Introducing: TelemetrEZ

All mods related to the frsky telemetry series of the firmware
Post Reply
s_mack
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:11 am
Country: -

Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by s_mack »

I consider myself at least a somewhat bright fellow. But I admit I was taken down a few notches as I tried to setup my 9x with telemetry for the first time last week. The 5 or 6 guides left me with a whole lot of head scratching and "huh?" moments... its nothing against the guides, just more that I've always had a problem with spacial imagination. That is... I can't translate what I read into a 3D picture in my head very well. And my mantra in business has always been: if its difficult for me, its difficult for others... so let's make it easier!

So once I finally wrapped my head around what had to happen to get telemetry to work, I think I came up with an easier way for others to do it. And I'm calling it TelemetrEZ (Pronounced: Telemetreasy) :)

The idea was kicked off when I finally came across an AVR that has dual UART capability without having to go to the new (and largely under-supported) Xmega family of AVR. With dual-UART, we can bring the telemetry into this new processor, along with the signals for the two related switch inputs, and pass it back along to the main AVR (the radio's chip) without having to do any fine soldering directly to the radio's pins or resistors! There is some soldering required... but just to the relatively large and easily accessed MISO and MOSI pads (or even easier - the smartieparts programmer board's MISO and MOSI pads). That's right... the infamous switch issue is resolved with Telemetreasy.

UNFORTUNATELY: the AVR I referred to above isn't actually available on the market yet, but they've announced a July 7th availability date. But my design is done and ready to go as soon as they are available!

Any interest? How many should I make?

- Steven

[update for simplicity sake: post describing how to update is here]
Attachments
TelemetrEZ bolts onto the inside/back of your radio.  You just plug in a few cables and solder two wires and you're good to go!
TelemetrEZ bolts onto the inside/back of your radio. You just plug in a few cables and solder two wires and you're good to go!

User avatar
cre8tiveleo
Posts: 1434
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:13 pm
Country: -
Location: Ontario,(GTA North)
Contact:

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by cre8tiveleo »

Not a bad idea, I'd probably buy one to try it out, test it, make it break (I'm good at finding all the weak points)
Just how much can you expect one of these to cost? A real estimate, not too inflated.
s_mack
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:11 am
Country: -

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by s_mack »

cre8tiveleo wrote:A real estimate, not too inflated.
I'm not really sure what that means :)

I've been in business a long time and I understand the importance of pricing a product "right". I'd be doing myself (and my training) a disservice if I attempted a guess at a price at this point, especially when the early presumption is that I'd "inflate" it :lol:

All (reasonable) estimates are inflated, btw. That's probably the best lesson I ever was taught (at least in school) about business: "under promise, over deliver". Someone once put it more directly:
If you estimate $100 and sell for $80, they love you. If yuo estimate $80 and sell for $100, they kill you.
- Steven
s_mack
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:11 am
Country: -

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by s_mack »

Of course... part of figuring out the "right" price, is market research.

So... what do YOU think the price is? :) (a real price, not too deflated. lol)
User avatar
Kilrah
Posts: 11108
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:56 pm
Country: Switzerland

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by Kilrah »

Hmm, interesting, however I think it should be done a little differently...

Someone wanting to do an "easy" installation would logically want both the programmer board and this one. Programmer board = $35, and now add this one that would probably be priced about the same, total $70 for something that still requires a bit of soldering (the serial link between the 2 boards) and installation time. But for $95 you've got a nice ersky board that is a solderless drop-in replacement, with way more possibilities and future-proofing... see where I'm going?

What I'd do is redesign the programmer board and add this functionality to it. Make a single, probably larger pogo-plug board that does it all, priced no more than $50.

I don't understand your difficulty of finding an AVR with 2 UARTs, the good old atmega128 (or the smaller 162) have 2 and have been around for about 10 years... additionally a secondary processor with such a light load (relay UART traffic and add switch info) would have no problem handling the 2nd UART by software.

User avatar
cre8tiveleo
Posts: 1434
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:13 pm
Country: -
Location: Ontario,(GTA North)
Contact:

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by cre8tiveleo »

It's already too expensive. I was once told too, if it sounds like snake oil, it ain't worth a dime of your time.

So, for that reason I am out.

For $5 I buy a BT module, install a free Android App, make a level shifter, and voila, I have a telemetry interface that speaks to me all my alerts, logs all the data onto an sd card. This is what you have to compete with.


