
Thank you!
Outstanding video! I appreciate all your time, effort and above else knowledge. Thank you.
Thank you for your kind comment!
I got the exact same thing when trying to bind a new TQ receiver (6533). I was pretty sure that it wouldn't work, but was at my LHS and it was there. :) It did the exact same thing...slow red flash for bind, light out for a long period of time, quick green light and then quick red flashing. Hoping that the Devs with EdgeTX can start working through some of the OE and aftermarket surface receivers that are supported by the 4-in-1 module.
Thanks for the additional report! I've opened an issue with the Multiprotocol team regarding the Traxxas not binding so hopefully we can get that one figured out.
Getting this working with the Traxxas TQ and TQi would drive a lot of sales. Especially if the multifunction is supported for TSM sensitivity.
Nice testing setup! You did a great job explaining and demonstrating a difficult topic for a lot of guys to grasp. 😎
I'm working through the setup process for my MT12 right now. Being a long-time TX-16S user makes it a lot easier to navigate this radio, but it definately has a few "quirks". I have a lot of Traxxas vehicles, but I switched to FlySky 2A Rx's years ago to get inexpensive voltage telemetry on the radio. I'm pretty surprised that the Traxxas and DSM protocols wouldn't bind properly, though.
I noticed you didn't change your Rx number (next to the "bind" option) between bindings. I know this can cause problems with some radio protocols if you have multiple models stored in the radio. I've just gotten into the habit of incrementing that number whenever I add a new model. This might also be the reason why the WLToys came up with weird settings. It might be worth trying again with a new Rx number.
I've been using the TX-16S with Spektrum Air Rx's for years with no issues. Do you think the surface radios use different protocols? Again, it might be worth trying again with a new Rx number just to see what happens. Even if it doesn't work, some guys may be willing to live with this... at least until the Open Source community finds a fix. I have a Volantex F-22 micro that needs to be re-bound before each flight session. It's annoying, but I think it's worth it to be able to use my TX-16S.
I'll have to get my hands on Traxxas TQ Rx and see if have the same (bad) luck.
Thanks for the comment!
Which AFHDS2A RXes are you using?
Yeah, it is a big bummer that the Traxxas RXes aren't working right now, looks like they actually have pretty decent latency and I've got a bunch of them... I think the 'simple' Spektrum RXes should work fine, but the ones that have gyros seem to have some level of communication/binding that isn't fully supported yet.
Thanks for the heads up on the RX number. On my TX16S I do change that for each model that I have per-model settings (and then I put that number at the beginning of the model name so I can keep track of it).
For Spektrum at least the protocol is different for air vs surface with DSMR vs DSMX. They called the previous protocols both DSM2 for air and surface. I have no idea how different all of these are under the hood.
@@JacobScherer I use the Flysky FS-iA4B 4-channel, FS-iA6B 6-channel, and FS-iA10B 10-channel Rx's in a large fraction of my cars and airplanes. Most of them are paired with the voltage and temp sensors via iBus. They are great budget-friendly Rx's.
I've also got a few airplanes that came with Spektrum radios that I fly perfectly with the TX-16S 4-in01 module. The recent UMX models have full telemetry including motor current which I have displayed on custom telemetry screens. I'm planning on upgrading the Rx in my Viper 70mm to a Spektrum 8-channel to get telemetry on that too, but that Rx is >$130 now. I have it on hand, but I could switch to ELRS and run INAV on a full flight controller for less money and have waaaaay more functionality. 😡 I'm tempted to sell the Rx and go with the FC just to be different.
Traxxas radios seem to have a lot of good engineering under the hood, but I decided to go FlySky because I could get decent telemetry for a much better price. I didn't like the idea of having to buy a Bluetooth module and hang my cell phone off the radio just to check my battery voltage. 🙄
I have also not had any luck binding to my Traxxas truck. It's a TRX-4 though, so it's TQi, vs. TQ like yours. Nice to see that DSMR got added at some point and (kind of) works. Maybe the influx of new ground RC users now that this radio is out will motivate Pascal or whoever else works on the multi-module project to add more car protocols in the future.
Side note, the only TH-camr I saw running a Traxxas car with the MT12 definitely put an ELRS receiver in it and showed the installation process.
Yeah, I couldn't get a TQi TX to bind, so I figured using the exact receiver that is called out in the protocol name (6519) would work, but no luck.
@@JacobScherer it’s a shame, too because you have to figure this along with DSMR would be prime territory for everyone to switch their RTRs over. That and all the stuff in the borderline “toy” grade like IMEX or the Mini-B RTR (that one might work I haven’t tried it) where the protocols are impossible to figure out so you end up just pulling the receiver.
