openrcforums

Steven, I've opened up a ticket requesting to port OpenTX to your board.

would it be possible to send a few boards to the guys?

https://github.com/opentx/opentx/issues ... -168816236

Thanks

Do you want openTx because you are used to it, or is there some feature(s) you feel are missing from ersky9x that you need?

Personally I think, at $69 a board, sending "a few" boards out for free is a bit expensive for Steven.

Mike.

Hi Mike, I started with er9x on my 9x, then I started using opentx and I liked it more.. I cant remember what was the exact reason but vaguely remember I had more options with OpenTx. I have already setup a model standard template with opentx with spoken telemetry, alerts etc and I'm sure pretty much there can be an equal model standard with the same more or less features but using er9x. er9x has always been easier to use as I understand your approach was to have a layout as simple as possible but this means I need to maintain two systems and two standard templates and I really cant do that due to time constraints and is prone to mistakes. (hence the request if possible to also have OpenTx)

I dont know the programming constraints or changes required but I thought since there is already support for the er9xsky board and as I understood this board was a repackage of that board and the smartparts programmer?

There must be quite a few people that started with a 9x and now use a Taranis (or 9xrPro), I just thought this will make use of peoples old 9x rather gathering dust in their workshop.

Just as a side note, Ersky9x also supports the Taranis
Also, er9x being easier to work with doesn't mean it has less features. At least In hardware support ( voice modules, saving models to card, extra switches and pots, bluetooth, etc) I believe er9x/ersky9x is way more advanced. Of course opentx might do some things differently or even have some options/features that are not present in er9x. But the general idea that opentx is good and er9x is bad is absolutely wrong..

João

For information, the 9Xtreme is more of a new design rather than a re-package of existing designs. It uses the STM ARM processor, the same as the Taranis while the SKY board uses the Atmel ARM processor. Since both ARM processors include a USB interface, there is no original SP board implementation required.

There is a mix of features however. The Taranis only has a 32k byte EEPROM, the SKY and 9Xtreme have 512K (actually the 9Xtreme has 1024k, but I'm only using 512k at present).
The 9Xtreme also uses the existing 9X mainboard as an I/O processor (display, buttons and some switches).

Mike.

MikeB wrote:For information, the 9Xtreme is more of a new design rather than a re-package of existing designs. It uses the STM ARM processor, the same as the Taranis while the SKY board uses the Atmel ARM processor. Since both ARM processors include a USB interface, there is no original SP board implementation required.

There is a mix of features however. The Taranis only has a 32k byte EEPROM, the SKY and 9Xtreme have 512K (actually the 9Xtreme has 1024k, but I'm only using 512k at present).
The 9Xtreme also uses the existing 9X mainboard as an I/O processor (display, buttons and some switches).

Mike.

so since both use (more or less) the same STM ARM processor architecture is this an easier task to port it across?

Not necessarily, as I indicated, the EEPROM uses a different mechanism, the Taranis needs compression, the 9Xtreme does not.

Mike.

I am personally using "PPM Center Adjustment" build option in OpenTX, battery voltage calibration (to offset and show correct LiPo voltage), and some logic in the mixer like mixing multiple inputs into a single channel. I'm pretty sure mixer is the same, and the battery voltage reading can be calibrated, but what about ppmca? I use it to move center from 1500us to 1520us and have perfect symmetric endpoints.
Well, when I move from the KK2 to Naze32/similar the problem with ppmca will disappear all by itself.
I guess I should just give it a try when I have free time.

On ersky9x you may set "Auto Limits". This, I think does the same thing as the PPM centre adjust. If you set Auto Limits to, say, 3%, then using the sub-trim to move the centre position of a channel will move both end points up to a maximum of 3%. Auto Limits may be set to up to 10%, and you will find the setting in the Model|General.
So, if you want to move the centre by 20uS, this is about 4%, so set Auto limits to, say, 4.5%, then in the limits menu adjust the sub-trim to 4.0. You will see the ppm output for the channel you are on, in uS, shown on the top line. This should now show 1520.
You should also see the two end point values surrounded by a box, indicating they have been "auto adjusted", and showing the value -96 and +104.

Mike.

Thanks, Mike!
That'll do. I'll have some free time soon and will try to tinker with my 9xtreme and opentx. Are your commits to ersky9x for 9Xtreme support specifically marked?

They haven't been as I had so many other changes I committed at the same time.

Mike.