Going by the price of your current board, it would probably be $100.

now you're talking smack!
wallaguest1
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:56 am
Country: -

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by wallaguest1 »

mmm. with such a little quantity of components in the board, i think would had been a nice idea to put this in the v2.2 of the programing board and have an "all in one".
FrSky X12D will probably kick in hard when it appears, and as far as i know, Turnigy 9XR will be telemetry ready too, so if the price of both board end up similar, any one would prefer a 9XR for 50$ + shipping and have a better radio with better potentiometers and so on,
s_mack
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:11 am
Country: -

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by s_mack »

Kilrah wrote:Hmm, interesting, however I think it should be done a little differently...
Someone wanting to do an "easy" installation would logically want both the programmer board and this one. [...]
What I'd do is redesign the programmer board and add this functionality to it. Make a single, probably larger pogo-plug board that does it all, priced no more than $50.
wallaguest1 wrote:mmm. with such a little quantity of components in the board, i think would had been a nice idea to put this in the v2.2 of the programing board and have an "all in one".
I tend to agree. #1) too late; #2) its not a given that you and I are correct. There are some that want everything in one, and others that don't want to pay for features they don't need/want. Both are understandable. When I first made the SmartieParts board with EL backlight, there was a considerable number of people that wanted the EL by itself or the programmer by itself. When I recently announced 2.2 having LED support the first comments were that they already had an SP board and wanted an LED driver on its own. If the timing worked out and I had the TelemetrEZ features on the SP board, I can guarantee there'd be those suggesting I do them individually so they can just pick what they want. The few critisisms regarding the Sky9x/ersky board is that you end up paying for a bunch of features you may never use. While others see the extreme value and flexibility in having such a package. Is one wrong and the other right? Of course not - it comes down to preference and perspective.
Kilrah wrote:Programmer board = $35, and now add this one that would probably be priced about the same, total $70 for something that still requires a bit of soldering (the serial link between the 2 boards) and installation time.
The programmer board, at whatever its cost, isn't really relevant. Its not required for TelemetrEZ to work. And I'm not sure why you're assuming a price of $35 for the TelemetrEZ. As I said before, I don't want to estimate a price yet because there are too many variables and its not a responsible thing to do... but with that said, I also don't want specific $35 rumors floating around. Not that cost of production is necessarily the driving factor, but compared to the SP board, this board is simpler (rectangle), the components less in quantity and cost, the assembly is less challenging, and the design was certainly a lot quicker. The harnesses add cost that the SP board didn't have, but I suspect the final price will be less than the SP board. If I can't price it at $25 or less, its probably not an item that's going to sell in the quantity necessary to produce it.
Kilrah wrote:But for $95 you've got a nice ersky board that is a solderless drop-in replacement, with way more possibilities and future-proofing... see where I'm going?
wallaguest1 wrote:FrSky X12D will probably kick in hard when it appears, and as far as i know, Turnigy 9XR will be telemetry ready too, so if the price of both board end up similar, any one would prefer a 9XR for 50$ + shipping and have a better radio with better potentiometers and so on,
While I certainly appreciate the feedback, I suppose I should have framed the introduction by clearly stating this product is intended for 9x owners - I thought that was obvious. People moving on to the Ersky/sky9x board obviously have no need for this. Nor do people holding out for mythical future products that may or may not exist in the near or distant future. Nor do people who are going to choose to spend their money on a different hobby entirely. The list of people who won't buy a product like this is endless... clearly, I'm interested in finding out how many WOULD be interested in it. And that's people that are wanting to add telemetry to their 9x without all the difficult soldering.