On the plus side, ELRS receivers are cheap.
@@swissfreek The issue with having to pull the RX is that a ton of stuff has gone to 2in1 units, so not only do you need to buy a new RX, but you need to buy a new ESC, and at that point you may as well upgrade the motor too, so it turns into a $150 thing, lol.
Thanks for the test. I knew about the signal blast issue that will get programmable servo into programming mode but never get to see how and when the pulse is being blasted out. Seeing it on oscilloscope is quite alarming. This is a design issue and I guess it's an oversight.
It doesn't seem to affect the receivers with dedicated tx, rx terminals or port for flashing though.
Edit: I forgot to mention D8 protocol is really, really slow. I had the FrSky module in my 3PK and it was almost undriveable. I don't know if S-FHSS will make any difference since it's on the same unit but I'm quite curious to see.
Hello Mr. Beaver! I love your channel, you helped me get my K989 and other similar small rigs running much better!
I don't quite understand this pulse being blasted out - is it happening with the radiomaster er3 receiver?
@@ukmitch86 As far as my understanding goes, it happens to every PWM receivers that doesn't have the UART port. So, yes, ER3 too.
@@BeaversHobby what's the physical manifestation? Does it impact performance? I'm planning on racing with one
@@ukmitch86 It does not impact the performance. However if you plug something like a programmable servo or a gyro that can be programmed via SBUS then it will not work. There's a video from Roadside RC where he experienced this problem.
I have tested with all my servos and gyros and all of them work fine because mine don't have that remote programming via transmitter capability. Basically, you can't use this transmitter with Futaba Acuvance and GY550 gyro.
I use AGF servo + micro drift gyro with Hobbywing ESC so I'm fine with it.
If you want to use it for racing then don't forget to change the packet rate on the transmitter to F1000. Then you will need to config the receiver PWM output to match your servo frequency, eg. 333Hz for digital servo. Then you will have the full ELRS rapid response experience.
That is a great comparison - thank you so much!
Thank you!
It's really a good test, thanks, this MT12 Advertised as 16 ch Express lrs, I can't figure which one is which.
The radio itself can do up to 16 channels, but it is restricted first by the protocol, and then by the receiver itself.
Which receivers compensate that, what protocol and how to find them on the MT12 as it shows on its dashboard only 8, I don't want to wast your time, but I find you the expert one, it's need a vedio to satisfy my curiosity, in case you have time. So appreciate
Would be interesting to see what the Numbers look like with telemetry off
Very cool video, i found some helpful info in this video. Thanks for posting this
Thank you!
Hi Jacob. I spent some time with the promoto today, and confirmed your observations. Tried model numbers from 0 to 22 as suggested by the MPM dev, all with the same result.
Interestingly, the stock radio did not need rebinding after these tests, which suggests the SR6300PM is not willing/able to save the TX ID of the MPM for some reason. Perhaps there is a change to the bind sequence for the newer RX, or we just need to spoof the stock TX ID.
Thanks for testing the different numbers, that is a lot of work! Too bad it didn't work :(
I'm assuming my gyro issue is what you were describing. DP-302 occasionally loses signal and locks my steering. Hopefully Radiomaster sorts this out, this is a great radio coming from the drone world!
You can try swapping to channel 3, that output looks clean on boot!
Great video. Typically I find gyro sensitivity adjustment & on/off on receivers like the FS-BS6 is controlled on a channel/s not via receiver binding. Usually just a matter of finding which one & what values required.(Easier said than done.) In regard to failsafe, you don't compare to the original, so it may be a multi-module issue or simply an issue with the receiver no matter what TX is used.
It looks like trying to get the BS6 configured with upper channels has been tried and it was unsuccessful. And good point about failsafe, that is almost always a receiver thing, not a transmitter thing, sorry if I didn't make that clear enough! github.com/pascallanger/DIY-Multiprotocol-TX-Module/issues/807
Great information here!
I'm guessing I am the guy who you referred to who had issues with the drift car. Thanks for watching!
Yep! Unfortunately it is becoming fairly common and I've seen people have issues with servos, gyros, and ESCs. I got told on the ELRS Facebook page that it isn't an issue.... I feel like Radiomaster should at least add a warning in the manual.
Great jerb my friend. Would you be willing to test lantency on my burrito I just took out of the microwave?
