Yes, saw that. The notes about the Crossfire releases relative to the Nano Rx Pro are confusing. Each one from 6.19 into the beta’s say “support for Nano Rx Pro”. And I suppose there was a hardware change of some type at some time with these? I had one that disappeared along with the craft it was on. Quite the heavy loss too…
1 Like
You guys are making me nervous. I have an expensive project going on this spring that has a nano rx pro in it. I’m thinking I may swap out an old known RX just to get me through tuning so I know it will at least survive an RTL if the RX pro gives me an issue.
1 Like
That is probably a wise decision. The Pro did return some impressive telemetry range but with my start-up problems, and 1 warranty returned Rx, plus the crying loss of some nice hardware has me gun shy. I still fly one quad with a standard Nano Rx Diversity and it is reliable.
I really need to just put my head down and replace everything (Crossfire and Frsky R9) with ELRS.
~$125 for a Bandit starter…
1 Like
I’m in tough spot on that one. I’ve dumped a ton of cash into multiple crossfire systems for my student’s projects. Until now the only issues have been user related so I haven’t worried, but I’ve started noticing the failsafes cropping up again, and I’m getting concerned. Don’t have the budget to switch everything to ELRS this year, but might have to keep that on the radar for the future.
1 Like
Yea, I hear that. $125 plus $25 for each additional craft will really add up. And if I transition slowly I will be juggling 3 Tx modules, what a pain. I have ruled out flashing ELRS to the R9 stuff.
40 years on RC and 12 years on Ardupilot and this last 4 months has made me question the time and money that has been spent trying to make a fairly simple quad work. Cant 100% untangle all the issues I have had as many were probably present together.
Got CRSF system to hopefully improve some problems but it certainly introduced new ones. Had a faulty TX that eventually failed completely, doing like this - (not mine but exactly the same). https://youtu.be/HIco-0vjfcA?si=xRr9-YYe1N3b14BM
Then an RC loss every few minutes that seems to have been a nano RX that also started loosing bind. Possible RC issues from FC overload. Possible issues from nearby HT pylon.
Now, intermittent RC loss from this Nano pro. I think I have an unused nano rx someplace that probably needs giving a chance. All quite a nightmare.
At least the quad can land itself. Im too nervous to try my 2m twin plane.
Never had an problem with 27Mhz 
And whats occurring here? Two almost identical repeats of a route. Had a RC failsafe in the middle, then the RSSI and LQ changes completely for second run.
Having just reviewed recent logs with RC loss, it appears that all occur for exactly 6 seconds.
I’m not sure one should jump to quick conclusions concerning Crossfire. I myself have been using it since my second R9 module went crazy, which was 4 years ago. Since then I have not had a single RX loss in real flight using Nano, Diversity and Nano Pro (only 1 unit) and consequently never lost a craft. Whenever I did have problems, it was at close range, hovering at most, mostly not connecting or requiring while still on the ground. Usually those problems were fixed by an AP update, so they weren’t to blame on CRSF FW.
All in all I think that’s a pretty good record, therefore I still see no reason to switch ELRS for me personally, also considering the necessary investment (money+time) of course.
However, of course this discussion has also made me a little nervous. I rarely fly in winter, so for the moment I still feel quite safe. I will however soon be trying out my new TX16S and new CRSF Lite module (after my old units were recently stolen from the car…) soon, and we’ll see how it goes…
As for ELRS, I’ve not been following it so far - does it already have a better reputation than Crossfire, when it comes to bugs and their fixing, and when it comes to working flawlessly with AP?
It’s beyond that. For someone starting fresh with no hardware I think it makes little sense to use anything else. For us with other systems I think it’s just a matter of time. Unless TBS get’s it’s act together.
Well, then it looks like TBS better come up with something that ELRS cannot do, if they don’t want to keep ‘losing’ new users.
Another matter for me would be the brand of receivers (and the TX module). Since anybody can produce ELRS hardware, I would wonder which ones can be trusted. I’d certainly not pick the cheapest ones for 10 bucks by Happymodel or so, but a higher price doesn’t guarantee quality. If Matek for example did a receiver, I’d know it can be trusted. BETAFPV I do not really trust.
I had about 2 or 3 defective TBS receivers (only Nano, never Diversity) in 4 years, which were by the way most easily and quickly replaced by a local dealer. Not sure this would work with ELRS ones.
I will say that I had very good service from both TBS directly and their retailers for returns. But, I have not had to return any other systems stuff.
Personally I would buy Radiomaster ELRS hardware. Many of the others are obviously successfully used but their Radios have been so great I just trust the brand.
A few more observations an questions.
Is it possible to see the RX identification from the logs (other than just CRSF)
Im quite sure when I had the nano RX in the copter it would failsafe almost every flight and not recover. (usually loss of bind)
Now I have the nano pro in there, there are a few flights without failures and when it does it seems to reconnect after 6 seconds.
I have had no failures with the nano pro in stab mode.
I started off connected to USART 6 (serial7) on the Matek but were getting warnings about CRSF on non DMA port. I changed to UART7. Is it ok as I have just realized its a 3.3v port, not 5v like the others.
Right, I forgot that Radiomaster is now offering ELRS RX’s as well. I would also trust them, at least ‘electronically’, mechanically maybe a little less (problems on first TX16S).
Depending on how this turns out, maybe I should have bought the ELRS version when I got a new TX16S recently, just to be ready for any situation. But the 4in1 one was on sale (with the nice metal gimbals), I was absolutely sure I’d stick with CRSF forever, and also I might actually use the 4in1 on some China/RTF models. Well, actually I still expect TBS to get their act together.
I probably should have too but I would be going with a 915mhz system for sure so it would have been an interim choice.
Today I put the CRSF on UART 4. Had a long flight without issues. Too early to say fixed. Could one of the issues be that UART 7 which is 3.3v (all others 5v) is not good for the CRSF?
Ok, so what’s the most promising combination of firmwares at the moment? I tried binding new TX16S + Lite Module to an existing quad with Nano RX. Binding wasn’t a problem but I’m not getting anything from Yaapu - even though all sensors are there. Usually in cases like this I had only 10 sensors (no GPS for example) and Yaapu always started working once all sensors showed up. Not this time, and I think the usual settings are all correct.
The attempt was made with 6.31 (had already flashed this when I got the module a few weeks ago) and AP 4.4.4. Should I downgrade to 6.19 and use a custom latest for maximum success?
I don’t think I ever tried powering a Nano RX with anything but 5V but according to specs 3.3V should work for both Pro and non-Pro.
Its not the supply voltage, its the signal line which according to the Matek manual is ‘3.3v tolerant’. All others are 5v tolerant. I didnt notice until yesterday. BTW Im powering almost everything from the servo rail after many crashes with the FC freezing up. Not saying it was defiantly the cause, just trying to eliminate things.
I’ve been having trouble on 6.31 and AC4.4.4. My other gear on 6.19 hasn’t been an issue. So I’ve rolled back to 6.19. Haven’t been able to fly yet (winter…) but it’s an easy thing to test.
I’m seeing the same 6 seconds on my fail safes. I don’t think it’s a power or mechanical issue because I noticed a couple of times that Yaapu was still giving me telemetry during those 6 seconds.