Kilrah wrote:I don't understand your difficulty of finding an AVR with 2 UARTs, the good old atmega128 (or the smaller 162) have 2 and have been around for about 10 years... additionally a secondary processor with such a light load (relay UART traffic and add switch info) would have no problem handling the 2nd UART by software.
Sorry, I wasn't complete in that statement. I wasn't having "difficulty finding an AVR with 2 UARTs" as though that was the only criteria. Power consumption, cost, availability, complexity, size... they all play a role. A 128 or 162 on a board like this is ridiculous over-kill. They both cost 6x as much as the Tiny and they're much larger. Even in its smallest package, the 162 is twice the size with twice as many pins. And they draw more current. The Tiny is really a perfect chip for the job, and thus why the sudden inspiration.
User avatar
Crucial
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:56 pm
Country: -
Location: SE WI, USA

Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by Crucial »

wallaguest1 wrote:mmm. with such a little quantity of components in the board, i think would had been a nice idea to put this in the v2.2 of the programing board and have an "all in one".
FrSky X12D will probably kick in hard when it appears, and as far as i know, Turnigy 9XR will be telemetry ready too, so if the price of both board end up similar, any one would prefer a 9XR for 50$ + shipping and have a better radio with better potentiometers and so on,
Where did you hear/read this info about the 9xr?
User avatar
ShowMaster
Posts: 4327
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:44 am
Country: -
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by ShowMaster »

Not taking sides but a few observations,
Many are solder and circuit design challenged that want to experience the full capabilities of er9x and open9x. Others just want to join in on the fun we have here sharing our 9x mod stories. For those persons until a buy and fly 9x TX with all features goes on sale the SP board at any price has allowed so many that opportunity. The next issue is customer support. Three has to be some wiggle room in the price to absorb the warranty repairs and returns. Bottom line is the product has to make a profit to keep it on the market. Some will always find a work around or less but many will pay the price and be glad to have it.
This new board if it works well will be in demand by many that have limited technical abilities but want to enjoy upgrading their 9x to the telemetry level at any reasonable price TBD.
I've built up several 9x systems for free labor for friends. I used the SP boards for the programming interface so that long after I've lost interest in helping my friends in theory they can just unscrew the SP board and send it back for repairs and not involving me but not deserting my friends totally. For those TX I've used the solder in programmer in I'm pretty much on the hook for lifetime repairs if I want to keep flying at my field. for that reason I've stocked extra USBasp boards at my expense for future if any failures. Also since I've actually soldered wires to their TX board that to will be a reason that will come back to haunt me with some personalities in the future.
So...
Some can build a TX from scratch and program it. Others can older well and follow DIY info. Others can screw in a board and beyond that are challenged. Some pay $3000 for a new Futaba and fly foamies next to me at the field.
Something for everyone and the market place will determine its worth and it's not my place to decide its worth or usefulness except it weather I purchase it or not.
From the damaged soldering posts I've read here over the months those using the SP boards seemed very happy and most were able to fix any issues by retightening the board screws or cleaning the pads the pogo pins hit. Not so happy posts for those that were solder challenged and soldered in their programmers!
I think any board addition that requires no or little soldering to interface is worthwhile.
BTW,
All these rumored new TX's coming out may be pretty stupid FW wise. Let's just hope the code writers here that make us all have so much fun don't decide to stop working for free for us! I keep wondering how many of us have donated so far for the work that's ongoing speaking of costs?
SM
User avatar
Kilrah
Posts: 11108
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:56 pm
Country: Switzerland

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by Kilrah »

s_mack wrote:The programmer board, at whatever its cost, isn't really relevant. Its not required for TelemetrEZ to work.
Well, not necessarily this programmer, but they will need a programmer in any case to flash the firmware in the first place. That's why having the all in one is interesting. Most of those who do the soldering for another programmer are also open to do the telemetry mod themselves. Your programmer board is great and successful because it's "plug and play", and appeals to the others.
What I mean is, those likely to buy the TelemetrEZ are probably the same who are likely to buy your programmer board. And to them, having one board with all of it on would be easier and probably cheaper than 2 separate ones.

But obviously that's just my point of view, you asked for opinons, I've given mine ;)
s_mack
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:11 am
Country: -

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by s_mack »

Yes, and thank you. And I agree with your opinion, as I said:
me wrote:I tend to agree. #1) too late; #2) its not a given that you and I are correct.
I certainly wasn't arguing that point. All I meant about not being relavant was that they didn't specifically need the SP programmer so a customer that doesn't already own one doesn't feel obligated that they buy my programmer. I worded my response poorly, I think. You're right though... that those that are drawn to the TelemetrEZ are likely to be also drawn to the SP programmer.