Yeah man, bring it over!
braaaaaaaap! @@JacobScherer
A very informative video, wish I had viewed it earlier. I have bought the radio thinking it would be work with Kyosho KR331 receiver but i am not finding any video that says it did,
If you have a a vehicle with that receiver do test and let me know...
Or which other receiver i could use for quick response timing. Thanks in advance.
I believe the KR331 uses Kyosho Syncro protocol, which is not currently supported by the Multiprotocol Module. Radiolink may be a good option, but I haven't tested the MT12 with them.
@@JacobScherer Thank you for getting back, Well i have already have the radio. Well which would be the best receiver to use with this radio.. funny thing is the Chip used in the Kysho sycnro is same as Flysky A7105, wonder what is FSK and GFSK with respect to the terms like FSHH and SFHSS
Thanks for sharing this info! Any chance you have Futaba receivers to test the latency of those?
Great testing thanks. Did you try elrs 1000hz?
My testing with ELRS had 1000hz transmission rates.
Variance in elrs should get tighter once theh start syncing the servo to the transmission packets
Thank you for doing this. I am really disappointed by the performance of the r85c as I had bought a bunch for my cars. The failsafe is also a concern but hopefully it can be adjusted on the receiver like the flyskys?
Yes, you can set failsafe. I should have made it more clear that I was testing default fail safe behavior. IMO every surface RX should ship with default neutral fail safe.
@@JacobScherer For the latency of the r85c was there any difference between frsky and SFHSS protocols? Assuming you can choose either.
@@babupranav it performed similarly
@@JacobScherer gotcha did low power mode make any difference? wonder if the distance to the rx had anything to do with the latency...
Excellent testing and video! Would you be willing to do the same latency testing to the NB4? It would be interesting to see how the MT12 compares to another "high end" performance oriented radio.
Honestly I started taking it apart to do just that and stopped, lol. The NB4 assembly is very optimized and I was worried about messing up a ribbon cable or control board. They advertise 3ms link latency, but it would be nice to actually test that.
I doubt the nb4 would be as fast as elrs, not even sanwa. They advertise on air rate, and you have measured transmitter, air, receiver and pwm.
@@superfer93 if you find beavers speed test it about the same as the nb4. i find it hard to believe that someone can tell 30ms from 5ms especially racing on dirt.
At the beginning, you’re measuring the time from trigger to first changed pulse, but isn’t the pulse interval constant? So the measured value depends on when in the cycle you happened to trigger?
The PWM pulse interval is constant, but there are many steps in the chain that will cause delays in the signal propagation from user input to PWM change. You can see how some protocols are better with missing no or only 1 PWM packets after the switch change, but some are worse missing 2 or 3 packets after the switch change.
If the signal processing and transmission was instantaneous, the average system latency would simply be 1/2 the PWM cycle. In the real world though, every system does signal processing and transmission different, and that is where the additional latency comes from.
Such a shame it doesn't work with the ANT protocol. All my cars, trucks and boats are on my Flysky G7P.
@@arnoldtm31 it would be nice if they added the ANT chip to the multiprotocol module! It doesn't seem like the aircraft guys are too keen on doing anything for the surface guys though, so I don't see it happening unfortunately.
Awesome video👍🏻
Thank you!
@@JacobScherer you deserve it, excellent video👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Good work
Would be interresting to throw in a sanwa fh5 test in there
I'd love to if I had one!!
@@JacobScherer if you would do a crowdfund for the greater good i would participate :) i would send you mine for testing but the shipping would probably bee more expensive from eastern europe than to buy a new one in the US :)
@@JacobScherer also does the mt12 support sanwa receivers?
@@stepnyvlk9695 I don't see any Sanwa protocols on the Multiprotocol Module sorted list currently. github.com/pascallanger/DIY-Multiprotocol-TX-Module/blob/master/Protocols_Details.md
Do you have any data on how much latency the 4-in-1 module adds vs the manufacturer transmitter?
It shouldn't add any. The 4-in-1 is the same chip and the same configuration as the manufacturer transmitter so the RF portion of the system is identical.
How did you get the traxxas to bind as I have 2 of the same receivers and the light goes green like it binded but it doesn't bind
@@jesseharless24 At the time I made this video the Traxxas 6519 protocol did not work properly and I did not have it bound in the video.
@JacobScherer oh OK I didn't realize you was using the tq remote I was so fixated on the rx 😅 my bad
I did latency testing back in the late 80's on the futaba 1024pcm, why, because I could not get close to my track record with my kraft control3 Tx.