In hind-sight, of course I'd bundle them together. But with 2500 SP boards already out there, I'm not sure its the best way to go forward even if it wasn't too late (by 'too late', I mean the Rev 2.2 board is already in production) because those very important potential customers would be apt to feel I was forcing them to re-buy the programmer just to get the telemetry interface. For a new customer, it would probably be best as an all-in-one, but alas its not economically feasible to offer every combination that someone might want. If I were moving hundreds of thousands of these, then sure I could offer each combination and still do the volume necessary to keep the prices down. But with the niche market items that I tend to gravitate toward... it can't really work that way.
s_mack
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:11 am
Country: -

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by s_mack »

ShowMaster wrote:Not taking sides but a few observations
Thanks for your comments. Its interesting that you prefaced it with the term "taking sides". It does kind of seem like there are "sides", doesn't it? But why is that? What exactly are the "sides" anyway? On this forum in particular, I tend to get a sense of hostility when I post, from a few people anyway, and I'm not really sure where it comes from. I admit that it catches me off-guard. Considering my products are specific to the 9x radio and this forum is specific to the 9x radio, I would have thought I'd be more welcome here.

If there was a "no commercial posts" rule that I missed... by all means, let me know. Did I say something at some point that was taken poorly? Again, feel free to enlighten me (anyone?).

Or is it just my imagination? :)

- Steven
User avatar
Rob Thomson
Site Admin
Posts: 4543
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:34 am
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Albury, Guildford
Contact:

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by Rob Thomson »

Hostility?

I have never noticed that.

As far as I am concerned - your products are superb - and serve to help loads of people get into er9x/open9x/etc/etc. So post away! We need you :-) :-)

I have a feeling that this forum - while focusing on the 9x, will in time become more of a 'radio hackers' forum! What with the new Sky9x board, the upcoming turnigy and frsky units (all of which look to support our firmwares). The future is indeed going to be rather diverse!

Rob
Slope Soaring, FPV, and pretty much anything 'high tech'
...........if you think it should be in the wiki.. ask me for wiki access, then go add it!
User avatar
jhsa
Posts: 19480
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:13 pm
Country: Germany

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by jhsa »

s_mack wrote: But with 2500 SP boards already out there,
Steven, there is also the possibility that many of those who own a SP board might already have done the telemetry mod because there was no other option for having it..
So. In my opinion, the people that would most likely buy it would be those who just got the 9x or the ones who never modded theirs. so my bet would go with a new Super SP board..

Maybe I've missed it but I still don't understand how you re-route the switches without soldering to the Atmega pins.
That's the hardest part of all.. tell me about it, just done it on my second tx.. ;)
My er9x/Ersky9x/eepskye Video Tutorials
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5uJhoD7sAKidZmkhMpYpp_qcuIqJXhb9

Donate to Er9x/Ersky9x:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=YHX43JR3J7XGW
wallaguest1
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:56 am
Country: -

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by wallaguest1 »

i never thought it could be possible the telemetry mod without solders,
because that is one of the main problems people need to achieve when dealing with such tiny SMD resistors,

i understand that maybe some people could complain if they need to pay for features they dont want to use, but concerning to my experience, people do this constantly when buying high-end radios like an aurora 9 and they have no idea for what are the options of 3/4 of the firmware.

At least from my point of view, people do care about what they can do with their hardware, rather than what they will do with their hardware.
thats repeated constantly over everything, from people buying an i7 just to use msn, to people buying an 5D mark II just because "pro's" use it.
they don't do nice photos, but they feel comfortable thinking they could.

looking the few components of the telemetrEZ would had been a really nice build-in feature in the board for this next version; any way, maybe the next one.
for those complaining about paying 7$ extra or whatever it cost, for a feature they will not use, is probably a quite minor % of the clients.
If you had two boards, one with built-in telemetry support, and one without, i bet the one with telemetry support will be almost the single one will be sold.

In my case i don't have a frsky module yet, but you know... i would be happy to know i can have telemetry without with the board when i am ready to it,

maybe my marketing approach is wrong and every customer should be took into consideration, but i am not big fan of this idea when talking about such minor changes,
User avatar
Kilrah
Posts: 11108
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:56 pm
Country: Switzerland

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by Kilrah »

jhsa wrote:Maybe I've missed it but I still don't understand how you re-route the switches without soldering to the Atmega pins.
The switches would connect to the add-on board, and the info would be sent to the mainboard through the serial port along with the telemetry info. That would obviously require a special firmware version.
User avatar
jhsa
Posts: 19480
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:13 pm
Country: Germany

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by jhsa »

aahh, ok. Thanks, now I understand..
My er9x/Ersky9x/eepskye Video Tutorials
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5uJhoD7sAKidZmkhMpYpp_qcuIqJXhb9

Donate to Er9x/Ersky9x:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=YHX43JR3J7XGW
s_mack
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:11 am
Country: -

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by s_mack »

Not that "special" :) The Frsky version already does 99% of it. All it would have to add is the support to pass on the two switch signals.
User avatar
Rob Thomson
Site Admin
Posts: 4543
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:34 am
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Albury, Guildford
Contact:

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by Rob Thomson »

I imagine the only question would be latency on the serial port... but as this is only routing on on/off states of toggle switches.... hardly a problem :)
Slope Soaring, FPV, and pretty much anything 'high tech'
...........if you think it should be in the wiki.. ask me for wiki access, then go add it!
User avatar
ShowMaster
Posts: 4327
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:44 am
Country: -
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by ShowMaster »

s_mack wrote:
ShowMaster wrote:Not taking sides but a few observations
Thanks for your comments. Its interesting that you prefaced it with the term "taking sides". It does kind of seem like there are "sides", doesn't it? But why is that? What exactly are the "sides" anyway? On this forum in particular, I tend to get a sense of hostility when I post, from a few people anyway, and I'm not really sure where it comes from. I admit that it catches me off-guard. Considering my products are specific to the 9x radio and this forum is specific to the 9x radio, I would have thought I'd be more welcome here.

If there was a "no commercial posts" rule that I missed... by all means, let me know. Did I say something at some point that was taken poorly? Again, feel free to enlighten me (anyone?).

Or is it just my imagination? :)

- Steven
There are always two sides in human thinking. One is finding or building a product in the first place and the other is bragging rights it was made or found for a lessor price or for free.
I like low prices but have rules about cheap vs low. When I first found the er9x mods a year and a half ago I was excited to jump in and mod and program me own 9x. At the time I had just lost my 3rd plane due to DSM2 link loss, not pilot error. I was bummed and ordered the latest, at that time, DX8 but it too was new and having issues and was still DSM2. Then I came across a way to add a Frsky DJT to a $80 TX and after updating the FW I had a solid RF link, more mix features, and RX's for $25. Again, lower prices and better features than a $450 system but not cheap.. One issue, I didn't' have a clue at the time on how to build or add my own programmer. A search for options got me to purchase my first SP board, all from recommendations, not from any commercial advertising on any forums. Later after installing 3 SP boards I did get up to speed and now have several options I can use, I see this new board if produced another option for those that just can't solder and know it and want to join us.So again, some people will never be happy with the price for what they get, others will complain even when it's free( we all know at least one) . Then there's all the happy ones in between.
My opinion is build it if you can deal with the startup cost and put a price on it for the first run. The SP products have never been "cheap" and that's the good news!
SM
User avatar
Kilrah
Posts: 11108
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:56 pm
Country: Switzerland

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by Kilrah »

ShowMaster wrote:There are always two sides in human thinking
And everything inbetween :D
s_mack
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:11 am
Country: -

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by s_mack »

wallaguest1 wrote:maybe my marketing approach is wrong and every customer should be took into consideration, but i am not big fan of this idea when talking about such minor changes,
No, not wrong at all... really, that was kind of my point - you can't please everyone! in this particular case, as I said before, I agree that it would be best to combine the TelemetrEZ with the new SP board - that was my plan for Rev 3.0 - but I had to get 2.2 out and I had to do it fast. I know I mentioned it elsewhere, but the reason was because I *SUDDENLY* was informed with ZERO notice that I couldn't get EL panels from my supplier and all other suppliers were considerably more money. That meant I had to very quickly come up with a new design that removed EL. I decided to support LED instead so that it still had a backlight control function. As it turned out, the TelemetrEZ design went very quickly (start to mostly finish in < 24 hours)... but that really only happened because I finalized 2.2 and got it off my table and could look at things fresh.