But I think I did quite a it easier and better by just connecting a square wave generator to the switch and sweeping a small range of freq and trigger on this signal (and put your scope in normal trigger, not auto and constantly hitting single trigger) and its easy to see the exact latency range quicker and more accurately.
I posted the results to futaba and repeatedly they would not answer, I let all the locale races know to stay away from this radio, futaba was not happy, lol.
Lol, nice! Some companies don't like to get called out... I'm not following you on the setup though? Every time the switch flips the time from the rising edge to the PWM width changing is going to be different and I couldn't think of any way to automatically measure and display that value (at least not with this budget scope). On a fancier scope with multi trigger I think I could set it up, but this $300 Rigol doesn't have that.
@@JacobScherer Change your switch input to using a square wave generator, then sweep the freq higher and higher till you find the lowest latency, and then lower and lower to see the highest latency, (have your scope on normal trigger mode and on the square wave generator signal (not the Rx output), no manual single button pushing to read one reading). Once you see each limit, move the cursor to measure that limit. This will save a lot of time and give you the best and worse case latencies and in a shorter time.
I have posted twice about a low cost ($5) pwm generator, both are not showing up,,,
Thanks for this very good comparison. Much appreciated!
May i ask what the Frame Rate on the Radio Link was with ELRS and why you did not test 400hz pwm?
Any way, i think 5,3ms is very good for ELRS.
ELRS setup was max baud rate and F1000hz transmission rate. All of my servos advertise max 333hz PWM, so that is what I use. Thanks for watching!
@@JacobScherer thanks for the info- Any chance that you can do a similar test for Graupner or SANWA surface radio that are nowadays the thought leaders in latency?
@@AlexanderRoehlich I don't own any of those radios unfortunately. I'm trying to develop a non intrusive test so I can borrow radios from my friends at the track, but getting repeatable results is tough.
i cant get mine to display frsky d, i just just get a couple of others and under subtype i get multi
Thank you for an awesome latency video 💯👍🙂
Do you know if there are any other ELRS receivers that can be used, that does not have the issue on channel 1 and 2?🙂
What wait...I see I have to read up on that Radiomaster. It can use different receivers 🙈💯🙂
@@kenneth_jensen Bardwell said that he has been told the next batch of Radiomaster PWM receivers will not have this issue, but I haven't seen that confirmed anywhere. And yep, any 2.5GHz ELRS receiver will work, that is one of the beauties about the system!
@@JacobSchererthanks, I saw the video while being focused elsewhere. So didn't heard about the batch 🙈 But sounds promising 👍 We have to investigate about that next batch 🙂
BTW: That Spectrum was interesting as they are shipped with Axial crawlers. But only with a 2 channel sender. Så if you want to fully use the receiver you have to minimum buy their 5 channel sender. I would then rather buy this Radiomaster 🙂
Is your base controller the 4in1 version or the ELRS version? I'm trying to figure out what version of the radio I need for approximately 30 RC cars with varying receivers but also want long range with telemetry. I was looking at the ELRS version but not sure it does other receivers than RadioMaster.
Thanks!
I've got the 4-in-1 and run an external ELRS. Other manufacturers like BetaFPV make ELRS, but yeah, ELRS can only bind to ELRS.
Thanks so much for your quick reply! 4in1 it is then.
For the Flysky GR3E (AFHDS1) receivers you need to press the button once to save the current channel values as failsafe values. At least that's how it is supposed to work.
Yep, I was testing for default fail safe. IMO every surface RX should ship with neutral failsafe.
Disappointing that the NB4 protocol isn't supported. Any idea if that's a hardware or legal issue, or if it might be added with an update soon?
I don't think there is any legal issues. The Multiprotocol project is mainly done by a guy named Pascal out of France and he has stated that he might be able to add AFHDS3 compatibility, but needs access to the hardware, and no one has provided it to him yet. I do worry if it will be able to be supported though, because Flysky states "In combination with our new 2.4GHz RF chip AFHDS 3 allows for a level of flexibility and adaptability" so it is possible the chip they are using is not one of the four in the 4in1.
AFHDS3 needs a specific Lora-implementing chipset that isn't one of the 4 in 1 chips. However, the FRM303 external module should work.
@@daniele.markle6428 will the FRM303 work with the MT12? It is not currently functional with the TX16S according to Issue#2875 on EdgeTX GitHub.
@@JacobScherer Problem in that case is with a buggy module pin hardware implementation on the TX16s, so whether it works will depend on whether the MT12 has the same problem. Possibly, being from the same vendor. So it's in the 'maybe' category until we hear from someone who has both pieces of hardware.