Also, its not as straight forward as people might think. The chips which support ISP programmer designs don't also support what we need for solderless telemetry support. USBasp, in particular, would take quite a bit of porting work (with someone else's code - never easy) to work on a chip capable of dealing with two UARTs. I abandoned that plan a long time ago and instead started looking at the AVRisp-MKII which uses a much more capable platform. However, in that family of chips, there are only the Xmega's that support dual-UART... and they are only "experimentally" supported by the opensource AVRisp-MKII projects. So splitting up the two projects really is much easier. I suppose they could exist independently on the same physical board easily enough... but, well... I didn't think of that in time. Bottom line - Rev 2.2 is being produced right now. I can't make changes at this point. So dwelling on what *should* have been is a bit of a wasted effort. My task right now is to determine if there's demand to bother releasing TelemetrEZ or not. The indication from feedback so far... is not. And if that's the case, well at least it wasn't much effort so far! I'd be a bit disappointed, for sure, because I thought it was rather clever :) But I can take ego hits better than I can take financial ones, so I appreciate truth over lip service, so thank you all.
s_mack
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:11 am
Country: -

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by s_mack »

Rob Thomson wrote:I imagine the only question would be latency on the serial port... but as this is only routing on on/off states of toggle switches.... hardly a problem :)
Very much a non-issue, I'm sure. The communication between FrSky and TelemetrEZ is really very slow. 9600 Baud I think? The processing of the MCU is in the millions of operations range. Even if communication between the TelemetrEZ and the 9x is also at 9600 we still won't have a problem, but if that proved incorrect... that MCU to MCU communication could occur at 1Mbps if necessary. The lines are short and we have the possibility to clock the communication. We can really pick whatever speed we want. Using all hardware interrupts, there'd be next to no impact on anything.
s_mack
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:11 am
Country: -

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by s_mack »

ShowMaster wrote: others will complain even when it's free( we all know at least one) .
LOL. That's awesome. Amazing, isn't it, that I can know *EXACTLY* who you're talking about, without a single doubt in my mind. Now, THAT guy I expect some hostility from :evil:
User avatar
Kilrah
Posts: 11108
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:56 pm
Country: Switzerland

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by Kilrah »

s_mack wrote:The chips which support ISP programmer designs don't also support what we need for solderless telemetry support. USBasp, in particular, would take quite a bit of porting work (with someone else's code - never easy) to work on a chip capable of dealing with two UARTs. [...] However, in that family of chips, there are only the Xmega's that support dual-UART...
As I said earlier - forget the dual hardware UARTs, and implement the 2nd one by software! The only CPU task in "running" mode is passing a 4800baud serial stream (of which a maximaum of about 1200 are used due to RF limitation), which is really a piece of cake. Also, it doesn't need to be active during flashing operations... Run the serial relay and switch reading continuously, until you get a request on the USB port, where you switch to usbasp code execution.
s_mack wrote:I suppose they could exist independently on the same physical board easily enough... but, well... I didn't think of that in time.
That too, no problem in having 2 processors on one board. Will still be cheaper than 2 processors on 2 boards.
s_mack wrote:Bottom line - Rev 2.2 is being produced right now. I can't make changes at this point. So dwelling on what *should* have been is a bit of a wasted effort. My task right now is to determine if there's demand to bother releasing TelemetrEZ or not. The indication from feedback so far... is not.
No! It's too late for the current run, but now that input isn't telling you to throw away the whole concept in the bin, it's only showing you that there could be interest for a different solution that could be implemented in V3.0!
pmullen503
Posts: 275
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 8:37 pm
Country: -
Location: Fond du Lac, WI

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by pmullen503 »

Speaking for the "solder challenged", I'd be happy to pay $25 to get Frsky telemetry on the 9x screen. That's about the cost of the FLD-02. I was happy to buy the SP board and get access to new FW without soldering. Even if TelemtrEZ was only available with the programmer for $60-75, I'd buy it and sell my original SP board.

I think there are a sizable number of folks, SP owners especially, that would be interested.

Sign me up!
User avatar
MikeB
9x Developer
Posts: 17990
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:24 pm
Country: -
Location: Poole, Dorset, UK

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by MikeB »

I think Steven's approach is the right one. I've done something similar with the voice addition for er9x to the stock board. While it requires a circuit on stripboard to be made, it doesn't have a processor that needs to be programmed, and solves the one requirement of adding voice output. As it caused the backlight control signal to be lost, it also provides a replacement for this, and even includes a transistor to drive it making a simpler installation.

Steven's board provides a telemetry facility, including the level shifter that allow direct connection to the TX module. This level shifter would need to be purchased separately if connecting to an unmodified module, so the actual user cost of the TelemetrEZ is not as great as it might seem. The board also provides the connections for the two signals that otherwise need very careful soldering to processor pins. Soldering wires to the two pads is quite easy.
It can be quite difficult to decide what the many users need. Clearly many (>2500) have opted for the SP board. I'm quite happy with soldering, and have a 'proper' programmer so didn't need the SP board. I'd probably make my own usbasp if I needed one, but many might like telemetry but are afraid to do the soldering so don't bother.

Ignoring the backlight, the SP board is a solderless programmer, that just bolts on, easy to use. It would be cheaper (probably) to get a usbasp, a ten way connector, some ten way ribbon cable, and solder it up, but 2500 find it easier/safer/better etc. to just get the SP board.

TelemetrEZ looks very similer in operation, just plug it in, solder two wires to easy to solder pads and your done. It solves a requirement. What Steven now needs is replies from people who want telemetry without the fuss.

BTW, software for er9x should be straightforward. The TelemetrEZ board just needs to send a single byte, outside of telemetry packets which are clearly framed, containing the two switch positions. Er9x, if it receives such a byte, can change the two alternate pins for the switches to outputs, and set them acording to the data from the TelemetrEZ. The rest of the software will then read these values back in as though they are from switches wired to the pins.

I agree with the possibility of a software driven UART, if I had enough time I'd write and test one, then a MEGA88/168/328 could be used, and might even be able to double as a usbasp, but then it would need more than two wires to be soldered, so then it is less simple.

So, come on those who want telemetry, but dont want to solder to the processor, let Steven know what a good idea this is.

Mike.
erskyTx/er9x developer
The difficult we do immediately,
The impossible takes a little longer!
s_mack
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:11 am
Country: -

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by s_mack »

Thanks Mike - I appreciate that post.


I just posted this on rcgroups:
So... staring at the9x schematics... it occurred to me that maybe this would be a good opportunity to deal with the crappy voltage regulator at the same time? Look at the area in the top left of the schematic. That's the circuit relating to the voltage regulator. Because TelemetrEZ (is that a stupid name? I thought I was being clever) basically "hijacks" the main connector, we also have access to the raw battery voltage and vcc. That's "BATT+ and "VCC" on the schematic. So I could do one of two things:

1) Run a new VR in parallel to the existing one. I honestly don't know if this is wise or not. I've seen forum posts relating somewhat to the subject, but its always someone asking about how to over-load their circuit and that's not what we'd be doing. I don't know if the "lesser" VR would just be ignored or if it would cause problems... anyone knowledgable in the area have thoughts?

2) Completely bypass that entire area of the circuit. Rather than tap into BATT+ and VCC, we re-route them completely. The only thing is, its an all-or-nothing scenario, so everything else in that segment is bypassed too. The caps are no problem because we can add them back in on the new board. But see those two resistors leading to "Battery"? I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that is the battery input into the main CPU for sensing the current battery voltage level. I suppose once firmware is better developed, we could handle the battery voltage level on the new board and just pass that along to the main CPU along with the other data.

Thoughts?

Wrong place to discuss it?

- Steven
perhaps its another useful feature? I just don't know how that affects the battery monitoring.
User avatar
MikeB
9x Developer
Posts: 17990
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:24 pm
Country: -
Location: Poole, Dorset, UK

Re: Introducing: TelemetrEZ

Post by MikeB »

I reckon 1) would be the way to go. We already do this when programming since we drive the VCC line from the programmer, with the on board Vreg unpowered. It actually passes most of VCC backwards to the voltage measurement circuit so we get a reading of 4.2-4.4V when the programmer is connected and powering the board.
If you put a LDO Vreg on the board, it would allow 2 Life cells to be used to power the Tx safely, and the voltage reading would still be OK. I think the lower voltage output Vreg would just switch off, since it would see a regulated voltage higher than iot is trying to drive. If this is the LDO one, then the main one would supply everything unless it overheated and shut down, or the battery voltage dropped below its dropout voltage, in either case the LDO Vreg would 'take over'.
Anyone actually tried paralleling to Vregs otherwise?

Mike.
erskyTx/er9x developer
The difficult we do immediately,
The impossible takes a little longer!

Post Reply

Return to “FRSky Telemetry Mods”