About the ELRS PWM issue: I am using an EcoPower WP110T from AMain on a ER3C-i and it won't work at all on channels 1 or 2, and I am wondering if the problem stems from this issue.
Could be. Does it work on CH3?
@@JacobScherer Yes it does. I think I saw the video you were discussing with the guy trying to use the gyro, and there was one of the ELRS devs in the comments talking about a possible fix for it; I am unable to find the video again though.
ok so first of all GREAT video thank you for that, no on to my question. i have an axial ax24 xc1 crawler with the dsmr 2in1 receiver and it wont bind with the radiomaster mt12 using the R1F prootcol. the number on it is spmxse2425rx any help on thisa issue would be greatly appreciated. i have searcged this issue for about a week and this video has been the closest i have found to an answer. thanks
I don't believe that is a DSM-R receiver, I believe that uses the newer low cost protocol "Spektrum SLT". As of right now, I don't believe it is supported and no one has checked to see if the RF chip is one of the 4 in the 4in1, so we don't know if it even could be supported.
thanks for getting back to me @@JacobScherer i kinda figured that was the case but a guy could hope!
How does AFHDS 3/Noble NB4 compare? Thanks for the very informative content
I haven't opened up my NB4 to get a trigger to do the actual test, but in my hand, it is pretty similar to ELRS. In my opinion, once you are under 8ms, it is hard to tell a difference. Between 15 and 20 you can notice it on the track. Get much above 20 and even driving around the yard can be annoying. I'm thinking about putting together a less scientific test with slow motion video in the near future.
Did you ever find the answer for the team associated 1/28th rc ?
I haven't seen anyone successfully bind it unfortunately.
ok so next question for you, i have a k969 which is the same protocol(i believe) as the 989) why when i set it up like yours does it not connect to my MT12
Not sure how to help, mine worked without any issues? Maybe try changing the RC number or moving the transmitter away from the car?
Hi man!
Please test flysky noble nb4, It would be great!
Hello. To be able to set up a failsafe for the Radiomaster R85C receiver, you need to rebind it with the Radiomaster MT12 in the mode:
Type: FrSky X
Subtype: D16 or D16 8Ch
How to do this, see this video - th-cam.com/video/0oKKthoreJM/w-d-xo.html (but do not forget to select the type and subtype that I wrote about above). For binding in D16 mode, the receiver will produce double flashes.
Then the Failsafe item will appear, where you can select its mode, for example, Receiver (then when you long press the Bind button on the receiver, it will remember the position of the gas trigger and steering wheel, which was at the time of the long press of the Bind button).
Thank you for the message! I know that with nearly every RX you can set the failsafe, I was testing for default setup. In my opinion, it is irresponsible to ship a product without a default failsafe of PWM value 0.
@@JacobScherer I completely agree with you. That's why I rebinded the receiver to D16
Have you tried to connect to any new furitek python RFX 2in1 ?
I believe that is ANT based, so no go. I could be wrong though.
@@JacobScherer I know nothing about all this shit! But I ordered an MT12 4in1. Hoping to use it for all 10 of my rigs!!
@@jleftbrane Furitek says it can bind to FMS FCX24 and SCX24v2 radios, which aren't supported by the MT12, so I don't think the Furitek will bind either.
I wonder if in the future there is a possibilty
Should test Futaba and Sanwa, those Traxxas and Flysky is trash.
if you can compare the latency btw orginal controller and mt12, it will be more interesting.
Thanks for the suggestion! That is a pretty deep rabbit hole. For instance, with Flysky, I have at least 3 different transmitters for each protocol. Testing every single one would take very long and each time there is a possibility of messing up the transmitter.
Influencers were lying to you 13:10 it wouldn’t bind to my traxxas receivers either
Not bad but don't like EdgeTX. So I stay with Futaba. Been using Futaba for over 55 years.
Was on the fence but this doesn't look good for multi protocol.
John from RC Video Reviews encountered the PWM Garbage Issue 4 montah ago and dsescribed it very good.
He said only ESP8285 based RX should be affected and eventually EPS32 based RX that use Pin 1 for PWM.
Its interesting to see that regarding to you oscilloscope, pwm channel one is also affected, not only two as John thought?
th-cam.com/video/C5ZSZxNzcJc/w-d-xo.html
Yep, I was expecting it on CH2 and was surprised to see similar stuff CH1. So far I've heard of some servos, escs, and gyros being effected by it. Doesn't seem like a common issue, but it isn't completely uncommon.
6.9ms, nice! 😂
Hahaha, glad someone caught that!